<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"  Okay, so now it&amp;#039;s on, and much in the fashion of Donkey Kong. I dismissed the Pew poll on Monday for a couple of reasons. The most basic one was that it was a snapshot taken in the heart of the post-debate bounce for Willard Romney, and that subsequent tracking polls (particularly Gallup) seemed to be settling back down to something close to what had been normal for the previous month or so. But the most precise reason was that the Pew poll showed that the president&amp;#039;s support among women virtually had evaporated, which seemed odd to me, since women&amp;#039;s issues \u2014 to say nothing of the Republican war on ladyparts and the ladies who own them \u2014 had been conspicuous by their absence in what was supposed to be a &amp;quot;domestic policy&amp;quot; debate. But these PPP numbers show pretty much the same thing: a distinct bounce, and an ominous decline in the president&amp;#039;s support among female voters \u2014 in this case, from a 15-point lead to 51-45. Without a significant gender gap, into which the Republicans richly deserve to plummet, never to be seen again, the president stands virtually no chance of re-election. All I can figure is that women watched the debate, noticed that their concerns seemed to have vanished down the rabbit hole of Simpson-Bowles, and wondered why the one candidate who was supposed to be on their side declined to bring those concerns up for the purposes of beating his opponent over the head with the fact that, at one point or another, said opponent has been on every side of every one of those issues. Track Willard Romney&amp;#039;s career as regards reproductive freedom sometime. Pretty soon, you&amp;#039;ll meet yourself coming back in the other direction. This is something that maybe should have come up. But still, calm down. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a16174/obama-romney-polls-women-13541453/?click=news>