He begins by using two logical fallacies. First he appealed to emotion. Then he appealled to comraderie. Who would believe someone who starts that way?
Apparently this is too boring for Fox, as they have left their coverage.
OK...going to put another load of clothes in the machine.
An appeal to emotion could be classified as the "Red Herring" argument, but it may not be entirely inappropriate. The one distinction between relevant and fallacious appeals to emotion is based on the distinction between arguments which aim to motivate us to action, and those which are intended to convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are always fallacious when intended to influence our beliefs, but they are sometimes reasonable when they aim to motivate us to act. What needs to be assessed is the thrust of the argument. When we feel strong emotions, we want to do something, but we need good reasons to believe that the something we do will be effective.
I'm unclear about the appeal to commaradie. I am aware, however, of what is called the Bandwagon Fallacy. This is a Red Herring argument (appeal to popularity, consensus, of the many, or Argumentum ad Populum). That P is popular is irrelevent to the conclusion that P must therefore be true.
IF he starts off with two Red Herrings, then we're in for an entertaining speech. The point of a "red herring", aka Irrelevent Thesis argument, is to distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.