If you listen to the Democrats’ heated rhetoric, you might have the impression that every women in the U.S. is quaking at the prospect of a Mitt Romney presidency. Not so.

The Hill reports:

According to a new Washington Post/ABC's new survey, married women are strongly backing Mitt Romney, 55%-40%, over Barack Obama.

Compare that with 2008 exit polls when Obama won married women with children, 51%-47%, while McCain won married women with no kids 53%-44%.

Romney's 15% margin soundly beats both numbers.

That 15% is identical to George W. Bush's 2004 performance when he beat John Kerry among married women, 57%-42%, so there's good precedent for Romney with his current margin.

Overall, Obama's current lead among all women (49%-43%) is thanks to his huge lead with unmarried women, 57%-32%.

But note: That's a smaller 25% lead than Kerry's 29% win with single women in 2004.

So among both married and single women, Obama is doing worse than John Kerry.

Thus far, the so-called "war on women" isn't leading to any stronger a gender gap than in previous, close elections.

In a post entitled “Julia Grew Up, Got Married, and Became a Republican,” Paul Mirengoff of Powerline comments:

And the so-called “gender gap” is about something other than gender.

The gap touted by the "war on women" crowd has little to do with gender and everything to do with government dependency.

Unmarried women are likely to turn to the government for “free” support, not realizing that we pay a price for these programs with our taxes, a slower economy, and a loss of independence.

But it probably sounds better to say you're fighting for women than to admit that you're trying to lure us into a lifetime of dependency.