That’s the new TV spot from Women Vote!, a project of EMILY’s List–a very strong and emotionally compelling attack on GOP candidate Cory Gardner’s vote against autism coverage for children in the state legislature. From the accompanying release:
In Colorado, WOMEN VOTE! is up on the air for two weeks with a significant buy, presenting Kate Dran, the mother of an autistic child, discussing her efforts to help her son, and Cory Gardner’s vote in the state legislature against requiring insurance companies to cover critical services and treatments for autistic children. The ad will run on broadcast and cable television. EMILY’s List WOMEN VOTE! last went on the air in Colorado during the summer, with an ad about Cory Gardner’s record that moved women voters double digits.
“The more that women learn about Corey Gardner’s record in the state Senate, the more they know that he is wrong for them,” said Denise Feriozzi, Director of WOMEN VOTE! “From voting against cracking down on dead beat dads who skip child support payments to voting against coverage for children with autism, Corey Gardner’s votes have real consequences for Colorado families. This ad makes powerfully clear, in Kate Dran’s voice, how Cory Gardner thinks about children and families. We are all waiting for Gardner to answer the question: What if Chris was his child? Would he still have voted to deny him coverage?”
In related news, the Colorado Independent’s Scot Kersgaard reports this morning on a new poll indicating the CD-4 race has tightened considerably. This poll didn’t even include the third party candidates in the race, which is bad news for Gardner.
Penn Schoen Berland’s new poll for The Hill has this race at 44% for Gardner, 41% for Markey, with 14% undecided–well inside the margin of error, much better than Marilyn Musgrave was showing at this point in 2008, and evidence that despite the desire of national pundits to move this race into the “over” column, it is anything but. Markey is leading in the poll among independents and senior citizens, which is exactly where you’d want to be at this point in the race.
And this ad is not going to help Gardner push these numbers back.
Vote for Cory Gardner. He’s da-man!
But you would think that someone with Emily’s List would make sure that they spelled their opponent’s name correctly, and would list the proper office that he served in (State Rep, not State Senator).
Colorado Pols is projecting that the Dems are going to lose less than 8 seats?
http://www.nationaljournal.com…
In the real world an incumbent polling less than 50% at labor day is in trouble. It is also the case that undecideds tend to break against the better know incumbent. Applying those principles, Markey at 41% trailing by three with 14% undecided (what happened to those important third-pary candidates?) will lose.
“It is also the case that undecideds tend to break against the better know incumbent.”
I here this often, but know of no evidence to support the notion. This is another of those ‘everybody knows’ statements with no basis in reality.
http://www.mysterypollster.com…
And that article is mostly about Presidential electioneering.
I’d want to see data that shows the same in CO, since I believe our “U’s” are unique form many of the other states’ I’s.
And I wan to see the data show that it holds for other levels of races. Instinct says it’s 50/50 – or that absent major external impacter, when lower information the U’s will vote with whichever party they usually vote with, regardless of challenger/incumbent.
“The Incumbent Effect” and used presidential polls as an example.
Ignore it at your peril.
Remain unconvinced at your peril.
I can think of a lot of reasons to oppose unfunded mandates. But they are hard to summarize in 30 second spots.
Emily’s List would support the abortion of an autistic child over intervetion to the contrary.
Emily’s List could give a shit about handicapped, handicapable or developmentally delayed kids.
NO, it dosen’t.
Emily’s list COULD or COULD NOT give a shit about these kids, that is conjecture.
Gardner voted against them autistic children in colorado being covered for treatment, which is fact.
that Emily’s List supports pro-choice candidates and defends the practice of
eugenicsaborting kids with disabilities.I’m not even that strident on the issue, but facts are facts.
and those aren’t.
Sure, Cory Gardner voted against covering autistic children but GUESS WHAT I THINK.
Or just making shit up? I want to see their “defense of aborting kids with disabilities.” Or I want a retraction from you. Your choice, but not replying will be taking as an admission that you’re lying.
Correction, last phrase should say “not replying will be taken as an admission that you’re lying.”
Maybe I should strike ‘defense’ and insert ‘promote?’
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05…
I missed Emily’s List condemnation of candidates that defend this practice.
Unless you produce some lit or links showing Emily’s List endorsing any candidate who said “Abort children with disabilities,” you’re a liar and have just lost your credibility.
You just used the “when did you stop beating your wife” line of attack, a low and deeply dishonest tactic. Typical for the politicians you support, but I thought you were a bit more of a grownup yourself.
I am not drawing wild conclusions or stretching any reasonable truths.
Aborting fetuses that have been determined to have, or will likely have, certain defects, disabilities, etc is obviously a common occurence.
I am not asking a random guy when he stopped beating his wife. I’m calling the guy a wife-beater because he went in the house with his healthy wife and they came out after 15 minutes of yelling, screaming and banging around and she was bloodied and bruised and broken.
I didn’t see it, but I’m not an idiot and I’m not intellectually dishonest. For you to say that Emily’s List doesn’t condone abortions in the circumstances mentioned above makes you one of the two.
And your posts made a mighty loud flush.
You HAVE drawn wild conclusions and STRETCHED reasonable truths. Supporting choice does not equal “ABORT THE RETARDED,” but you’re saying that it does.
Why is it that you’re allowed to make your choices but women are not?
Using your line of reasoning, Emily’s List doesn’t condone abortion at all. That’s a laughable and indefensible position.
I posted originally to call Emily’s List a bunch of hypocrites for this ad. But if you want to get into the merits of the abortion issue itself, I’m up for it.
Supporting safe and legal abortion =/= promoting abortion of fetuses that test positive for Down Syndrome. It’s a lie.
Now that you’ve been called out on your lie, you want to change the focus to abortion in general. You do this because you know your previous posts are completely unsound, so you want a change of venue. Sorry, but I’m not going to play along.
Unless you condemn something/someone, you’re presumed guilty of supporting it/them?
What, did happy hour start early today?