My must read of the day is "Emily's List Candidates Are Quiet on Abortion," in the Wall Street Journal:
The gap can be explained by this awkward fact: Most of this year's competitive races are in red states where the Democratic playbook on social issues doesn't work, compounding the party's challenges in retaining control of the Senate. [...]
These Southern Democrats still want to attract female votes, but they are talking instead about the economy and education. As part of a $3 million campaign to galvanize female voters on behalf of Ms. Hagan, an arm of Emily's List aired a TV ad last month featuring a teacher struggling not with her pregnancy, which she only alludes to, but with school-funding cuts backed by the Republican candidate, state House Speaker Thom Tillis. [...]
None of Emily's List's statewide candidates in Southern states refer to abortion in their TV ads or in the issues section of their websites, including Wendy Davis, the Texas lawmaker whose filibuster of antiabortion legislation catapulted her into a gubernatorial campaign.
The stance of these candidates has not changed. They’re pro-choice—they’re simply not centering their campaign on that single issue. That’s how it should be.
There’s an annoying tendency, which has unfortunately proven effective in large swaths of the country, to treat women as if they are singularly focused on reproductive rights. When politicians and campaigns choose to use this tactic they presuppose that their female constituency is comprised of low information, single-issue voters, and that discredits and demeans the intellectual capacity of women.
It’s not a problem if people think it’s important that their representative is pro-choice or pro-life, but it is a problem if that’s the sole thing you base your vote on—and it’s a problem when politicians assume it will be.