Fallacies In the Daily News

We constantly see over-the-top arguments on the news from both sides of the political aisle. We saw this during the Trump years and now we see it with Biden.  I think in studying logical fallacies it's important to call out these fallacies, so that issues in the news can be properly examined (elsewhere) without the distraction of rhetorical tricks.  And my point (on this site) isn't to take a side in a political debate but to evaluate whether logical fallacies are being utilized.

Biden's calling of the Georgia voting law "Jim Crow 2" and asking whether "you want to be on the side of Dr. Martin Luther King or George Wallace... Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis" is a textbook example.   Instead of remaining focused on what provisions he disliked, or how the new Georgia law was worse that that of other states, he used this rhetoric to inflame his audience, stifle debate, and paint his opponents as despicable racists.   

I would say the Jim Crow 2 comment was a classic straw man argument and the George Wallace / Jefferson Davis name calling was an abusive ad hominem addressed to those who disagreed.  Any other fallacies I'm missing?    (request:  please any responses/comments limited to discussion of fallacies; I'm not trying to spur political debate here).

He's asking questions and presenting political rhetoric that stresses the importance of supporting the Voting Rights Act. He's based that evidence in American history by citing the Jim Crow efforts in the South to restrict the Black vote. 

There's no deception. No Claim. No fallacy. 

Generally speaking, political rhetoric is in a different category than argumentation (unless it takes place in a debate). Recall that the error in reasoning is not the part of the person who knows what they are doing uses manipulative rhetoric to win the hearts and minds of people; the error in reasoning is on the parts of all the people who fall for it. By calling the Georgia voting law "Jim Crow 2," Biden (and others) is making an analogy. Where is it on the continuum of strength? weak analogy or strong one? Keeping out of the politics, each side would have to make their case as to why this is a strong or weak analogy, and the audience would need to decide. Unfortunately, with such a politically-charged issue, the left will claim a strong analogy and the right will claim a weak one.

As for being associated with Lincoln or Davis, I don't think there is a fallacy here. It could be factually incorrect that Lincoln or Davis would agree or disagree with the Georgia voting law—this is speculation. But assuming Lincoln would be against it and Davis would be for it, it would be accurate to say one would be "with" on of those two on the issue. This is associate rhetoric for the most part, like telling someone if they like animals they are on the side of Hitler (because Hitler liked animals).