“The modern media environment favors the flashy over the wonkish. For example, when Trump compared Democratic challenger Pete Buttigieg to Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Newman, it produced 26 percent more media mentions than Gillibrand's Family Bill of Rights…

“She was the first Democratic presidential candidate to offer a 100-day plan for boosting families, the first to offer a comprehensive abortion rights plan, the first to release her tax returns, the first to swear off using hacked information in her campaign, and one of the few to propose giving voters money to spend on the candidates of their choice. None of that has translated into anything close to a first-place showing in the polls. Nor has it garnered much media attention. But from the back of the pack, Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York is building her campaign on ideas.”
Jerry Zremski, The Buffalo News

“A New York senator who’s long made gender equity a core plank of her political identity (and now her 2020 candidacy), Gillibrand delivered a town hall appearance that only underscored the importance of this message. One exchange, in particular, illustrated the need for greater representation in politics. At one point, Wallace pressed Gillibrand to explain a tweet… emphasizing that the future was female and intersectional. ‘What do you mean our future is female?’ he asked. ‘We want women to have a seat at the table,’ Gillibrand replied. ‘But what about men?’ Wallace asked, seemingly suggesting that her message could imply some kind of exclusion, a common fear that’s been expressed about movements that advance people who have historically been underrepresented in different fields…

“‘They’re already there! Do you not know?’ Gillibrand hit back, prompting laughter and cheers from the audience… Seventy-seven percent of the House and 75 percent of the Senate is still comprised of men, and the US has yet to ever elect a woman president. To suggest that men don’t already have a seat at the table would mean ignoring those facts. Yet as different groups work to address existing gaps, it’s prompted concern among some people who’ve traditionally dominated certain fields. Gillibrand’s response confronts such fears head-on.”
Li Zhou, Vox

Yet some have noted “the limitations of a perceived niche candidate, even one representing a high-profile social movement that helped fuel voter turnout less than a year ago… Four senators running for president — Kamala D. Harris of California, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Gillibrand — all cite their success in winning statewide elections as proof that a woman can reach heights no woman has before. All rail against sexism and gender pay gaps. All press for a woman’s right to choose. The issues on which Gillibrand hoped to build her campaign — reproductive rights, paid family leave and gender pay equality — are no longer distinguishing ones. Now, they are mainstream, invoked by female and male candidates alike…

“As one New York-based strategist put it… ‘It’s one thing to emphasize the woman part when you’re running against all men. It’s another thing when you’re running against a lot of very qualified women who are also moms and more.’”
Chelsea Janes, Washington Post

Finally, while “Gillibrand has made abortion the central issue of her presidential campaign… public opinion on specific abortion policies is still mixed, including among Democrats… Roughly two-thirds of Americans say abortion should generally be illegal in the second trimester, and more than 80 percent say it should generally be illegal in the third trimester—numbers that have held steady since the 1990s…

“The crucial swing states that helped Trump secure victory over Clinton—including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida—have only razor-thin majorities supporting abortion in all or most cases… These voters could really matter: Some moderates and conservatives who were initially uncomfortable with Trump specifically point to the third presidential debate, when Hillary Clinton endorsed third-trimester abortion, as the decisive moment that solidified their reluctant support for Trump. Given the way the current Democratic primary is shaping up on this issue, that dynamic could conceivably play out again in 2020.”
Emma Green, The Atlantic