Trump claims Dems ‘trying to steal’ California primaries, launches probe into sluggish vote counts 45%

By Chris Bradford73%

6/4/2026, 9:08:01 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Hasty Generalization, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.3% saturation with 159 hits. Analysis detected 1,187 faulty-reasoning hits from 508 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.4% and a BS Rank of 45% (12,197 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.70% of the article peer group.

President Trump claimed the Democrats are “trying to steal” the California gubernatorial and the Los Angeles mayoral primaries  and launched a probe into the state’s sluggish vote count. 
Trump fumed Thursday over how votes in California are trickling in two days after polls closed  and the results of the elections may not be known for several weeks due to the vast amount of mail-in ballots that need to be processed. 
“The Dumocrats are at it again,” Trump raged on Truth Social. 
“They are trying to STEAL THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PRIMARY, AND THE MAYOR OF LOS ANGELES, PRIMARY, AWAY FROM TWO GREAT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. 
Here we go with the very late and massive numbers of MAIL IN BALLOTS.” 
Trump announced a probe into the slow vote counting has been launched  but it’s unclear who initiated the investigation. 
“There’s big cheating by the Dumocrats in California. 
Votes are all tied up. 
May not be in for weeks,” Trump blasted in another post. 
“Under investigation by the US Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. 
Why [is] the vote counting delay???” 
California’s vote count often stretches beyond Election Day because officials must verify signatures, process millions of vote-by-mail ballots, and conduct required audits before certifying results. 
State law gives county election officials up to 30 days after an election to complete the official canvass, count every valid ballot, and perform post-election checks to ensure accuracy. 
Only 56% of the vote has been counted statewide in California  and Steve Hilton, a former aide to ex-British Prime Minister David Cameron, leads the way. 
The top two candidates, irrespective of party, will progress and face off against each other in November's general election. 
He is pledging to lower prices on everything from gas to housing, reduce income taxes, create a loan program for first-time homebuyers, and freeze in-state tuition at public colleges. 
Meanwhile, ex-reality TV star Spencer Pratt is still waiting to find out if he will progress to November's mayoral election in Los Angeles. 
Incumbent Karen Bass will be on the ballot, having qualified for the run-off, but Pratt is currently in second place on 29.9% of the vote. 
He is ahead of progressive Democrat Nithya Raman, who is currently at 22.8%. 
Far-left candidate Raman sobbed during an impassioned speech Tuesday, but she could end up in the run-off if a large trove of progressive mail-in ballots swing towards her. 
“Don’t count Nithya Raman out yet,” Zev Yaroslavsky, director of the Los Angeles Initiative at UCLA Luskin, told the Los Angeles Times. 
“Pratt has an edge  but it’s not free from doubt at this point.” 
Trump's opposition to mail-in voting is well documented. 
Last August, he wrote, “ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING.” 
“I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS,” he said. 
Ahead of the 2020 election, Trump claimed “universal mail-in voting” would lead to the most “INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history.” 
With Post wires 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.1%Chris Bradford: 4.1%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias3.1%This article: 7.7%Chris Bradford: 2.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias7.7%This article: 21.1%Chris Bradford: 3.5%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic21.1%This article: 13.0%Chris Bradford: 1.0%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic13.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.5%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 3.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Chris Bradford: 10.7%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.7%Chris Bradford: 0.4%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Chris Bradford: 1.7%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias10.0%This article: 10.4%Chris Bradford: 1.7%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias10.4%This article: 31.3%Chris Bradford: 16.2%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias31.3%This article: 3.0%Chris Bradford: 2.2%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.9%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Chris Bradford: 1.3%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.7%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 1.3%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.3%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Chris Bradford: 1.0%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 10.0%Chris Bradford: 0.8%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect10.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Chris Bradford: 3.3%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem3.7%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.9%Chris Bradford: 4.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority7.9%This article: 3.0%Chris Bradford: 0.6%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma3.0%This article: 3.0%Chris Bradford: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope3.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.5%Chris Bradford: 4.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization16.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.1%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.3%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.7%Chris Bradford: 11.5%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion8.7%This article: 7.1%Chris Bradford: 0.8%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question7.1%This article: 8.5%Chris Bradford: 3.3%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.1%Chris Bradford: 0.9%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof5.1%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.5%Chris Bradford: 3.8%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal5.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.5%Chris Bradford: 1.6%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.2%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.1%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.5%Chris Bradford: 4.8%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote6.5%This article: 5.7%Chris Bradford: 3.4%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.7%This article: 6.5%Chris Bradford: 11.6%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice6.5%This article: 7.5%Chris Bradford: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination7.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.5%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 3.5%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bradford: 0.8%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

508 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers43%attributed speech292writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 43 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 11 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 23 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 8 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 11 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageZev Yaroslavsky • 22 words • 0.0% coverageZev Yaroslavsky • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 15 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
180 attributed words83% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Indoctrination+21.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 21.1%21.1%Unattributed Quote+5.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Trump: 10.6%10.6%Quote-first Misdirection-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-1.4 ptsWriter: 7.5%Trump: 6.1%6.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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