Colorado Senate candidate Cory Gardner‘s (R) decision to backtrack from his past support for a personhood amendment ““ outlawing abortion and potentially restricting forms of contraception — was a telling moment in the battle for the Senate. It’s a sign that Republicans are becoming more cognizant about the need to appeal to women and more socially-moderate voters. But it’s also a signal that Republicans recognize the gender gap remains a serious problem.
— Gardner’s statement explaining his changed views was striking in its forthrightness: “I’ve learned to listen. I don’t get everything right the first time,” he said. But it’s also the politically expedient thing to do. The gender gap in Colorado is gaping: A February Q poll showed just 36% of men thought Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) should be re-elected, while 48% of women agreed. A Hickman Analytics (D) poll from last month showed an even larger 17-point gender gap in Udall favorability.
— A fascinating Public Opinion Strategies (R) analysis shows that despite gaining significant ground overall on the generic ballot since last October (government shutdown), Republicans actually lost ground with women aged 18-49 since then. Nearly all the GOP’s gains have come from white voters and older voters. That may be good enough to win in a midterm year, but without improvement, it leaves Gardner with little room for error. He needs to improve on Ken Buck‘s dismal 39% showing among women in 2010.
— Democrats view Gardner’s flip-flop as an admission that the GOP can’t win swing states without more centrist positioning on polarizing social issues. (It’s reminiscent of Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman‘s similar backtracking on immigration, running in a redrawn district.) The DSCC has already hit MI SEN candidate Terri Lynn Land (R) for supporting the GOP’s pro-life platform. It’s a challenging tightrope to walk for the GOP: Cultural issues are a vital mobilizing force for social conservatives, but threaten to turn off younger voters, particularly women.
With even modest gains among female voters, Republicans should have a good chance to retake the Senate. But Gardner’s ability to cut the gender gap in a pivotal battleground state will be a leading indicator of Republican performance in 2016.
— Josh Kraushaar
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."