Be honest: If this election were between...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If this election were between Henry Rodham Clinton (D) and Donna Jane Trump (R), would the gender factor affect your vote?

[Heisenberg]

Nope, I'd still vote Republican.

[Xing]

Not at all. I couldn't care less which gender Trump is. I'll never support an unqualified bigot who appeals to the lowest common denominator.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

No, I would gladly vote for someone like Marsha Blackburn, Nikki Haley, or Joni Ernst.

[Joe Republic]

Nah.  First woman president is awesome and everything, but it's not like having the first female VP made me inclined to vote for Sarah Palin.

[Maxwell]

Donna Trump would not have won the Republican nomination. That is a fact.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1 (4%) to 24 (96%).

Wow.

[Yank2133]

Donna Trump would not have won the Republican nomination. That is a fact.

Those supporters loved Palin, so Trump would still have had a shot if he was a female.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Donna Trump would not have won the Republican nomination. That is a fact.

Yeah, the womanizing probably would not be so easily overlooked.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

So...essentially Carly Fiorina versus Clinton?

[ProudModerate2]

Not at all. I couldn't care less which gender Trump is. I'll never support an unqualified bigot who appeals to the lowest common denominator.

[Erc]

A Henry Rodham Clinton that isn't the spouse of a former President is a lot different from Hilllary than just the gender.

A Henry Rodham Clinton that is the spouse of a former President means we elected a woman (or openly gay??) President in 1992, and that's quite a different country.

[To answer the poll; no, of course not.  You don't elect Marine Le Pen because she's a woman, either.]

[IceSpear]

If only the genders changed and nothing else, Henry would have the election in the bag.

[Ronnie]

I wouldn't necessarily be loath to supporting a Republican woman, but certainly not a female demagogue and bigot.  I don't really believe in essential differences between men and women.

[Wisconsin+17]

It's about his positions, not that he's a man.

[pbrower2a]

As one who savaged Sarah Palin mercilessly...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's about his positions, not that he's a man.

Yes.

I wouldn't support Theodora Cruz, Maria Rubio, Jane Kasich nor Jane Kasich either because of policy issues.

It would be quite great, though, to have a female major candidate v. female major candidate in GE.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Women in politics can't get away with being utterly self-absorbed, spiteful bullies. Donna Drumpf would probably have dropped out long before Iowa.

[Sir Mohamed]

It doesn’t affect me at all. The only things I care about are leadership qualities and issues.

[/]

Donna Trump would not have won the Republican nomination. That is a fact.

^

[ag]

Why would Trump's genitals matter? Not that we know whether he has any as it is. In any case, dick or no dick, Trump is the absolute worst thing that can happen to America.

[sparkey]

We would seriously be considering electing somebody named Henry Clinton?

Would his running mate have been named Cornwallis?

Would he run a Southern Strategy?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Why would Trump's genitals matter? Not that we know whether he has any as it is. In any case, dick or no dick, Trump is the absolute worst thing that can happen to America.

Gender is about more than genitals.

But no, Trump is repulsive in any form.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

We would seriously be considering electing somebody named Henry Clinton?

Would his running mate have been named Cornwallis?

Would he run a Southern Strategy?

[Mr. Morden]

If only the genders changed and nothing else, Henry would have the election in the bag.

Interesting that you say that, as I posed this question in 2013:

"Would/will being female be a net plus or net minus in the 2016 general election?"

and the majority said that it would be a net plus for a Democrat...with the remaining folks saying that it would be a wash.