The upcoming presidential election has been described as a great many things. but among the top are "crazy" and a "bad joke." In fact, there are only 2 words out of the top 20 that have a positive connotation (Fig. 1). Within the article titled "Can Donald Trump turn Texas blue?" which was originally published in one of The Economists online blogs, Democracy in America, a claim is made that, at first glance, seems as obscure as this election cycle: Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party may be able to collect 38 electoral votes from Texas, the largest consistently Republican state. However, despite the ostensibly unlikely odds of this, the author with the initials E.G. uses evidence to describe why it might not be as impossible as it seems.
…show more content…
E.G. could have named the piece "Can Clinton take Texas?" but, instead, the name is "Can Donald Trump turn Texas blue?" Both titles point to the argument that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party may have a chance to acquire Texas 's electoral votes, rather than the usual Republican nominee. Yet, the latter title places the reasoning for this change in voting on Trump rather than his opposition. It implies that this author will be making a case that Texas voters are more concerned with not voting for Trump rather than wanting to vote for Clinton. After reading the blog post, this is indeed the premise the author 's argument stands …show more content…
decides to dedicate the opening part of the article to the counterargument rather than to introduce the thesis. Unfortunately, no sources are listed for the facts provided. Although, a couple facts could be easily checked, such as "the last Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state in a general election was Jimmy Carter, in 1976," and "the 2014 mid-term elections offered no evidence that the Republican Party 's hegemonic hold on power is weakening." Other statistics are very believable assuming that the reader uses context clues to determine that the author is trying to convey that Texas is a deep red state. The use of so much data means the author is treating the counterpoint fairly. In fact, in the post, it is written that "It would be wrong to dismiss the results of recent
E.G. could have named the piece "Can Clinton take Texas?" but, instead, the name is "Can Donald Trump turn Texas blue?" Both titles point to the argument that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party may have a chance to acquire Texas 's electoral votes, rather than the usual Republican nominee. Yet, the latter title places the reasoning for this change in voting on Trump rather than his opposition. It implies that this author will be making a case that Texas voters are more concerned with not voting for Trump rather than wanting to vote for Clinton. After reading the blog post, this is indeed the premise the author 's argument stands …show more content…
decides to dedicate the opening part of the article to the counterargument rather than to introduce the thesis. Unfortunately, no sources are listed for the facts provided. Although, a couple facts could be easily checked, such as "the last Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state in a general election was Jimmy Carter, in 1976," and "the 2014 mid-term elections offered no evidence that the Republican Party 's hegemonic hold on power is weakening." Other statistics are very believable assuming that the reader uses context clues to determine that the author is trying to convey that Texas is a deep red state. The use of so much data means the author is treating the counterpoint fairly. In fact, in the post, it is written that "It would be wrong to dismiss the results of recent