The vast majority, if not all, of Blow's editorials are political in nature, and nearly all written for the sole purpose of bashing Trump (no surprise there). This makes them quite hard to get through, and after reading two of them, quite annoying too. Blow seems to find great joy in degrading Trump, so I thought why not use some of his own statements to describe him as well? First, Blow describes Trump as "a man relying more on emotion than government intelligence or personal intelligence" in his editorial "Trump, Driven by Fear". While government has nothing to do with Blow's writing style, the articles I have read of his are essentially rants about how much he does not like the President. His emotion is the only basis upon which he writes. In "Dislike Comey, Despise Trump," an editorial in which he not only hates on Trump, but also former F.B.I. Director James Comey, Blow writes, "the depth of my content differs between the two, but there is contempt for both". IN "Trump, Driven by Fear," the words "he is afraid" are the main driving point of Blow's argument, as he says the words EIGHT TIMES, with few others in between. I mean yes, the man is an opinion journalist, but it seems like he should back up his opinions with some sort of evidence, which brings me to my next point: Blow's lack of appeals to credibility and logic. In his editorial "Signs of Political Armageddon," Blow writes, "there were always things that Trump bragged about, true, but even there he often did so with no proof." Then in "Trump, Driven by Fear," this is my personal favorite, he writes, "Nothing need be true. Nothing need be effective policy. Nothing need be rooted in data. The only requirement is that he says with conviction..." I couldn't have said it better myself, in regards to Blow, of course. In fact, the very article this quote is from uses just one piece of evidence, a quote from Ann Coulter that reads, "His former supporters, whom he has disappointed, will feel betrayed and vindictive." In "Signs of a Political Armageddon," he again uses just one piece of evidence, or maybe one could see it as two pieces. They are two quotes, back to back in the same paragraph, put in place to describe Trump's two attempts at firing Mueller; even then he fails to provide a reference as to where he retrieved the two quotes. Blow's best use of evidence appears in his editorial "Dislike Comey, Despise Trump," in which he uses four pieces of evidence in total: two quotes and two statistics. My point is, he lacks sufficient evidence to support his overwhelmingly obvious opinions. Other points on Blow's style are his degrading tone and varying syntax. Certain comments Blow throws into his article such as, "both men with raging egos", "flashes of horrendous judgement", "ridiculous boondoggle", "gaping insecurity", and "the hideous Ann Coulter" express a degrading tone towards the people he writes about which is carried throughout his articles. This constant, uncalled for putting down of others is tiring and again lacks reason. Despite this, Blow does demonstrate accelerated diction and a skilled variation in sentence structure throughout his pieces. He uses words like demagogy, quandary, quasi-coherent, and isolationist within his sentences that range from mere fragments: "Russian interference.", to compound-complex-who even knows what kind of sentence this is. In the end Blow has a very unique style I would say. I personally do not appreciate his writing philosophy of 'all opinion no evidence', but maybe that's just not my cup of tea. He is no doubt successful in getting his position across to his audience, so I'll give him props for that.