To an extent, if turnout surges among Group A, then one could anoint them as the saviors of the campaign, but if members of Group B and C had turned out in less #s, then the election would have been lost.

In the end, it's the collectivity of votes that make a difference. One could just as well argue that it's the improvement in white men voting for Obama (v. Kerry's #s) that made the difference.

I do think there are plenty of reasons to target voters and celebrate their contribution, but mathematically, the argument for women (or any other group) really doesn't make sense to me. If any group voted less often for Obama, it could have undone the whole thing.