Is abortion less of an issue simply because there are less abortions?

[Beet]

Maybe it's because Gardner wasn't all that radical on abortion. He extinguished one potentially deadly issue by coming out against the Personhood Amendment at the state level, successfully muddling the issue. It's hard to say that a guy who wants to make contraception pills over the counter is exceptionally right wing on this issue compared to your standard Republican, especially since his position actually put him to Udall's left on that particular issue.

You have to remember that in 2010, Ken Buck's problem wasn't just that he opposed abortion, it was that as a prosecutor, he basically turned around and berated a rape victim/accuser, refusing to take the case. Electing him to the Senate would have basically amounted to a big FU to the rape victim/accuser, and by proxy all rape victims/accusers. I think a lot of voters are more willing to forgive a candidate who takes a formal position against womens' rights than one who displays misogyny in their personal speech or behavior - because they implicitly know that it's possible to be pro-life but not a misogynist. Buck, Akin, and Mourdock didn't lose because voters thought their political positions were misogynist, they lost because voters thought they were misogynist.

On the other hand, maybe the strategy didn't fail - after all, Udall came within 2 points against a candidate generally thought to have run a good campaign in a Republican year. He did a lot better than Bruce Braley and some other Democrats this year. Sometimes that's just the way chips fall.