What does this have to do with rhetoric?  The answer is that in this new universe, everything has changed.  Language has changed.  The way we persuade is changed.  What is more effective, the ten page essay or a website?  You need a visuals, sounds, exaggeration, humor to make a point. 

What would we do in the new paradigm?  We will reform the old rhetoric with new, more eye-grabbing titles.

Plato's Gorgias is replaced with:  

"GORGIAS VS SOCRATES: THE SMACKDOWN!" 

Cicero's De Oratore replaced with:

RHETORIC FOR DUMMIES

Peter Ramus' Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintillian replaced with:

"PERSUADE! SUCCEED! WIN!"

Hugh Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres replaced with:

"HOW TO SUCCEED IN ARGUMENTS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING"

Sarah Grimke's Letters on the Equality of the Sexes and the Conditions of Women replaced with:

"I AM A CHRISTIAN WOMAN: AND EQUAL TO MEN!"

Jacques Derrida's Signature Event Context replaced with:

"THERE IS NO THERE THERE: DUH!"

We are now in the niche world and each title must be marketed to its target audience. Naturally Lynch will be marketed to the Christian bookstores, who (hopefully) will raise a furor and we can sell to the larger audience off the controversy. The "How To" books have a natural large clientele of people wishing to improve themselves.  We must get a complementary blurb from Dr. Phil and Pastor Rick Warren, and possibly, if we dare dream, from Oprah herself!  Bestseller, baby!  We are additionally fortunate in that many of our Rhetoricians are long dead--no copyright to worry about.  Many speak in a foreign language--we can provide our own loose translations.  Better yet, why read? The download version will have our own loosely translated dialog, read in a dramatic fashion.

SOCRATES: You are a scumball, Gorgias!

GORGIAS: Get away from me, FOOL..

(The sound of punches thrown, grappling, being pulled apart.) 

As I mentioned, a loose translation.  This will be marketed to people who like both wrestling and rhetoric.  (They exist.)   

You may argue, that is not factual.  That is not an accurate translation.  You are not being truthful.  BUZZER.  Sorry, you are using the old model. Get with the program.  Today's model is Truthiness, not Truth.  We are using the updated version, how Socrates and Gorgias would argue their rhetoric today. 

Are you still arguing with me?  YOU MUST BE AN EVIL, TERRIBLE PERSON.  To be truthi, ad hominem attack is the best argument. When Frank Zappa was debating Kandi Stroud, or George Carlin was talking about the Moral Majority, what was their best argument?  It was suggestion that Kandi was a sexual deviant, and that the Moral Majority had ugly people in it.  Those were personal attacks.  Were they fair arguments?  No.  Were they winning arguments?  Yes.  Did anyone notice they were being used?  Not that I heard mentioned, must be OK.   So demonizing someone who disagrees with you must be the best way to win your argument. 

It is best to attack your opponent.  Citizens don't like it, they disapprove: it also is the only thing they remember about an advertisement.  Even better is the secret, "my candidate had absolutely nothing to do with this slander" telephone call.  "So-and-so's adopted race child is the candidate's real child, he had an extramarital affair.  He is an immoral miscegenist, pass it on."  They must be untraceable, inaccurate, and at the last minute, so the opponent has no chance to respond.  The October surprise.  That's what wins races.  Misdirection is also good: "His sister is a well-known thespian, and his brother is open extrovert." 

Money is also good. Money is very good.  The one with more money will generally win the race, unless he is a total moron.