Tow #5 - Chat: How Much Damage Has The Email Scandal Done To Hillary Clinton

This week, I read “Chat: How Much Damage Has The Email Scandal Done To Hillary Clinton?” which is a text found of the website www.fivethirtyeight.com.  This is somewhat of a unique text because it is not an article or an essay in the traditional sense.  It is what the name implies, a chat.  Four FiveThirtyEight staff members (Micah Cohen, politics editor; Nate Silver, editor in chief; Harry Enten, senior political writer; and Farai Chideya, senior writer) engage in a back and forth dialogue with the ebb and flow of a normal, real life conversation.  FiveThirtyEight is a very reputable source that deals with statistical analysis of politics, sports, and nearly every facet of modern life.  This chat was based on the question “How much damage has the email scandal done to Hillary Clinton?”  In the dialogue, the writers conversed about the different ways in which this scandal has affected Clinton and could potentially affect Clinton.  The general consensus was that it is very difficult to predict how Clinton would have done without this scandal.  However, the media is playing this scandal up to be a huge deal and, in actually, it is probably not as important as the media make it out to be.  With that said, if the scandal intensifies with more allegations, or another scandal involving Clinton breaks, then the results could be devastating for Clinton.  At this point in time, it is impossible to predict with any certainty whether another scandal will come to light.  If the member had to bet, they would agree that this scandal has not hurt Clinton as much as is perceived, but they could not find a definitive answer for just how much damage the scandal has done.

            Since this text was a chat (I am not sure whether this was a live, in person chat or a chat over the internet), the rhetorical devices used by the authors are much different than the devices generally used in essays or articles.  There was a back and forth to this conversation, which added a fresh, interesting dynamic to a normal essay.  Writers had the opportunity to rebut against other writers and speak directly to disagreements.  Throughout this chat, logos was appealed to often and effectively, not surprising since this is a statistical analysis website.  Polling numbers, favorability numbers, and other impressive statistics were utilized in order to argue points.  In one message, Harry Enten writes, “Let’s just look at the fact that Gallup has her net favorable at +53 among Democrats. That’s better than it was eight years ago in Gallup polling (+50). We obviously don’t know how it would look without the email scandal. But in terms of primary voters’ perceptions of her, she’s doing just as well. Which shouldn’t be surprising given that she is pretty much universally known” (Enten 2).  Simply saying that Clinton’s favorable rating is higher than it was eight years ago without any specific data to back it up means absolutely nothing in this world of advanced statistics.  Enten can only be taken seriously if he backs his theory with fact, and he does so effectively.  Another device that was used was the use of counter argument.  Farai Chideya uses this device in an attempt to change the perspective of the reader.  She writes, “Devil’s advocate: Couldn’t you say the sound bite is “Hillary Rodham Clinton kept classified information improperly.” Well, that’s not sexy either but … it’s an argument” (Chideya 4).  This comes right after Nate Silver wrote that this scandal cannot be reduced into a one sentence soundbite that appeals to the general public.  Chideya may not necessarily believe in what she wrote, but she recognizes that there is value to the opposite side of the story.  This is what made this chat so engaging to read.  The writers all attempted to broaden the horizon and perspective of the reader by noting interesting connections and ideas that would not have fit into a normal essay.  This style of text was much deeper than a normal essay because it allowed for the flexibility of authors to go off on tangents without any repercussions.  Because of that, I believe the authors were successful in exploring how the scandal affected Clinton.