It'd be a lot cooler if you did.

On Friday February 19, 2016, The Dallas Morning News published an article entitled Chris Bell: Wake up, Texas Democrats. You're about to blow it. Bell describes an opportunity afforded to the Democratic party in Texas created by the outrageous and outspoken Republican Presidential Candidates. He states that, "so many Republicans are obviously horrified by the prospect of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz being their presidential nominee." Bell urges Texas Democrats to exploit the opportunity of fleeing Republicans by an earnest attempt to nominate any other Democrat than Senator Bernie Sanders, because "... the American people are not going to elect a Socialist president. Its as simple as that."

Chris Bell is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former member of the Houston City Council, and a former Houston mayoral candidate and Texas Governor nominee, losing by a small margin to Rick Perry in 2006. He is a former political journalist, who is obviously still freelancing. Bell is currently a practicing attorney dealing mainly in commercial and securities disputes. Given the title of his publication, Bell's target audiences are Texas Democrats that read the Dallas Morning News,  all Texas Democrats, a potentially much broader readership, and apparently himself.

Bell creates an emotional argument inciting Democratic responsibility through his word choice and use of anecdotes that paint the Republican party in a vibrant shade of racism and intolerance. Founding an argument on emotion and the ethical culpability for a potentially terrible future is a strong and solid basis. He attempts to discredit the Republican party's validity not only in the coming election but also in past held offices through a telling of one man's deplorable words and actions. Bell further establishes what the Republicans have been doing well for many years, not only in Texas but in general elections as a whole, all of which is utilized to shame the Democratic party and urge it to not blow it.

Despite his incredible emotional appeal, Bell's word choice and anecdotes are also, in my opinion, the weakness in his argument. He only passively urges his party to act,  saying things like "don't blow it" or "we need to be relevant again." Bell's argument could have been so much more impactful had he chosen active language such as, "We can fix this" or " we need to continue progression." People do not want a false sense of importance they want to make a real difference, and that would have been a stronger argument.