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. The process seems particularly pitched this particular go-round.

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

History says yes. And I’ve found that many people, well-versed in history, also say yes, it is more difficult for a woman to be elected president of the United States. I’ve checked the record and, sure enough, only once in U.S. history has a female presidential 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 to the question about whether 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 of the respondent’s belief that 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 due to the current state of play (and the current state of the current president’s mind) 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 back 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%), but believe their neighbors are less accepting (33%),” the pollsters reported.

Gillman included this insightful note: “Pollsters ask bank-shot questions like that to smoke out biases that respondents might not own up to about themselves.” (For example, I don’t necessarily believe that baseball’s designated hitter rule is a communist plot to undermine the great American game and America itself, but I’m pretty sure some of my nutty neighbors think that’s true.)

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 in 2020, with only slightly more of those who say they agree (39%) over disagree (26%) or neither agree nor disagree (28%) with the statement.”

The 2020 presidential campaign rolls through Texas this week. Tuesday night, Elizabeth Warren was scheduled to have an event here in Austin. Warren lived here in the 1980s when she was a University of Texas law professor. Let me know if she, like everyone who lived here in the 1980s, talks about how much better Austin was back then.

On Thursday, there is a 10-candidate Democratic presidential debate in Houston. The event at Texas Southern University includes three candidates (Warren and U.S. senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Kamala Harris of California) from the gender that’s yet to produce a president. Should be interesting. And long. ABC is planning a three-hour debate.


(15) comments


Bob b “What about: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", or the typical family should save about $2,500 per year with ACA…”

Speaking for myself I have kept all of my doctor’s since the inception of the ACA, I also have retained the same insurance carriers, my co-pays have not increased and my premiums have risen by less that 10% (considerably less than the annual 25/40% annual increases prior to the ACA). I am not sure of the cost savings I have incurred, although with the ACA my prescription costs have dropped, I have access to preventative health care procedures that prior to the ACA were not covered (necessitating out-of-pocket costs). As to insurance companies, Obama had nothing to do with scummy insurance companies dropping out of markets where they offered virtually nothing despite charging for “coverage.”


Bad news for ignorant DOTs who keeping defending the low-life.

9-13-2019 A federal appeals court in New York has ruled a lawsuit accusing the low life, draft dodging scum currently squatting in our White of violating the Emoluments Clause can proceed.

A panel of judges with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which has alleged the president violated the constitutional clause by refusing to put his business assets in a blind trust while in office and profiting off the presidency.

"Plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded that the President’s ownership of hospitality businesses that compete with them will induce government patrons of the hospitality industry to favor Trump businesses over those of the Plaintiffs so as to secure favorable governmental action from the President and Executive branch," Judge Pierre Leval wrote in the decision.

"If President Trump would like to avoid the case going further and curtail the serious harms caused by his unconstitutional conduct, now would be a good time to divest from his businesses and end his violations of the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution," Executive Director Noah Bookbinder of CREW said in a statement.

The ruling revives yet another lawsuit for Trump to defend against. He is also warding off legal challenges involving his tax returns, and his administration is facing numerous legal challenges of its policies on immigration, health care and other topics.

Watchdogs have raised concerns about the president's decision not to put his company in a blind trust, noting that lobbyists, foreign officials and political insiders may frequent his businesses to earn favor with the administration.


Oops, forgot the word "House", sorry for any resultant confusion


“There is nothing funny about misspelling a word. It is a grievous mistake and one I take very seriously. Finding humor in such a situation demonstrates why DOT's are always incensed when their ignorance is pointed out because they do not value accuracy in communication”. . “Rovr 09/03/2019” [thumbup][beam]


Thank you for quoting me because, as I said, proper spelling and grammar are important for effective communication. However, I am concerned about your obsession with me that borders on the maniacal. I once found it humorous, but now it has become disturbing because you don’t seem to have anything to actually say and quoting me after I have pointed out an error and apologized for it would appear to be more of homage to me and that is disturbing. Honestly, I do not need your approval. "HwyRovr"


Look out deaton. Rovr will get angry and not converse with you and only correct your grammar. He's having a very hard time with the DOT's and can't handle it anymore.


Such asinine questions. Using that same backwards logic one can question why people climb Mount Everest knowing that ii is difficult to climb.


Trump 2020. Socialist loons just don't get it.


A few questions to ask your friends who support the lying, draft-dodging, coward who is currently squatting in our White House.

He promised Mexico would pay for the wall, but now wants to steal money from our troops in order to build this ego edifice. Do you feel stealing money allocated for our national defense is a good thing?

He promised he would replace the ACA – called Obamacare by the intellectually stunted - and it would cost us less and cover more people. However what has happened is we now have millions of uninsured and costs have risen dramatically. Do you think he has done American a favor by his actions?

He promised he would release his taxes after he took office. Do you feel he should release his taxes as he promised?

He promised he would solve our trade deficit. As prices are rising and farmers are suffering do you agree with his trade war?

He promised he would solve the budget deficit. So far it has nearly doubled under his so-called leadership. Where do you stand on the soaring deficit?

Evidence is mounting day by day about him profiting by forcing the military to stay at his properties and wanting to hold the next G& at one of his bedbug slums. That property has lost money with a 69% drop in profits. Do you feel it proper for the president to profit from using taxpayer funds to line his pockets?


"Evidence is mounting day by day about him profiting by forcing the military to stay at his properties". Some more Rovr BS.


“According to a report by Politico, an Air National Guard crew running supplies from the US to Kuwait was rerouted to stay at Trump’s Turnberry golf club and resort in Scotland. President Donald Trump’s golf courses in Ireland and Scotland have been losing money, and it appears Trump has been using government funds to prop up these properties by forcing military members and government officials to stay at his properties. This is highly unusual for the members of the military, who typically stay and refuel at military bases.

“‘The crew were so confused by what was happening when they were rerouted to Scotland to refuel at this tiny airport outside of Trump Turnberry because they had never done that before in the fifty-plus trips they had taken to do these routine supply trips,’ Natasha Betrand, who broke the story along with Bryan Bender, said on The Rachel Maddow Show. ‘They didn’t have enough money; their per diem allowance didn’t even allow them to buy food and drinks there. They felt totally out of place.’

“And the military appears to be complicit, refusing to cooperate with an investigation by the House Oversight Committee into the matter. ‘The Defense Department has not produced a single document in this investigation,” a senior Democratic aide on the oversight panel told Politico. ‘The committee will be forced to consider alternative steps if the Pentagon does not begin complying voluntarily in the coming days.’”


BoBBy So gullible If Rachel Maddow/CNN reported on it you should have done some reading on the Reviews, maybe check out some pictures. Your such a Tool Bag




What else would you expect from a liberal report. They will spin it any way to benefit them.

In a statement Saturday evening, Air Force spokesman Brig. Gen. Ed Thomas said that the C-17′s stop in Glasgow was not out of the ordinary.

The aircrew made reservations at Turnberry through the Defense Travel System, Thomas said, and it was the least expensive and closest available property, within their allowable hotel rates, to the airfield. Air crews on the service’s frequent international airlift missions “follow strict guidelines on contracting for hotel accommodations and all expenditures of taxpayer dollars,” Thomas said

"While we are still reviewing the trip records, we have found nothing that falls outside the guidelines associated with selecting stopover airports on travel routes and hotel accommodations for crew rest,” Thomas said.

The Trump hotel’s nightly rate of $136 was less than the $161 rate of a nearby Marriott hotel the same aircrew stayed at during their return flight, Thomas said. The maximum per diem rate was $166, Thomas said.

bob b

There ya go! You get your opinions from Rachel Madcow! It figures.

When you go on your rants, you only talk about things that have not been completed due to the Left Wing of Congress, not because Trump made a promise and then never tried to keep it.

What about: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", or the typical family should save about $2,500 per year with ACA, or "the attack on the Embassy in Benghazi was over the production of a video that disrespected Islam, etc.

All political candidates make promises that do not come true. At least Trump has tried to fulfill his promises, and if not for brain-dead Democrats who would rather see the country fail than to see Trump succeed, he might have completed several more of his promises.

I have always hoped that you were one of those who swore they would leave the country if Trump became President. I was waiting for the air in Havasu to clear up once your bloviating was en route to Mexico, or Canada, or Venezuela.

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.