Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently snagged a major victory: the Democratic nomination. But can she really win the presidential election? In the Washington Post opinion piece "Can Hillary Clinton win?" published June 9, notable journalist Fareed Zakaria evaluates why he believes Clinton will win, despite the analytical data saying otherwise.
Zakaria, the liberal-leaning author of this article, directs his argument toward fellow Democrats in an attempt to renew their hopes for a third consecutive Democratic president. Although Zakaria appears to be a Democrat, he analyzes both sides of the issue with equal vigor (with a slight bias in favor of Clinton) and at the end, does not make an explicit claim about who he believes will win the election. With wild card Donald Trump in the picture, he argues, the already temperamental nature of social science becomes downright unpredictable.
Rather than simply asserting an argument, Zakaria relies on a plethora of social science models and hard facts to back up his claim. The meat of this article is in its logos, and the renowned Zakaria maintains credibility with his audience through his steady stream of factual evidence.
In the end, Zakaria takes a strong stance against Trump, calling him a "vulgar narcissist" and "pathological liar." In addition, he states that the predictions of models have little meaning when it comes to humans because of our ability to think, which will save us from electing Trump as president. This article is argued successfully because of the author's credibility from his wide range of supporting evidence and overall, makes logical sense. It also reinforced my own beliefs that America will save itself from choosing the wrong candidate, whoever that may be. By emphasizing individual thought, Zakaria puts the power in the hands of the people, reinforcing Constitutional ideas and encouraging people to look more closely at this election.
No comments:
Post a Comment