Archive for October 2012

The Second Debate and the Fight for Ethos

October 17, 2012 Argumentation, Blog, Logos, Pathos and Ethos No comments

You’ll be hearing from people far more qualified (and better paid) than I telling you who “won” and who “lost” last night’s second Presidential debate. But from the perspective of the critical thinking concepts and tools discussed on this blog and on the podcast over the last few months, some takeaways from last night’s event include:

Expectations Management

The reasons expectations need to be managed is that, unless someone actively intervenes, they tend to gravitate to different places on their own. For instance, before the first debate, expectations of Obama were quite high (because of his reputation as a skilled orator) while those of Romney were low (due to his lack of such a reputation).

But the dynamic of the first debate (during which Obama did poorly) lowered expectations for him while raising them for his rival. Which meant that Obama merely had to do better than last time (which he did) to exceed expectations while Romney had to do at least as well as last time (which he didn’t) just to meet them.

And while there will be a lot of talk regarding who presented the more convincing case, the game of expectations is driven primarily by that fast-processing part of our brain which prefers a good story (“The Empty Chair,” “The Comeback Kid”) to more complex reality.

Audience

And speaking of reality, keep in mind that the primary audience for last night’s debate was the same as ever: TV viewers and the media. Which meant that the people in the room asking questions in that Town Hall style forum were pretty much just props whose questions provided a category (jobs, women, immigration, Libya) into which the candidates could fit stock responses prepared in advance.

Now some politicians can pull off the trick of looking like they’re responding directly to people in the room while actually delivering a prepared text. But neither Obama or Romney really possess this skill (which provides one of the mechanics behind why, as Jay Heinrichs pointed out during this week’s podcast, neither candidate is considered very good in an informal setting).

Format

Unlike the first debate, the looser format of last night’s contest (which asked each candidate to give a two minute response to a question from the audience, followed by a two minute follow up) allowed the candidates to fall back to what has become a default approach to national debates which involves each person sticking to prepared talking points while avoiding direct engagement with one another.

You could see this play out in both words and body language, especially during instances where Romney tried to put his rival on the spot by asking a direct (often loaded) question while starting him in the eye, which his opponent parried by simply refusing to return the gaze (or even look in Romney’s direction).

The prepping and practice and coaching and polished technique that fuels these types of performances does a good job at helping the candidates avoided what they dread most: an unexpected moment. But they also drain debate of drama and, more importantly, prevent the type of genuine argumentation you would get from a situation involving two people actually talking to one another.

This is why, as Kevin deLaplante pointed out two weeks ago, you can’t really apply the same rules you would use to analyze argumentative dialog (picking apart the logic, finding the fallacies, Canons of Rhetoric, etc.) when trying to understand the type of performance art national debates have evolved (or devolved) into.

But other critical thinking tools (notably Aristotle’s Modes of Persuasion) are still relevant, which is why most of the analysis, interpretation and spin you will be hearing over the next several days basically boils down to the question of who left the stage seeming more appealing and trustworthy.

These characteristics currently travel under more modern-sounding names (such as “likability” and “seeming Presidential”), possibly to mask the fact that this Presidential race, like most Presidential races, boils down to a contest of who winds up netting the most ethos (either by building up his own, or burning the other guy’s stockpile of the stuff).

Toulmin and Consistency - 2

October 16, 2012 Argumentation, Blog No comments

When we last left off, we had just diagrammed the central argument President Obama presented in his recent ABC interview using the Toulmin method for argument mapping.

If you recall, that method lets us keep statements in normal, human language (rather than having to convert them to the type of logical statements used in a syllogism). And, in this case, those statements are broken into a Claim the President is asking you to believe, (that Mitt Romney is being dishonest with voters) which he says flows from a specified set of Grounds (that Mitt Romney has been inconsistent with regard to what he tells different audiences). And the Claim and Grounds are linked with a Warrant that states that the only reason someone would behave in such an inconsistent manner is a lack of honesty.

Once mapped, an argument becomes easier to both attack and defend. For example, if I were to attack this argument, I can choose to attack either the Grounds (by proving that Romney has not been saying different things to different audiences). This would involve either a positive refutation (showing that most, if not all, of his statements have been consistent), a negative refutation (demonstrating that the examples Obama uses to illustrate Romney’s inconsistency are wrong) or a combination of both.

Because such an attack on the Grounds would likely lead to an endless series of sub-arguments over dozens, if not hundreds, of examples (each of which could be mapped using their own Toulmin components), it might be more fruitful to leave the Grounds alone (implying, at least for the purpose of this argument, an acceptance that the Republican candidate has indeed said different things to different people) and instead zero in on the Warrant.

Such an attack on the Warrant can be far more efficient since, in this case, I simply need to demonstrate that there are other reasonable explanations as to why a candidate might behave inconsistently, other than dishonesty. I could, for instance, point out that it is a long-standing tradition for candidates to play to a more partisan audience during the primaries (since they are trying to convince voters of just one political persuasion during that period), and then modify that message when talking to a broader electorate during the general election.

Such an attack could use examples of other Presidential candidates (including Obama) doing this same thing (“pulling Left” during the Primaries, then broadening out his message for an audience of Independent voters in the General, presuming he did so during the 2008 election).

I could also cite other instances where inconsistency can imply something other than dishonesty (such as evolution in thinking, a response to changing circumstances, or openness to new information). While this would not likely be as effective as the “Everyone Does It” attack noted above (since changing one’s position is perceived as representing dishonesty or wishy-washiness in our current public discourse, unfortunately), it might be effective if I can use such an attack to remind the audience of their own unrealistic expectations of consistency (given the inconsistency in every person’s thinking and behavior noted at the end of the last podcast).

Keep in mind that I don’t have to prove with absolute certainty that inconsistency does not always equal dishonesty. I simply have to place enough doubt in people’s minds regarding the Warrant (by providing them reasonable alternative explanations for why a politician might say different things to different audiences) to make them question the strength of the entire argument.

Also, remember that Obama is not making the claim that Romney is just like any politician (who frequently tell different audiences what they’d like to hear), but that his inconsistency is so extreme and extraordinary that we should doubt his veracity across the board (to the point where he has lost the credibility needed to deserve your vote). And by placing such doubt in the Warrant, the argument can be weakened enough that it would then fall on the accuser to prove the Warrant, rather than the accused to deny the Grounds or Claim.

In fact, an “Everyone Does It” attack on the Warrant can be particularly effective in this case since by claiming that inconsistency equals dishonesty, the accuser opens himself up to charges of hypocrisy if it can be demonstrated that he too says (or has said) different things to different audiences. And this accusation would imply a double level of inconsistency (both inconsistency in behavior, and an inconsistent – or double – standard for judging others).

Keep in mind that this type of argument mapping and attack/defense analysis process is something everyone (including you) can and should use to analyze your own arguments before presenting them, allowing you to anticipate attacks in advance and prepare proper defenses and counter-attacks.

So, in this instance, you can think of this analysis as not just providing the Republican a blueprint for countering accusations sure to come during tonight’s debate and beyond, but a guidepost to the Democrats for how to evaluate the strength of an argument they have made central to their campaign, and what they should do to prepare for counter-arguments that will surely be raised against it.

Toulmin and Consistency - 1

October 15, 2012 Argumentation, Blog No comments

Between the Critical Voter blog and podcast, we’ve managed to leverage TV ads, speeches and debate performance to demonstrate the use of various critical thinking tools. But for this revisit on how to diagram arguments, we’re going to use a campaign artifact we’ve not gotten to yet: the national television interview.

Such TV interviews used to be much more of a staple of Presidential campaigns. But as nightly network news recedes in importance in our fragmented media age, candidates seem to be avoiding the unpredictability that comes with an appearance before Diane Sawyer (vs. talking to local media in swing states, or friendly media on partisan cable programs).

Nonetheless, President Obama decided to take a chance on an appearance before Sawyer on ABC News, primarily as a means to regain momentum after a bad week. And this appearance illustrated the hazards of stepping before the cameras in an uncontrolled situation, in this case one in which the interviewer seemed primarily interested in asking and re-asking him the same question, which was (and I’m paraphrasing): Why did you stink up the joint so much during last week’s debate?

Under such circumstances, the President was not able to present as many arguments as he would have no doubt liked. But if you get past his skilled avoidance of demands that he Monday morning quarterback his own debate performance, his key post-debate argument can be discerned which can be summed up as:

Mitt Romney took one set of positions in front of certain audiences (such as Republican voters during the Primaries, or funders such as those he sat before during the now infamous “47% Secret Meeting”) and is now saying something completely different to the general voting public. This level of inconsistency can only be explained if the Republican candidate is hiding something (such as the true nature of his proposals) or is generally dishonest. But whatever the motivation, such inconsistency means he does not deserve your vote.

You will notice that I did not boil down this argument into the type of “All As are Bs” statements that would be used if we were to analyze the President’s argument using Aristotelian syllogisms. This is partly because we already did such an analysis on a negative campaign ad directed at the President (both on the blog and during a podcast). But another reason to keep the argument in natural language is that it shows how the Toulmin argument maps we discussed on both the blog and podcast allow us to preserve a great deal of this natural language without having to translate it into formal logical statements.

So let’s recast this argument in the form of a Toulmin argument map as follows:

As I mentioned during the last podcast, accusations of hypocrisy (which zero in on our natural discomfort with inconsistency) can be very effective rhetorically (much better than accusations of lying – which Sawyer tried to goad the President into making - which can come off as shrill and mean).

But does this particular accusation of inconsistency make a strong argument, one that can withstand challenge using Toulmin as a guide?

Let’s find out.

Continued…

Critical Voter - Podcast 11 – Consistency and Interview with Jay Heinrichs

October 14, 2012 Argumentation, Blog, Podcast, Rhetorical Devices No comments

Book Cover - Thank You for Arguing

This week, Jay Heinrichs, author of Thank You for Arguing, joins us to talk about the rhetoric of the campaign, including a review of how each political party makes use of different rhetorical devices, and the rhetorical strengths and weaknesses of each Presidential candidate.

We also continue to use the first Presidential debate to illustrate various critical thinking subjects we’ve been discussing, including confirmation bias, managing expectations and media literacy.

A concept underlying most (if not all) of the critical thinking concepts covered at Critical Voter is the notion of consistency. As a species, humans seem to crave consistent behavior and, more importantly, are repelled by anything that seems to behave inconsistently. This is why the most powerful logical argument you can make is to prove your opponent has made a logical contradiction. It also explains why accusing an opponent of hypocrisy is such an effective way to put them on the defensive.

Understanding our need for consistency not only helps us better understand why we react to different rhetorical and argumentative techniques as we do, but can also provide people (including the Presidential candidate) guidance as to how they should behave in important situations (like the upcoming Presidential debates).

This week’s resources include:

Critical Voter - Consistency - Quiz

Critical Voter - Consistency - Lesson Plan

Thank You for Arguing by Jay Heinrichs

Jay Heinrichs’ Figures of Speech blog

Toulmin analysis of campaign material (mentioned at the start of the podcast) - Part 1 Part 2

Critical Voter – Podcast 11 – Consistency and Jay Heinrichs Interview [ 33:53 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Round 1b: The Vice Presidential Debate

October 12, 2012 Blog, Logos, Pathos and Ethos No comments

I don’t anticipate anyone will mistake last night’s Vice Presidential debate for the Dialogues of Socrates.

But despite the immediate reaction I sensed from the news media (which consisted primarily of disappointment that they had not been witness to another game-changing event); I think there is something to learn from yesterday’s bout (beyond the issues discussed by the candidates which are, of course. all important).

But in terms of insights we can derive using the tools we’ve been studying, the first phenomena we should look at was that sense of disappointment I just mentioned which – while currently just a media meme – I expect will end up being the bottom line of the public’s “story” regarding the event.

I think this disappointment wells up primarily from the fact that the nature of last night’s debate provided us nothing that we didn’t anticipate. In fact, it followed the format we’ve become used to regarding Presidential and Vice Presidential “debates” that turn out to actually be occasions when opponents (sometimes skillfully, but often clumsily) see questions asked of them and challenges put to them as nothing more than hurdles to get over in order to get to talking points they had prepared in advance.

That’s why Vice President Biden, in response to a question about the recent attack on the American embassy in Libya (an issue currently causing discomfort within the administration), managed to segue within seconds into talking about the killing of Osama bin Laden. Similarly, Paul Ryan was able to plug unemployment statistics into nearly every answer to any question about government policy foreign and domestic (using them to run the clock out on tough questions regarding his ticket’s budget plans and the VP candidate’s own voting record).

Ryan, a relative newcomer to national debates of this type, seemed to have unrealistic expectations of what a single zinger could do for him. For instance, he had a particularly good laugh line meant to minimize the Romney “47% issue” by reminding Biden (who is notorious for his frequent public gaffes) that anyone can have a slip of the tongue. But Biden’s willingness to laugh right along with the joke turned this into a friendly barb between colleagues that did not prevent Biden from successfully returning to the 47% issue again and again. (In other words, it was not nearly as effective as the humor-based device Romney used in the first debate to get Obama to stop talking about the $7 trillion the Republicans were allegedly planning to add to the deficit.)

For his part, Biden’s strategy throughout the night seemed to be built around an informal fallacy called Argumentation from Outrage. This is something you see all the time on TV talk shows where the host bursts into flames over the slightest criticism, raising the temperature to such a degree that rational debate cannot continue (presuming it ever started). In Biden’s case, this outrage was exhibited through voice raising, endless interruptions and scoffing laughs and eye rolls, all of which were caught on split-screen, which meant either his voice or guffawing face was what everyone was paying attention to throughout the debate.

There have been some discussions in conservative circles with regard to whether Biden’s behavior will become the story (which they hope will rebound badly on the Democrats). But I suspect that this is just wishful thinking. For if a VP debate is rarely news in the first place, a VP debate that fit the debate template so predictably is doubly ignorable.

Because the candidates were joint speechifying, rather than debating, they had more opportunities to use many of the rhetorical devices and persuasive techniques you normally see in public addresses. (My son spotted four cases of anaphora in the first half hour before he went to bed – thankfully before both candidates pulled out tragic stories featuring dead children as part of pathos-based appeals.)

And while we could go through each of those in detail (or deconstruct one or more arguments we can try to excavate out of the candidate’s overlapping speeches), the big take-away from this event is the phenomena described in the last blog entry of how logos will always have to fight for space on stage with its rambunctious siblings pathos and ethos.

For what did people really take away from 90 minutes of “dialog,” but impressions: impressions of who could be trusted (based not just on words, but on body language and tenor of voice), impressions of who is more “one-heartbeat-away” Presidential, impressions of why either man is not on the top of the ticket (all filtered, of course, through our own confirmation biases).

And rather than weep over (or deny) the fact that our interaction with last night’s event was only partly influenced by logos, we should instead use the experience to gauge how much reason we are willing to commit to such an event based on how much reason-based information is genuinely being provided.

Within (and Without) Reason

October 10, 2012 Blog, Logos, Pathos and Ethos No comments

During last week’s podcast, the Critical Thinker Academy’s Kevin deLaplante introduced two new “pillars” of critical thinking: creativity and character. And in the last two blog entries, I added imagination, humility and courage as three more critical thinking skills.

What these all have in common is that they are not, technically, thinking skills but rather reflect emotional states or virtues. Which raises the question of why they should be included in a discussion of critical (or any other form of) thinking? After all, thinking is supposed to be about reason, so why should our emotional states or personal dispositions get dragged into a discussion that should zero in on things such as how to find the most accurate facts and come to a logical conclusion about them?

A hint of why we should be a bit broader in what we include in the category of critical thinking skills came out of a comment that appeared on that Huffington Post story I mentioned last time. In it, the commenter bemoans the fact that people might base their decision over whom to vote for on which candidate wears better suits.

While she makes her point via exaggeration (otherwise known as the rhetorical device of hyperbole), what she is bemoaning is the fact that people make important choices based on something other than rationality. But this should come as no surprise to people who have been listening for the last several weeks to discussion of how emotion (pathos) and personal connection (ethos) play a role in every decision involving argument or persuasion. And while pathos and ethos don’t join logos (logic) in evenly dividing every decision up three ways, I think it’s safe to say that in most (if not all) instances, at least half our decision-making is driven by forces that don’t well up from the intellect.

This is why the cover of this week’s Time Magazine is titled “The Fact Wars,” with a story expressing befuddlement over why we can’t seem to agree with whose facts (Romney’s or Obama’s) should be believed. For our pre-disposition is to believe facts coming from those we already agree with, and discount facts presented by the other side. In other words, even if you fact-checked each candidate’s statements from now until the 2016 election, most people’s opinion of who is telling the truth and who is lying would not be swayed by such logical proofs for the simple reason that most people have already rewarded “their man” with high ethos, no matter what comes out of his mouth.

If reason alone drove our choices, then all we would need to pick a President would be to use one of those many calculators out there that allow you to specify our position on the important issues of the day and then press a button to determine which candidate deserves our vote (based on how closely their positions parallel our preferences).

But what if we don’t trust the candidate these web sites tell us should be our pick to assign those issues we just checked off high priority, or to make the tough decisions needed to implement them? Or what if our historic party affiliation is such a strong driver to our decision-making that it won’t let us vote for someone from the other party, even if, on balance, we agree with him on more issues than we agree with his opponent? Or what if our decision is based on intellectual intangibles such as which candidate seems more comfortable in his own skin, which candidate is a genuine “outsider,” or even which one is a better dresser (or, more specifically, dresses properly for the occasion which is an ethos driver)?

Now we are dealing with non-intellectual matters such as trust, tribalism and subtleties such as food and dress preferences that build the connection between one real person and another. And these are matters that must be attended to (or, at least, recognized and understood) in order to control for the fact that human beings are not robots or Vulcans, and that not every (or even most) decisions are driven by logos alone.

Resource: Foundation for Critical Thinking

October 9, 2012 Blog, Resources No comments

First off, a warm welcome to any Huffington Post readers visiting us for the first time.

By a stroke of good fortune, a top notch teacher I know who has been using elements of the Critical Voter curriculum in his AP English class is also a writer for the educational pages of HuffPost, and was kind enough to pass along something I wrote to his editor.

I didn’t realize that this column came with an account to continue blogging on their site, which I hope to do (without diminishing from adding new material to this blog), although it may be worth finding a comparable right-leaning site to also blog at in order to preserve the non-partisan cred of the whole Critical Voter project.

With that out of the way, I can’t believe I’ve gotten this far without mentioning one of the longest standing resources for critical thinking education in the country: the Foundation for Critical Thinking which is celebrating 30 years of providing training and education to teachers interesting in finding new ways to integrate critical thinking into their classrooms.

Much of the Foundation’s programming is based on the work of Dr. Richard Paul who, along with Dr. Linda Elder (current President of the Foundation) writes, speaks and presents on topics central to the Foundation’s mission, much of it built around their own model for critical thinking.

That model, which suffuses the Foundation’s many publications on the topic, is constructed around a set of Elements of Thought (which includes Point of View, Purpose, Question at issue and other critical thinking components), and Intellectual Standards (including Clarity, Accuracy, Precision, and many more). They also provide a list of traits for a critical thinker that we’ve visited before in our discussion of Intellectual Humility paired with Intellectual Courage.

While my own approach to the topic is a bit more of a pragmatic blend of classical wisdom and modern cognitive science, the Foundation takes pride in a model that, while drawing from ancient and modern sources, stands alone as their own comprehensive framework.

Having read several books published by the organization (and even taken an online course from them), I would say that their material is most suitable for teachers trying find ways to introduce critical thinking into different disciplines. That said, they also publish a series of mini “Thinkers Guides” on such subjects such as Fallacies, Bias and other subjects Critical Voter listeners will find familiar.

And don’t miss out on their article database, a part of their site I lost myself on for a month a couple of years back, which contains readings on everything from Cicero and Newton to the latest thinking in instructional design.

While the field of critical thinking education suffers from a number of challenges, too many people working in it is not one of them. So kudos to the Foundation for Critical Thinking for the three decades they have put into inspiring people to think about their own thinking.

Critical Thinking and Imagination

October 8, 2012 Blog, Building Block No comments

This week’s guest’s decision to include creativity to his list of “pillars” defining critical thinking got me thinking about other elements of our mental makeup that you would not normally think of as critical thinking skills.

Emotion, for example, seems like the opposite of reason. And yet appeals to emotion (pathos) and the emotional and other non-reasoning parts of our personality that determine to whom we award ethos cannot be separated from our approach to rational decision making.

Back during the primaries, I thought a great deal about how imagination (which really falls under Kevin deLaplante’s critical thinking category of creativity) tends to be neglected as a critical thinking skill, despite the role it plays in opening up the number of options we can consider while thinking about something.

During an actual primary race, when multiple candidates are vying for supremacy, it’s easy to see how supporters of one candidate can imagine how they would behave if a candidate they did not support won the nomination. Likely there would be bitterness, followed by a rallying around the final choice. And imagination is what allows partisans to try these various emotional states on for size, as well as imagine during the final Presidential contest how “their choice” might have done had he or she been the nominee.

In a strange way, imagination allows us to think past even our most confirmed biases. For instance, an entrenched Obama or Romney supporter might refuse to consider systemic weaknesses in their candidate (even when confronted with them during political “incidents” like Romney’s 47% video or Obama’s less-than-stellar debate performance).

But if you can ask them to imagine a different scenario (such as one where Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee, or Chris Christie the Republican one), then their mind can open up to comparisons that don’t require as hard a challenge to core personal beliefs (since such scenarios are just flights of fancy).

But even if a specific imaginary scenario might be fanciful, the act of imagining it is not. For if you can imagine something, that means your mind is open enough to think about it. And during an election homestretch that usually involves closing off different avenues of thought, a little imagination might be called for in order to broaden ideas we allow in for further processing.

Critical Voter - Podcast 10 - Interview with Kevin deLaplante

October 7, 2012 Argumentation, Blog, Podcast, Resources No comments

Romney and Obama at the Presidential debate

In this week’s podcast, we take a look at the first Presidential debate and see how what we’ve learned about the audience for an argument and how an argument is organized can explain aspects of political debates people routinely criticize (such as why the candidates seem to avoid directly engaging one another).

In reviewing the candidate’s performance, we take a look at how appeals to logos, pathos and ethos work and don’t work within the constraints imposed by the debate format. We also take a look at how the candidates used strategic rhetorical devices to counter their opponent’s most difficult challenges.

As mentioned during last week’s show, we’ll be joined by experts in different areas of critical thinking over the next several weeks, starting this week with a visit from Kevin deLaplante, creator of the online educational website: Critical Thinker Academy.

Kevin provides us his view on how critical thinking can be defined in terms of six major components, as well as giving us insight into both candidate and voter behavior in the context of these six “pillars” of critical thought.

This week’s resources include:

Critical Voter - Debate - Quiz

Critical Voter - Debate - Lesson Plan

Critical Thinker Academy

Critical Voter – Podcast 10 – Debate Analysis and Kevin deLaplante Interview [ 26:04 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Resource: COMAP

October 6, 2012 Blog, Mathematics, Resources No comments

I provided a link to an organization called COMAP (the Consortium for Mathematics and its Applications) on the posting associated with this week’s podcast, but wanted to provide some more detail on this organization and other resources for using the election to teach a wide variety of mathematical concepts.

While the podcast focused on the role math and numbers play in how we evaluate and think critically about issues, an election can provide examples covering the entire gamut of student mathematical learning. Early grades studying arithmetic, for example, can count and add states that fell one way or another after the election, and popular vote tallies can introduce them to large numbers.

For more advanced students, the imperfect mathematical relationship between the popular and electoral vote (as well as the challenges inherent in tallying any large popular vote count accurately) can help introduce them to some of the mathematical ambiguities we discussed during this week’s show.

And for schools and teachers looking to re-enforce math skills through interdisciplinary exercises intersection with other subjects (such as current events and social studies), the election provides a range of issues (redistricting/gerrymandering, the fairness of the Electoral College, budget and employment figures, etc.) that can only be understood if one understands the numbers behind them.

COMAP provides resources, such as curricula, study guides and multimedia training, on virtually all of these topics for all grade levels. While the link I provided to their multimedia teaching tool Casting Your Ballots is a good place to start, typing “election” or “voting” into their search box will bring up a host of other materials that support practical math education across various grade levels.

The fact that so many election stories are ultimately about numbers makes them an excellent basis for mathematics education, especially given the emphasis “mathematics in the real world” plays in modern educational standards and the curricula that support them. And the range of issues these numbers intersect with means mathematical projects (like the many listed in this New York Times piece) offer something both for classrooms where political discussions might not be relevant (like a 4th grade math class) and where they might be central (like middle or high school civics classes).

We’ll be returning to mathematics-driven critical thinking and “proofiness” over the coming weeks as we dissect various campaign “artifacts” generated during the run-up to Election Day, starting with a look at the first Presidential debate which gets the Critical Voter treatment during next week’s podcast (which will be posted tomorrow).

« Older Entries   Recent Entries »