Are you the kind of person who likes to stir up trouble at social gatherings? Do you enjoy twisting people into knots with a series of leading questions that they don’t realize are leading until they’ve been led? Yes, I thought you were.

Here’s a little something I’ve been test driving in recent weeks to combine two of my favorite things: Talking politics and annoying people, which isn’t hard to do these days. I’m happy to share it with you and I’d be interested in hearing how it works for you.

Many of you are aware that we’re moving toward the quadrennial day when America decides who is most worthy to be our leader for the next four years. Sometimes we get it right. And there are other times.

So here’s the first question: “Do you believe it is more difficult for a woman to be elected president of the United States?”

History says yes. Sure enough, only once in U.S. history has a female candidate received the most popular votes. Many people believe that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign was hampered by, among other things, bias against a female candidate.

OK. So if you get a “yes” answer, it’s more difficult for a woman to win the presidency, follow up with this one (and this whole riff is Democrat-specific): “Is voting Donald Trump out of office your top priority for 2020?”

If you get two positive answers (yes, it’s more difficult for a woman to be elected and, yes, my top priority is voting Trump out of office), you then follow up by asking if it then follows that the respondent might want to opt for a male Democratic nominee because it’s more difficult for a woman to win the presidency.

And then the fun begins, along with, I’ve found, allegations that somehow that’s not a logical conclusion. Seems to me it is. If electability is your top concern, why would you back somebody in a category from which you believe it is more difficult to become president?

FYI, I happen to believe that because of the current state of play a woman might have a better chance of winning the White House this go-round. We’ll see. One thing seems certain: There’ll be at least one female on the Democratic ticket.

My friend Todd Gillman of the Dallas Morning News explored the gender question during a recent reporting trip to Iowa. He opened his dispatch with words from Kelsey Bell, a 36-year-old accountant who’s backing Elizabeth Warren, but is worried about whether a woman can win the presidency.

“It is hard for people my grandparents’ age to accept the idea of a female president,” she told Gillman. “My grandpa can’t even go to a female doctor. That generation is just so closed-minded.”

Ipsos, a polling firm, got interesting results when it polled on the gender question in June on behalf of The Daily Beast.

“When asked about having a female president, Democrats and independents are themselves comfortable with a female president (74 percent), but believe their neighbors are less accepting (33 percent),” the pollsters reported.

It’s also important to report this from the Ipsos pollsters: “Democrats and independents are split in their opinion on whether a woman would have a harder time than a man running against Donald Trump.”

The 2020 presidential campaign rolled through Texas this week. Today, there is a 10-candidate Democratic presidential debate in Houston. The event at Texas Southern University includes three candidates females: Warren and U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Kamala Harris of California.

Should be interesting. And long. ABC is planning a three-hour debate.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.