In a setback for Trump, Indiana lawmakers defeat redistricting plan92%

By Ben Thorp0% Larry Kaplow0%

12/11/2025, 1:48:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 28.7% saturation with 146 hits. Analysis detected 909 faulty-reasoning hits from 509 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.5% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,803 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.80% of the article peer group.

The Indiana Senate has voted 31 to 19 against the congressional redistricting called for by President Trump in his attempt to help Republicans win the 2026 midterm elections. 
The defeat Thursday in the Indiana Senate, where 40 of the 50 members are Republicans, is the first time Trump's redistricting campaign has been voted down by members of his own party. 
Republicans in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina have answered his call for an unusual mid-decade redistricting scramble. 
"My opposition to mid-cycle gerrymandering is not in contrast to my conservative principles, my opposition is driven by them," Republican state Sen. Spencer Deery said during the debate. 
"As long as I have breath, I will use my voice to resist a federal government that attempts to bully, direct and control this state or any state. 
Giving the federal government more power is not conservative." 
The move was also opposed by Indiana Democrats, who currently hold just two of the state's nine U.S. House seats and said it would dilute the voting power of minority communities. 
Usually, states redistrict early in the decade after the decennial census count. 
The vote came after weeks of political turmoil and some threats 
Trump has urged Republican-led states to conduct an unusual, mid-decade redistricting effort aimed at helping Republicans hold onto their majority in the U.S. House in next year's midterm elections. 
California Democrats responded with their own redistricting effort but so far red states have gained a few-seat advantage over blue states. 
The Indiana vote came after weeks of turmoil and with opposition from some Republicans, who had said their constituents did not want to alter the current districts. 
Outside of the chamber ahead of the vote, protesters could be heard chanting "vote no" and "Hoosiers fight fair." 
Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, a Republican, has supported Trump's call and both of them have threatened to support primary challenges against senators who don't support redistricting. 
Amid rising tensions over redistricting in the state, Braun and other Republican lawmakers said they and their families have been the subject of anonymous threats. 
As the Senate debated the bill to redistrict, Vice President Vance wrote on X that the Republican Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray had told the administration he wouldn't fight redistricting but was encouraging votes against it. 
"That level of dishonesty cannot be rewarded," Vance wrote. 
Bray voted no. 
Republicans who backed redistricting said it was for political gain to help keep the U.S. House in Republican control and noted that some Democratic-led states have redrawn their districts to favor Democrats in the past. 
"Only a handful of districts throughout the United States will determine who controls Congress. 
We may or may not do our part today to keep our nation in the hands of Republicans and do the right thing for our state," Republican state Sen. Mike Young told the chamber. 
"Whether we choose to play the game or not play the game we will determine the fate of our state and country." 
Ben Thorp is a reporter for WFYI. 
Larry Kaplow is with NPR. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Ben Thorp: 12.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 6.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 28.7%Ben Thorp: 25.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect28.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 4.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 5.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 15.3%Ben Thorp: 40.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias15.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 7.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 26.7%Ben Thorp: 37.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias26.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 3.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 9.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Ben Thorp: 6.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 12.2%Ben Thorp: 11.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias12.2%This article: 2.4%Ben Thorp: 5.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.0%Ben Thorp: 5.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem9.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 2.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 5.3%Ben Thorp: 5.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority5.3%This article: 23.6%Ben Thorp: 35.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion23.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 3.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 12.2%Ben Thorp: 9.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon12.2%This article: 6.7%Ben Thorp: 6.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 6.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.8%Ben Thorp: 1.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman1.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 1.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 4.9%Ben Thorp: 7.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring4.9%This article: 4.3%Ben Thorp: 4.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope4.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Thorp: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.5%Ben Thorp: 5.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man5.5%This article: 11.0%Ben Thorp: 8.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque11.0%

509 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.