chris hayes is up next. bringing in the big guns. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm joy reid in for chris matthews. leading off tonight, a big new challenge to the national rifle association. it comes on the seven-year anniversary of the deadliest mass shooting in american history. 32 people were gunned down at virginia tech by a killer who was able to buy two guns, even though a judge had declared him dangerously mentally ill. for years the debate about what to do about gun violence has remained completely one sided, with one group, the nra, always the loudest voice in the room, especially on capitol hill. simple, more guns, not fewer guns, and more places where you can carry and display them. their leaders frequently appeal

to the paranoia on the far right that this president and his allies are going to try and take people's guns away. even with the full force of the white house behind it, an effort last year to close a simple loophole on background checks failed. well, today, advocates of stronger gun safety measures got what could potentially be a major boost. former new york city mayor michael bloomberg pledged to spend at least $50 million this year alone on gun safety reform. unlike his previous efforts on the issue, the money isn't going towards tv ads, but rather into building up field operations on the grassroots level. in doing so, it's being set up as a direct challenge to the nra, which spends about $20 million on political activities each year, according to "the new york times." mayor bloomberg was on the "today" show this morning to discuss the effort. >> this is not a battle of dollars. this is a battle for the hearts and minds of america so that we

can protect our children, protect innocent people. we're the only civilized country in the world that has this problem. what we have to do is convince those in both the parties who are running that this is what the american public wants, and when they get through their primaries and come to a general collection, they are going to have to be right on guns and we're going to do everything we can, shannon and i and all the people we represent, to reward those who are protecting lives and make sure those who are trying to keep people from being protected lose elections. >> shannon watts is the founder of moms demand action, which has been absorbed into the new bloomberg effort, every town for gun safety. and a student at virginia tech seven years ago when a gunman burst into his classroom and shot him four times. thanks to both of you for being here. shannon, i want to start with you. the headline really is the $50 million that michael bloomberg is pouring in, but what is actually different about what you're planning to do on the ground?

>> this is a huge game changer. for the first time, we have a grassroots effort. we can get people to work online, we can get them to work offline, and that has never existed in the history of america. for 30 years the gun lobby had time to build up their own grassroots network and now we can go toe to toe with them in the states. >> collin, michael bloomberg told "the new york times" the pro gun reform side needs to learn from the nra, "they say we don't care. we're going to go after you. if you don't vote with us, we're going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great grandkids and never going to stop. we're going to make them afraid of us." what can you learn from this over the last 20 years? >> i think put a face to the problem, put a personal touch to the policy and politics behind it. to make it real to people. to have concerned mothers and fathers who lost their child to gun violence show up and

testify. these kinds of dynamics that make people think gun violence very real. when it becomes real, people understand, wow, we need to do something about this. we actually do quite little. when they learn that, they are quite shocked, and the best way to express that is to tell the true stories that happened to 32 of us on a daily basis in this country. >> that is what happened after newtown. you had these families, moms and dad who lost children, children shot down in school, shocking as virginia tech was, i think people were even more shocked by sandy hook, and moms did go to capitol hill. they did get meetings and talk to legislators, and it resulted in nothing. no bill passed, and, in fact, four democrats refusing to vote for the bill. why will it be any different for moms to show up at town hall

meetings and be present this time when it didn't work after sandy hook? >> the reality is, we had the same congress we had the day after sandy hook as the day before. we need a new congress. that's why as part of the effort that we launched today, we're going to go out and get at least 1 million americans to pledge to vote on the issue of gun reform. we're going to educate all americans about the lax laws that exist in this country, and as collin said, once you know how unprotected we are as americans and how much a head start the gun lobby has had in creating scary laws, you can't help but act. >> collin, shannon says we need a new congress, but take a look at the democrats up for re-election right now. you had three democrats that did not vote for really modest gun reform put forward in congress, mark begich, pryor, where winning re-election is going to be difficult anyway. if groups like yours go after those legislators, those

senators, democrats, and actually they are defeated, does that defeat your purpose because you'll have a more republican senate as a result? >> sorry, we also had republicans vote for the bill, as well. we're not concerned if you're a republican or democrat, we're concerned with if you support gun policy. this is a longer term thing of who controls the senate for the next series of years. this is a long-term thing, like i said. it doesn't matter which party you're from. we're making sure people who support good gun policy from both sides are going to get support. >> is that the way to get what you ultimately want? at the end of the day, if you wind up with a more republican senate than you have now, do you get to your goal? >> it doesn't matter. this is about laying the foundation. right now women go to the polls based on three issues. this is a way to get those voters. >> this is the other issue, michael bloomberg, the bloomberg

factor. bloomberg told the times this, "i don't know what your perceptions of our reputation or mine, the name bloomberg around the country. everywhere he goes, you're a rock star, people yelling out of cabs, hey, way to go." this is what chris cillizza had to say about that. seems clear bloomberg doesn't fully grasp how he's viewed. he's for many people outside the enclaves the living, breathing symbol of the nanny government they loathe. collin, i have this image of bloomberg saying he's going out into the heartland and people yelling out of cabs. how new york city is that? is bloomberg's image going to be a problem in red states? >> let's look what happened in tennessee this week, you know, we had a grassroots network of moms help defeat nra's big legislative agenda, which was open carry and guns in recreational parks. that was not michael bloomberg doing that in nashville.

that was concerned and upset moms and dads and people across the state. that's the reality we're seeing. we continue that, we continue to build the grassroots, that's ultimately how we're going to get the change we need. >> collin points to tennessee, that's one red state. can you point to any other parts of red america, nonpurple states, you have in florida the warning shot bill that's about to be signed by the governor. you have in georgia expansion of gun rights. are there states other than tennessee you're seeing success? >> absolutely. we have a chapter in every state of the country, tough states, montana, south carolina, north carolina. for the first time, there are people showing up to oppose the gun lobby agenda. that's never happened before. we're supporting good bills and we are making a difference. we've seen many bills shot down this year that should have past or would have passed in the past and we're working to get good legislation that we can support. >> state-level bills, as well, stand your ground in florida.

>> child access prevention, suicide prevention, stand your ground, domestic violence prevention. all laws americans can get behind. >> collin, when you're looking at the support you're looking to garner, do you have support among, let's say, gun owners, nra members, republicans, can you point to something outside of the traditional base of people who are advocates of gun reform? >> certainly. check out a poll of nra members and 75% support background checks. i know you mentioned the vote last year in the u.s. senate, yes, it didn't pass the filibuster, but we had a majority. we had 55 senators vote for that. that's a majority. today in the house, that same bill has 190 cosponsors, democrats and republicans. that's more cosponsors on any piece of good gun policy in the u.s. house than ever, even more than when jim and sarah brady did this in the '90s. we're further than we ever have

been and it's been in a short period of time. with more time, more effort, more grassroots, we'll get there. >> give us a timeline when you think it's realistic to expect we could see even a modest gun reform bill pass in the united states senate. how long is it going to take to get where the nra is now? >> i think we need an election cycle or two to make sure the equation that senators and congressmen make in their heads when they are voting on a gun bill. it's different when they see they are going to get a lot of heat on one side, it was traditionally kind of one sided. it's going to take that time. that's how decisions and votes are held accountable, how the people express their will to their elected official. we haven't had that yet since the big vote. we're going to have a million new voters that will vote on a single issue of good gun policy that we announced today. unfortunately, the media thinks this is a flick to switch or something like that. no, this is a long-term grassroots.

that's what we're doing. >> all right. thanks so much to shannon watts and collin goddard. coming up, the rancher and the right. he's being hailed by conservatives as a hero to the antigovernment right, but is this tax protester really the guy the right wants to wrap its brand around? plus, why doesn't this surprise us? we learned today the law that, quote, cleared chris christie in the bridgegate scandal donated $10 million to the republican governors association, run by, you guessed it, chris christie. also, the fight over personhood. some republican senate candidates are supporting personhood measures. and, what happens when a politician is trashing another politician and the guy getting the business shows up and taps the trash talker on the shoulder? it happened in florida and we'll show you how it all went down. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

clinton 53%, christie, 42%. huckabee trails by 13%, 53 to 40. hillary clinton topped rand paul by 14 points, 54% for clinton, 40% for paul. ted cruz trailed by 15 points. marco rubio down 54% to 38%, and jeb bush trails 55% to 39%. all in all, poor showing for the republicans against clinton. we'll be back after this.

welcome back to "hardball." hard right conservatives continue to rally behind nevada cattle rancher calling his crusade against federal overreach, but is championing bundy smart politics for the gop? here's the back story in case you missed it. bundy has grazed his cattle surrounding his ranch for two decades, flouting a 1993 law that requires ranchers to buy grazing rights. he's refused to pay because he doesn't believe the federal government has any authority over the land, which he says his family has used since 1877, and he currently owes $1 million in back fees for those grazing rights. earlier this month federal authorities moved to impound his cattle and bundy fought back, joined by states rights militia groups across the country. the standoff led to clashes like this one, when federal agents used a taser to keep bundy's family and supporters off the roadway.

bundy still spoiling for a fight. here he is last night with sean hannity on fox news. >> get your army out of nevada. get your army away from my range and clark county public land and keep it out. and if they come, we'll deal with them tonight. if that's what we got to do, we'll just deal with you. do you have guts enough to do it? come on. >> bundy's cause continues to attract allies on the right. yesterday kevin williamson of "the national review" compared bundy to, of all people, gandhi and george washington, "gandhi and george washington believed their legal situation was at odds with something deeper and more meaningful. mr. bundy is tapping into a longstanding tendency in the west to view the government as a creature of eastern establishment."

with us now, our msnbc political analyst david corn with mother jones and howard fineman of "the washington post." how like gandhi and george washington is cliven bundy? explain. >> well, gandhi had great respect for cattle, as well. >> indeed. >> except he didn't want to kill them and eat them, so there's that. i, having spent a bunch of time in those parts of the united states, i always find it amusing that people like cliven bundy and his supporters rail against the federal government. but it's the federal government who provides enormous benefits in terms of payments for minerals, in terms of water reclamation, in terms of rural electrify case, in terms of all the things the federal government has the power to provide, but none of that means anything to somebody like bundy, who is under the illusion that

he's truly an independent actor who doesn't need any help from anyone else in the world. that's just not the way it works. when he's shipping his cattle on interstate highways or on rails, he's doing it with the help of the entire united states, but that doesn't fit into the conservative narrative in places like the national review. >> yeah, also, there's the fact, you know, gandhi never called in an armed militia to have a potential violent showdown with the government. david corn, you, as the person who discovered the infamous 47% video and published it in mother jones, is this a fight over the right of wanting free stuff? this gentleman wants free grazing rights, something absolutely for free for 20-plus years. >> i think there's a lot of ironies here. you know, he's looking for a free ride or free lunch, at least a free lunch for his cows,

and at the same time he's encouraging lawlessness when the republican party is always supposed to be the party of law and order, but what this really reminds me of, back in the 1990s, talking about the jack-booted thugs of the u.s. government, people at the bureau of alcohol and tobacco and firearms and others, who are breeding disrespect and creating this sort of conspiratorial notion the federal government is out to get you, and we know where that led to. it led to oklahoma city bombing. after that, you know, the militia movement kind of tampered down, but when you give people like this, people like cliven bundy, who says he doesn't accept the authority of the federal government in any manner, shape, or form, put them on fox news, put the militia guys in, validate, justify the worst excesses of the right wing, and it could lead to more

dangerous situations. >> yeah, and to that exact point, david, sean hannity stoked the fears of the hard right on fox news last night suggesting federal authorities might, in fact, kill one of them in the process of settling the dispute. take a listen. >> do you worry that, in fact, they may kill either your dad or somebody in your family? >> you know, this battle's been going on for my whole life almost, and if death were our main fear, we wouldn't be here today. freedom is much greater than death. >> and howard, i have to go to you on this, because what could the possible upside be for conservatives to sign on to that kind of an idea, that a violent confrontation with the federal government is preferable to following the law? >> well, first of all, i think that sean hannity went over the line there in playing into the fantasy of victimhood and

martyrdom that's sort of the dangerous part of what's going on here. i don't think it does the republican party as a whole any good for the reason david said, because you can't win an election on apocalyptic paranoia in this country, as comforting as it might be to some of the people who believe it. as much as a sense of camaraderie it might give the militia people and states right people on the fringes of american society, that's exactly what it is, a fringe, and it's a need for inclusiveness, it's a need for community that the republicans have been unable to express beyond their narrow demographics that's put them in the hole that they are in heading into the presidential election in 2016. you can't be a party that reaches out to everybody if you're a party who thinks that everybody's out to get you. >> absolutely, howard, i think you make an excellent point. you haven't heard a lot of the 2016 contenders come out and weigh in on this.

one has, however, that would be, of course, mike huckabee, who this past weekend in new hampshire said this. take a listen. >> here's what i would suggest, that there is something incredibly wrong when a government believes that some blades of grass that a cow is eating is so an egregious affront to the government of the united states that we would literally put a gun in a citizen's face and threaten to shoot him over it. >> and david, before you respond, here's what senate majority harry reid said on monday about the drama that's playing out in his home state. >> well, it's not over. we can't have an american people that violate the law and just walk away from it, so it's not over. >> david corn, it's not over. that is an ominous -- those are ominous words, given what the other side seems to be willing to do in order to keep this going. >> mike huckabee is pretty conservative, but when he ran for president and when he was

governor of arkansas, he tried to talk about things from sort of, i thought, a sane perspective, a communal perspective, actually. and here he is accusing federal law enforcement officials, who work for us, who are protecting american government property rights, right, you know, protecting the american taxpayers of threatening to shoot someone after they've given him 21 years to get on the right side of the law. and it reminds me again, that rhetoric we heard back in the '90s in which some republicans and conservatives were basically encouraging the militia movements and stoking, as howard said, they are paranoid, their most paranoid fantasies, and when you do that, people feel validated and justified and gosh knows what they are going to do. this is a fight for freedom and they are willing to die for freedom and you encourage that, it's going to lead to violence. >> joy, i think david makes a good point about the migration of mike huckabee.

the fact is, in the '90s, the people david was talking about really were still pretty much on the fringe of the republican party and the conservative movement, really, but now the rhetoric of resentment and fear and paranoia about the federal government is reaching a fever pitch within the basic mainstream conservative part of the republican party. and that's very interesting and very dangerous, i think, for the republicans if they hope to win a presidential election. >> absolutely. >> that's a good point, because if you look at the obamacare fight, what it's all about, taking freedom away. we're not a free country anymore and they are tying that general theme to events like this and it's going to cause some people to take action into their own hands. >> absolutely. it's not a way to grow the party when you bring the fringe into the living room and take over the whole house. thank you very much, david corn and howard fineman. up next, it appears the romney family is still sore over

something that happened during the 2012 campaign. that's next in the side show. this is "hardball," the place for politics. you have time to shop for car insurance today? yeah. i heard about progressive's "name your price" tool? i guess you can tell them how much you want to pay and it gives you a range of options to choose from. huh? i'm looking at it right now. oh, yeah? yeah.

what's the... guest room situation? the "name your price" tool, making the world a little more progressive.

it's going down. i'm yelling timber. you better move. you better dance. >> who knew hillary could get down like that? back with more "hardball" and it's time now for the side show. no politician is safe and this time they've managed to get president obama and his former secretary of state to sing the pop hit "timber." ♪ the bigger they are the harder they fall ♪ ♪ diggidy dog ♪ timber ♪ timber ♪ slicker than an oil spill

♪ timber ♪ swing your partner round and round ♪ ♪ it's going down ♪ one more shot, another round ♪ end of the night, it's going down ♪ >> not bad. i kind of like the presidential version. next up, yesterday was the deadline to file income taxes, and along with his taxes, good old donald rumsfeld sent a letter to the irs, which says he has no idea if anything he filed was correct. "i can't have any confidence that i know what is being requested, and therefore, i cannot and do not know as i suspect a great many americans cannot and will not know whether or not their taxes are accurate." he's sent a letter like this to the irs every year for at least two decades. also in line, former presidential candidate mitt romney. his son josh tweeted out this picture of romney in line at the post office with the caption, "hey, senator reid, here's a shot of mitt romney paying

taxes. does it every year, it's how you get your paycheck." ouch, looks like somebody is still bitter when harry reid claimed romney hadn't paid taxes for ten years, which the former massachusetts governor denied. a former spokesman responded by poking fun at romney's wealth. up next, the so-called objective report that cleared chris christie, we now know the law firm behind the report made a major consideration to the republican governors association, headed by one chris christie. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. the performance review.

that corporate trial by fire when every slacker gets his due. and yet, there's someone around the office who hasn't had a performance review in a while. someone whose poor performance is slowing down the entire organization.

i'm looking at you phone company dsl. go to comcastbusiness.com/ checkyourspeed. if we can't offer faster speeds or save you money we'll give you $150. comcast business built for business.

we are because we had no incentive to do other than get to the truth, and i have to say this, for the skeptics out there, there are some who have a visceral reaction to this bridge controversy. it reminds me of the movie line, "they can't handle the truth." we believe we got to the truth. >> and we're back. that was randy mastro defending his team's investigation, which loudly and proudly declared his client was totally innocent.

the report cleared christie of all charges, both legal and political, even going so far as to say they found no evidence of a culture of political payback in the governor's office, an idea most have found to be laughable. christie was clearly hoping to use the report to resurrect his white house ambition. he headed right over to abc, telling diane sawyer that people in iowa love him and he then hopped a flight to las vegas to participate in the republican party's cattle call to impress mega donor sheldon adelson. today's big story reveals that mastro's team was helping to bankroll a christie organization while they were investigating his office. they report, "nine days before a team of its top lawyers made public a report clearing governor christie in the george washington bridge scandal, the

law firm donated $10,000 to the republican governors association, a group he, christie, heads." a spokesperson for the law firm says they've been contributed to the rga since 2009. christie was named chairman last year. christie himself is on the record adamantly defending the report as objective. here he is singing its praises. >> no matter who i chose to do this, questions would be raised by some quarters as to those people's objectivity. my answer to that is, look at the report. we gave them untethered, complete access to everyone in this government. i think the report will stand the test of time. i don't have any second thoughts about who we selected or the process. no matter what, you're going to be criticized in this instance, and when you are, you just have to answer it and answer it directly and that's what we've done through the report. >> if the report is christie's political weapon, it's looking increasingly as if he's armed

himself with a dud. john theory and eugene robinson. john, i'm going to start with you, because this strikes me as political malpractice. i don't know what's worse, the law firm going ahead and making a contribution or chris christie not having a chat at the republican governors association, hey, if a check comes from these guys, send it back. >> i'll tell you what, gibson dunn has given plenty of money to democrats -- >> not this year, not this year. they gave to the rga, which their client is running. >> over the last couple years they've given to the dccc about $50,000, it's a bipartisan firm, a well respected firm. >> but john -- >> will you let me finish, joy? >> sure. >> gibson dunn is a well respected law firm. report stands the test of time, if you have any problems with

the report, focus on the report, not the campaign contributions, which are routine for almost every big law firm gives money to both sides. >> john, this is not a law firm that is just any law firm. this is a firm that produced a report completely clearing their client, the governor, the governor's office, and turned around and gave a pretty substantial contribution to the republican governors association. you're telling me you see nothing wrong with that? opticswise, ethicswise, nothing wrong with that? >> i don't see anything wrong with it ethicswise. opticswise, we could have a debate about that. the fact is, it's a law firm, has plenty of clients, and you know what, they routinely give money since 2009 to the rga because the rga no matter who the chairman is, you get a chance to talk to governors and get things done. i understand why they did it. i don't think it's ethically any problem. optically, we can have that debate. >> not a client under three separate investigations and they are involved in those

investigations by doing a report a part of those investigations. i'm actually going to throw this over to eugene robinson. is this optically, ethically, any way can christie justify allowing this to happen and can the firm, can they justify it? >> joy, i think you're right that the optics are not good. john makes a good point about gibson dunn. i'm kind of familiar with the firm. it's a global firm with something like 1,100 lawyers, among the partners, ted olson, who has led the legal campaign before the supreme court in favor of gay marriage. you know, so it's a lot bigger than randy mastro, the lawyer associated with associates of christie, who did this report. that's really the point here. so the contribution doesn't look good, but the real problem with this report is that it was done by christie's lawyer.

and it is in no sense an objective report, and, in fact, in doing the report, mastro and the gibson dunn investigators, didn't talk to any of the principles involved in the lane closings in the bridge because they wouldn't talk to them. so on the basis of no information, they declared christie innocent. that is really the scandal with the report. >> essentially because he said so and was very emotional when he said so. let's go back to you, john, the report isn't scoring points with new jersey voters either. only 36% in the latest polling think the report is legitimate. 56% think it's a whitewash. what are the odds even let's say christie escapes any legal action, that primary states in states like iowa, new hampshire, south carolina, will actually give christie a pass when his own residents in new jersey do not believe this report? >> well, joy, i think it's a problem for chris christie. i think that for chris christie, he's got to get over this

scandal, he's got to start governing new jersey. he's got to start focusing on bringing jobs to new jersey and improving their economy, because otherwise if he doesn't do that, he's not going to be able to translate into any other state. in this scandal hurts his ability to govern, he's in big trouble not only in new jersey, but in the rest of the country. i think this is a problem. does it affect him as he governs and can he still be successful as governor, and we don't know the answer to that question. >> eugene, doesn't this payment, this contribution made by the same law firm negate any usefulness this report would have had, even given the limited usefulness it's had so far, politically for christie? >> it certainly hasn't helped, and for some people who may have been inclined to give christie the benefit of the doubt based on the report, those people will see the contribution and see the linkage and say hold it, this smells. i don't think there are a lot of those people.

obviously, as you said from the numbers you just read, the report doesn't have a whole lot of traction in terms of convincing people that christie is innocent of all this, because, you know, if i went out and hired a law firm, you know, to investigate my past and was paying them or arranging for them to get paid, i would kind of expect them to release a pretty favorable report. and that's exactly what happened. >> i mean, john, as a strategist within the gop, isn't it time to start talking past the notion of christie as a viable candidate? there doesn't seem to be much left really for him to go to. will aren't that many wells to go to. this report was kind of his last shot, right? >> i don't want to start writing his political obituary right now. i think he's a talented politician, but this is a big problem for him, and he's got to figure out a way to overcome it. part of it is he's got to govern more effectively and get new

jersey back in good shape. the other part, he's got to be cleared by all charges. we've got some time left, but not a lot for the 2016 elections. i think it's a real challenge for him, i'm not going to deny that. >> joy -- joy, this is a period right now in an ideal world in terms of christie's presidential ambitions, he would be beginning to consolidate support from the republican establishment, and for obvious reasons, you know, some people still like him, some people maybe would still like to support him, but a lot of people are nervous. they don't want to get too close. as you said, there are these three investigations, three anvils hanging over the head of this potential candidacy and you never know when one might fall. >> preferably not someone on the payroll of the governor's office. thanks to both of you. >> thank you. up next to the fight over personhood. lots of republicans running for senate are pushing personhood measures saying full human

rights should begin right when an egg is fertilized. that's an opportunity for democrats and that's ahead. this is "hardball," the place for politics. i procrastinated on... buying a car because i knew... it would be a scary process. truecar made it very easy... for me to negotiate, because i didn't really need to do any negotiating at all. save time, save money, and never overpay. visit truecar.com

here's an awkward exchange caught on video by the palm beach post. it's florida's republican lieutenant governor carlos lopez bashing democratic gubernatorial

candidate charlie crist to reporters, when crist drops by. >> he'll say anything you want to hear to get elected, but when it comes down to the facts, to the record, when it comes time to make a difference -- >> how are you? >> been awhile. >> say hi to your family. >> governor, he said you told lies. >> give me scott. >> give me scott. crist has been running slightly ahead of his successor rick scott in recent polling, and we'll be back after this. 

welcome back to "hardball." remember the war on women? there won't be a cease-fire anytime soon. when it comes to the issue of personhood, which declares that full human rights begin at fertilization. republicans may have given democrats some ammunition in their quest to save their majority in the senate this november. republican senate candidates in key states, like north carolina, georgia, iowa, arkansas, louisiana, colorado, and montana have all favored personhood in one form or another. and as "the washington post's" greg sargent writes today, "once primary season is over and the senate general elections gets underway in earnest, you're likely to see democrats attack republicans over the issue." susan page is washington bureau chief for "usa today." nia-malika henderson is a reporter for "the washington post." i'll start with you, nia-malika. essentially we've had republicans for primary purposes come out for personhood, but then a little pause when they are actually attacked on it in

the larger market. is personhood a big opening for democrats, particularly senate candidates? >> you know, i think it is. it's a sleeper issue. we don't know the contours of these races until, sort of the primary battle is settled over the next couple of weeks and months. but when it comes to the general election, you do know that the democratic candidates, a lot of them, women, empowered by groups like emily's list, will try to make this an issue. remember, if we go back to 2011, a personhood in mississippi, mississippi, failed when it was brought up on the ballot and it really caused even republicans to try to figure out, you know, where they stood on this issue. even republicans who were pro-life. so i do think it's a way for democrats to talk about the war on women, in talking about abortion and contraception, because this personhood issue certainly brings that up. they want to talk, i think, mainly about the war on women in terms of economic issues, but it does seem like this will be a

part of some of these races, particularly races featuring women going against men. >> and susan, that is really the key, right? democrats are counting on a strong turnout among women, that will go in their direction based on some of these issues. and what personhood gets to is the risk of contraception actually being outlawed. so it goes beyond that abortion debate. is that why it's working for democrats potentially? >> well, yes. and on the abortion issue itself, it would ban all forms, abortion for any reason, under any circumstances, and would ban, presumably, some forms of contraception. and so think about a state like colorado, where mark udall faces a pretty stiff challenge from cory gardner. cory gardner has, in the past, sponsored a personhood amendment. he now says that was a bad idea, but in a year when democrats are against the wall when it comes to talking about issues like the affordable care act, when they can't count on president obama's strong approval ratings in a state like colorado, he carried the state, but his approval ratings are down, this is an

issue that appeals to a lot of voters in the center of the electorate and as nia-malika said, especially women voters. >> and zeroing in on colorado, i mean, republicans were really actually especially happy after they coaxed cory gardner to get into that race. and it's one of those races that has been seen by larry sabto and others as in play because he's considered a long candidate. but not long after he declared his candidacy, gardner started to walk back his support for personhood. this is what he told "the denver post." he said, this was a bad idea, driven by good intentions. i was not right. i can't support personhood now. i can't support personhood going forward. to do it again would be a mistake. i've learned to listen. i don't get everything right the first time and a spokesman for democrat mark udall's campaign told "the post," coloradans will see through this cheap election-year stunt. coloradans want a senator who always promotes and protects women's health, not one that simply pretends to during election years. so nia-malika, for gardner's

sake, he felt he had to reverse positions, but is there some backlash coming to him from the right, from his base of supporters, because he's now wavered on a life issue? >> you know, we will have to see. probably not. it certainly is not going to come from the establishment. the establishment very much wants to, a, win, and they think the way to win is to really focus on economic issues. they don't want to necessarily fight these culture wars around abortion and contraception, because it didn't go so well for them in 2012. i think they are, you know, they pretty much hand-picked cory gardner and scared away all of the other candidates who would have been in that race. so i don't think you'll see much of a backlash. i think cory gardner there is really looking at the waters there in colorado with and seeing what this issue could mean for him. and particularly, not only among women, but possibly women who would vote republican. or at least women who are independent. those are the kind of women, also that could be swayed based

on some of the language around a personhood bill. >> we'll be back with susan page and nia-malika henderson.

true business-grade internet comes with secure wifi for your business. it also comes with public wifi for your customers. not so with internet from the phone company. i would email the phone company to inquire as to why they have shortchanged these customers. but that would require wifi. switch to comcast business internet and get two wifi networks included. comcast business built for business. we're back with "usa today's" susan page and nia-malika henderson of "the washington post." i want to ask both of you where you think this personhood issue potentially could be the most salient. which senate races will this be the hottest in? susan, you first. >> i would say colorado, iowa, and michigan, because those are swing states, and i would add montana. not a swing state, but a state

with a lot of libertarian voters. >> nia-malika, what do you think? >> i think these races in the south, maybe they're going to try there if they look at mississippi, that example there tells them that this isn't popular in states like georgia and louisiana, and those races feature women who are running against men. i think in those races, it might come into play as well. >> and for women, a lot of people are watching the wendy davis race and wondering why women's issues isn't an issue in texas, but why her race hasn't picked up more traction when it comes to issues salient to abortion and women's health. >> it's a pretty republican state and she's had some stumbles in her campaign, but campaigns take a long time. we should remember at this point, it's a long day until election day. >> but in the senate races, nia-malika, you think this actually could play a part? >> i do think so. and i think she's right about the davis race. they had a whole revamp of that campaign. a lot of new folks in the publicity arm of that campaign and different people were running it.

i think we'll see a different campaign going forward out of wendy davis. >> absolutely. and thank you so much to susan page and nia-malika henderson. that is "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. today, the crisis in ukraine reached a truly dangerous and equally bizarre tipping point. pro-russian separatists rolled through the streets of eastern ukraine after having taken over ukrainian tanks. mass soldiers of unknown origin posed for pictures with residents as the lines of authority continue to blur in a region of ukraine where the loyalties are complex and where the flame of civil war might catch fire at any moment. president obama tonight ratcheted up the pressure on russia. >> is he mocking you and the u.s. military? >> they're not interested in any kind of military confrontation with us. understandinat