OPINION - Kamala Harris’s defeat has exploded the notion of the “women’s vote” — how delightful

Well, was the US statesmanlike election the large betrayal? One header successful the papers contiguous sums up that peculiar constituent of view: “White women killed disconnected the archetypal pistillate president”. Well! Loaded oregon what? How other mightiness you enactment it: White women neglect their daughters? White women fto down their ain sex? White women Bend the Arc of History the Wrong Way? How about: White women ballot connected the ground of their economical interests, migration and overseas argumentation and connected the ground of the existent merits of the candidates? Just a thought.

The conception that women ballot arsenic a sex bloc whitethorn not past this election. Thank God. Look astatine the data. No less than 44 per cent of women voted for Trump and 55 per cent for Harris, the precise other of the percentages for men. But 44 per cent is not a negligible number, no? It’s tens of millions of Americans. And so erstwhile you interruption it down successful presumption of ethnicity, implicit half, 52 per cent of achromatic women voted for Trump and 47 per cent for Harris (quite a fewer dissidents voted for neither), a displacement of a specified 3 points from what Joe Biden managed. So, achromatic women voted successful greater numbers for Trump than women of different taste backgrounds – 37 per cent of Latino women did so.

This is not, to enactment it mildly, what anyone predicted, fixed that the transportation of Kamala Harris was astir wholly to her ain sex. If determination was 1 contented connected which Harris was perfectly explicit – unlike, say, her views connected migration oregon the system – it was abortion; the proposition from her campy was that she’d beryllium prepared to battalion the Supreme Court to unafraid a instrumentality of the Roe v Wade situation.

Now, I got astir of my accusation connected the predetermination from the BBC and the British papers, alternatively than, say, societal media. And what the BBC told maine clip and clip again was that young women were going to plaything it for Kamala, nay, that older women were besides turning retired successful droves for Kamala, connected the contented of “reproductive rights” oregon “women’s health”. But that’s not however it turned out. Only a 5th of Kamala’s bloc was motivated by the termination issue, perchance due to the fact that the substance was being decided by idiosyncratic states; connected Trump’s broadside it was conscionable six per cent. And obscurity did the BBC and different broadcasters ever suggest that women themselves person antithetic takes connected the termination issue; one successful 3 US women is pro-life but you’d ne'er cognize that from the coverage.

So, what are we to marque of the conspicuous nonaccomplishment of truthful galore women to backmost the pistillate successful the race? It whitethorn beryllium that women, comprising arsenic they do, a bulk of the electorate and astir fractional the quality race, bash not ballot arsenic a bloc. They bash not ballot for a pistillate connected the ground she is simply a pistillate if she looks, arsenic Kamala did, arsenic if she didn’t cognize what her argumentation programme was. They ballot for their ain economical interests and possibly besides connected the ground of different matters specified arsenic healthcare proviso mostly oregon the struggle successful Gaza. In different words, mightiness we instrumentality connected committee that women are not an homogenous radical but arsenic divers arsenic men? The effort to disagreement the predetermination connected the ground of enactment – aggravated young men versus feisty young women – is not, I think, healthy.

The ridiculous fuss astir JD Vance’s reflection astir “childless feline ladies” was not the galvanising contented the pundits seemed to think. Julia Roberts did a precise unusual run advertisement for the Democrats conscionable earlier the predetermination successful which she seemed to suggest that women should prevarication to their husbands astir voting for Harris due to the fact that “the voting booth is 1 of the fewer places wherever women inactive person a close to choose”. Eh? I should deliberation it an impertinence for anyone successful my household to inquire maine however I vote, though my children ever do.

Donald Trump’s transportation to women astatine 1 rally, that they should get the lazy slob astatine location disconnected the sofa – helium meant, their husbands — to ballot for him, did astatine slightest suggest bureau connected the portion of the women concerned. And it’s absorbing that successful the Congressional elections galore women did get elected: a 4th of the US Senate and 29 per cent of the House of Representatives are women.

No enactment should, then, presume that by dint of moving a women they tin number connected women’s votes. But what’s absorbing is that taste groups nary longer tin beryllium taken for granted though much voted for Harris than Trump, particularly achromatic voters and particularly achromatic women. But implicit a 3rd of Latino women (37 per cent) voted Republican and implicit fractional of Latino men did so. Given that the Democrats had assumed that the Latino ballot was successful the bag, it’s a large abdominous nary to that. Half of different groups, notably Asians, voted Harris and 45 per cent of them voted Trump. That says thing arsenic important: voters from assorted taste groups bash not ballot arsenic a lump either. They may, successful galore cases, beryllium motivated by precisely the aforesaid issues arsenic everyone else.

Should achromatic women, then, consciousness blameworthy astatine letting the broadside down? Absolutely not. Vote according to conscience; ballot according to aforesaid interest. Just bash not consciousness obliged to ballot for a dud campaigner connected the ground she’s a woman.

Melanie McDonagh is simply a London Standard columnist