In 1992, the phrase "Math is hard" was programmed into the Teen Talk Barbie doll, enraging feminists. It is pleasing now to see that some extreme feminists seem are trying to prove it really is so. They insist that only by pushing hard on a stance opposed 75 to 25 percent by the American people can the Democrats they support win the ultimate power they seek.

At a time when the Democrats are at historic lows everywhere and need to expand their reach into red states and districts, they are insisting they hew to the most extreme stance on abortion, which would surely turn off many of the voters they need to convince.

For decades, the math on abortion has remained somewhat stable, with two smaller wings on the sides and a large and conflicted mass in the middle that wants neither an absolute ban on abortion nor for abortion to be readily available at all times and for any reason.

But as hard as math is for feminists, it's even harder for them to admit that they've lost and are losing. And so they act in a way that seems poised to drag their own numbers lower, and damage the Democrats, too. They're right when they say that they are their party's base and most ardent and faithful defenders, but it hardly helps to have them training their fire on the people outside of this enclave, who were once their voters, and whom they badly need to bring back to the fold.

In 2006, when Democrats feared the Republicans might have been headed for permanent power, they drew up a carefully thought-out "50 state strategy" that matched purple and red states with the kind of candidates the people there might actually consider voting for. They ended up with twenty-nine governorships and control of both Houses of Congress.

This sort of thing has been declared a betrayal by NARAL, which seems to prefer a few-states-as-you-can kind of strategy. The idea is that by hewing to a policy preference that comes as close as it can to legal infanticide, Democrats might be able to win three or more states. The lunacy of this idea has been discussed by Nancy Pelosi, a stalwart pro-choicer who still happens to be a sane person. She knows because she became speaker in 2006 through greater inclusion in the party, and she would surely like to be speaker again.

Pelosi understands the math of addition, which means reaching out to as many people as possible. NARAL seems fixed on subtraction, which in time gets you down close to zilch.

And zilch may indeed be where this movement is headed. By a 47 to 32 percent split, women reject the term "feminist," which they think of as being "extreme." Another number to consider is 53 -- the percentage of white women who voted for Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton, rejecting the pro-choice and long-term feminist icon for a man who not only pledged to appoint pro-life judges but whose behavior to and around females has been somewhat less than ideal.

White women not only rejected Clinton's historic candidacy, they rejected the ideology that went along with it, despite (because of?) the fact that Hillary waged the most pro-choice campaign ever run in this country. She dropped her husband's more sensible refrain of "safe, legal, and rare," adopting instead "always, paid for by taxpayers, and up to and until birth."

Contrary to popular belief, though, feminists can do math. Some of them need to go to back to school, though, and take some math classes. Before the math finishes them.

Noemie Emery, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."