The Obama campaign made a coldly calculated decision early this year to go after the women’s vote by attacking Mitt Romney on his right-to-life position.
The campaign put together ads targeting just women that focused solely on abortion and contraceptives. Throughout the summer, it ran these ads nonstop in a massive buy that significantly enlarged President Obama’s lead among women voters.
While polls showed women were concerned with many other issues, such as a brutally high unemployment rate, the weak economy, deepening deficits and debt and other domestic problems, the Obama men on the campaign saw women as single-issue voters and treated them that way.
The ads did not run nationally but were used primarily in a handful of key battleground states that will decide this election. Across the Potomac River in Virginia, those ads ran continually, as they did elsewhere. They did their job for a while.
But what did Mr. Obama’s ads tell us about how they saw the women’s vote, or more importantly, how they perceived women in general?
They were saying women weren’t as concerned about other important political issues that make the top 10 list in the campaign polls, that they could be easily manipulated with frightening demagoguery suggesting Mr. Romney was going to make abortions illegal and, if given the chance, deny their access to contraceptives.
For the record, the former governor personally opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger. Mr. Romney thinks government should not be in the business of funding contraceptives or forcing church groups and their institutions to provide them in their insurance policies when it violates their religious beliefs as Obamacare would, but he supports contraception.
Mr. Obama’s insulting, insensitive and, yes, even sexist ad strategy now appears to be a political miscalculation of huge proportions.
After the first game-changing presidential debate, many women began moving away from Mr. Obama after watching his pitiful performance. They were drawn to Mr. Romney by his strong focus on the weak economy, the decline in full-time jobs, trillions in new debt, rising poverty, especially among women, and other issues that concern them a great deal more than the issue of contraceptives.
Here’s what USA Today’s Susan Page reported earlier this week in a front-page story that was headlined “Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead”: “Mitt Romney leads President Obama by four percentage points among likely voters in the nation’s top battlegrounds and he has growing enthusiasm among women to thank.”
The USA Today-Gallup poll numbers “show that Mitt Romney leads Obama by 50 percent to 46 percent among likely voters in the swing states.” Women, who previously supported the president by lopsided margins, were now narrowly divided 49 percent for Mr. Obama and 48 percent for Mr. Romney.
“That makes women, especially blue-collar ‘waitress moms’ whose families have been hard-hit by the nation’s economic woes, the quintessential swing voters in 2012’s close race,” Ms. Page writes.
So while the nightly network news and cable shows persist in spreading the myth that Mr. Obama retains a major lead among women, the pollsters who know better paint a very different picture.
“In every poll, we’ve seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney” since his strong performance in the first debate, said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. She believes the changed views among women about Mr. Romney could be “a precursor to movement” toward him. “It opens them up to take a second look, and that’s the danger for Obama.”
Now, in the wake of Tuesday’s debate, an increasingly desperate Obama campaign is trying to make an issue out of Mr. Romney’s story that as governor, he asked top aides to provide more women candidates for top positions in his administration. Pretty soon, he said, he received “binders full of women.”