DNC is the Future.

Bruce Bartlett wrote one of those articles that subtexts “mark my words”, or eight years from now thinking back “wow that article I read in The Washington Post was right”. In his article called “Even after Trump loses, the GOP is still toast”, Bartlett predicts the Republican Party or “GOP” will become just as relevant as it is in the state of California, if Presidential Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton wins the election. Bartlett wrote this opinionated piece based on his credibility having worked as a domestic policy adviser for President Ronald Reagan and his experience working with Republican officeholders. Although having had many influence by the GOP side, his intended audience isn't directly towards one party over the other. Bartlett unbiasedly wrote his opinions simply based on the data he researched as his evidence and what even he said he was incorrect about a year ago. He has noticed so much change in a year in the GOP, and how much damage Donald Trump has caused that with how things are now, he voiced to all citizens what changes are to come. 

      Based on his research and knowledge, Bruce argues that if Clinton wins the current election then fast forward four years from now, Clinton will have a very likely chance of getting re-elected. This is something that the GOP is not prepared for. The party may just assume they will have a better candidate next time around but they do not see the take over in the Congress that will soon take place. Some congressman today are worried about this possible change and have chosen to not support Trump anymore. Although he states the change is something that the nation needs. With sixteen years of what would be Democratic presidents, the Supreme Court he says would become majority liberal. With having a Democratic President and with Democratic control in the Congress many of the nations issues based on what the average voter supports would be tackled. 

    Towards the end Bartlett, expresses that the DNC will not hold the office forever but that the GOP will need a strong leader to bring the party back to control compared to the era of 1994 to present day. But as of right now the changes that are to come are positive for the nation as a whole. Apart from doing this critique, as a reader I agree with the current events that I've seen in the past couple of months. It makes sense and it adds up. The campaign slogan for Donald Trump has been “Make America great again”, but maybe ironically he must lose so that way America can be great again based on what Bruce Bartlett predicts. 

Humans vs Humans

The Us. Government has ongoing issues that have been around for years, but with the up coming Presidential Election the issues arise more often and are frequently discussed. Immigration, specifically has been a very popular issue that has sparked high controversy. Additionally, immigration has even been a key factor for support in candidates. Caitlin Dickerson informs and tries to convince New York Times readers of a one sided explanation on the issue in her article “Obama Administration Is Quietly Delaying Thousands of Deportation Cases”. The article’s argument explains how the number of illegal immigrants that live and that continue to enter into the United States is solely due to the Obama Administration. Dickerson explained how countless cases keep being pushed back to help with cost issues far back until 2023. She also blames the administration for not being strict on the laws. In her attempt to back up the claims, Dickerson uses “expert” opinion such that of Paul Schmidt, a retired Immigration Judge and Sarah Rodriguez, a spokesperson for Immigration Customs Enforcement. She also referred to an opinion article from the New York Times from 2014. Lastly, she also included a memo from a Chief Immigration Judge, Print Maggard. The author although, did not demonstrate her credibility on the issue or even so explain how much of an importance this issue is to the United States or background on the issue for the New York Times readers. It seems as though Dickerson’s purpose for her article was more so to address her opinion on immigration by blaming the current President’s Administration in a bias way. Without concrete evidence other than opinion evidence. Reviewing the articles comments, it proves the audience she was addressing. The hateful comments coming from predominantly Republican supporters. In all, the article lacked structure, concrete evidence and background information on the issue to educate the reader. The article more so stirred the pot to add to the ongoing arguments amongst the parties in this Presidential Election.