The author rightly acknowledges the role of inflammatory rhetoric from both political sides in exacerbating divisions, but falters by drawing questionable equivalences between Trump and Biden's culpability despite evidence suggesting Trump's rhetoric has been more directly inflammatory. While making some valid points about the need to cool partisan rancor, the argument is undermined by poisoning the well and drawing a questionable equivalence.

1. poisoning the well • The following can be considered a form of poisoning the well fallacy.

Anyone not blinded by partisanship knows that unhinged incitement to hatred and violence is coming from the left and the right alike.

This statement attempts to discredit or dismiss any opposing viewpoint right from the start by suggesting that anyone who disagrees must be "blinded by partisanship." It pre-emptively undermines potential counterarguments by implying that they stem from an irrational bias rather than being based on reason or evidence. This type of preemptive dismissal of other perspectives is characteristic of the poisoning the well fallacy.

2. questionable equivalence • The author appears to be drawing an equivalence between Trump and Biden's rhetoric that is dubious:

...unhinged incitement to hatred and violence is coming from the left and the right alike. Neither Team Red nor Team Blue has clean hands. Trump didn't start the fire, but he accelerated it. Biden, who vowed that his top priority as president would be to lower the flames, accelerated them still further

Simply stating that "neither side has clean hands" does not inherently imply an equivalence between the two sides, because it does not equate the degree or extent of that fault. However, the author does seem to draw more of an equivalence by using phrases like "left and right alike" and directly stating that both Trump and Biden "accelerated" and "fanned the flames" of division through their rhetoric.

By phrasing it that way, the author gives the impression that Trump and Biden contributed to inflaming tensions in roughly equal measures. Such an equivalence does not fully align with the evidence of Trump's rhetoric being more frequently and directly inflammatory.  

There are several reasons to suspect that Trump's rhetoric has generally been more inflammatory and divisive compared to Biden's:

1. Trump has a well-documented history of using inflammatory language, personal insults, and making statements that could incite anger/violence from his supporters - e.g. encouraging violence against protesters, refusing to condemn far-right extremists, promoting conspiracy theories about elections being "rigged", etc.
2. The January 6th Capitol riots were connected with Trump's false claims of a "stolen election" and his rhetoric encouraging supporters to take action.
3. Trump's "MAGA" movement and base has been associated with more overt displays of aggression, confrontations, and political violence compared to Biden's supporters.
4. Fact-checkers and neutral observers have generally called out Trump's rhetoric as containing more lies, extreme statements, and divisive language compared to Biden.
5. Biden has at least made efforts to tone down partisan rancor, even if imperfect, whereas Trump has consistently doubled-down on divisive us-vs-them rhetoric.

So while Biden is not blameless, the preponderance of evidence suggests Trump's pattern of inflammatory rhetoric has been more frequent and more directly linked to real-world unrest and political violence. An implied equivalence may be questionable in this case.