Logical Fallacies Blog: Angle v. Reid

The campaigns between extremist Sharron Angle and current U.S. Senator Harry Reid marks one of the most controversial debates in American politics. As a mother, grandmother, and middle-class citizen living in Reno, Nevada, Angle represented immoderate viewpoints on health care, immigration, and Harry Reid himself during her campaigns before the election for U.S. Senate. In the beginning of this interview, Angle demonstrates the ad hominem logical fallacy by claiming personal characteristics of Harry Reid as a person rather than against his strategies and arguments. She mentions that he is a wealthy man living in Washington D.C., who has done nothing but exacerbate the deteriorating conditions of Nevada. She frankly states his personal weaknesses, such as his inability to “man up” and take action upon his words on reformation in Nevada. No statistical data or factual evidence are presented to support her claim and judgment of Harry Reid, and to a viewer, her unsupported and intransigent claims only weaken her standing in the campaign. 

This is an advertisement approved by Sharron Angle that attacks Harry Reid

Also in the interview, Angle failed to answer the question about choosing between denouncing her controversial advertisement as false or claiming that the evidence presented in the advertisement is true. Instead, Angle talks about Reid’s past voting trends on tax breaks for illegal immigrants although Reid had never been in favor of this option. Angle’s response symbolizes the incorrect statement logical fallacy because she made irrelevant points about Reid’s voting for social security in attempt to claim that the contents of her advertisement are absolutely true. In this sense, Angle moved onto other unrelated issues and “did not answer the question,” according to Reid’s immediately following counterargument. Even following Reid’s rebuttal, Angle brought up the issue about securing the borders as something that Harry Reid failed to establish in his years in office. This still does not provide any kind of answer to the question presented. Specifically, Angle made the hasty generalization logical fallacy that “the question has everything to do with social security” when the question was actually about the validity of her advertisement contents. Ultimately, Angle was not able to make a clear and effective argument to justify the harsh comments of her advertisements.

The link to the interview can be found here.