The Left Just Keeps Winning. It’s Time for Democrats to Bend the Knee. 94%

By Katherine Krueger0%

6/25/2026, 12:53:15 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Politically Left Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 71% saturation with 504 hits. Analysis detected 3,673 faulty-reasoning hits from 710 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 89.2% and a BS Rank of 94% (1,438 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.40% of the article peer group.

When Hakeem Jeffries, who’s positioning himself to be House speaker if the Democrats retake the chamber come November, was shown on the screen at an election party full of socialists in Brooklyn Tuesday night, the crowd chanted, “You’re next! 
You’re next!” 
Before polls closed on the night that would see the Jeffries-endorsed candidates fall and Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s candidates win, the New York congressman told reporters that he and the mayor have “agreed to strongly disagree” and that “a handful of primaries that go in one direction or the other in a given state or two aren’t going to reshape who we are as House Democrats.” 
He may be right in the short term; it will take many nights like Tuesday to remake the face of the party. 
But what’s underway is nothing less than an existential threat to the version of the party that has made Jeffries its standard-bearer. 
If middle-of-the-road Democrats fail to reckon with this escalating reality and shift to the left, they risk making themselves irrelevant forever  and ceding even more ground to the Republicans as they cut off their nose to spite their face. 
In Maine, Graham Platner delivered a crushing defeat in the Democratic Senate primary to Gov. 
Janet Mills, whom Chuck Schumer reportedly “aggressively recruited” to enter the race to begin with (and as we’ve covered, her campaign never really got off the ground or found anything approximating grassroots support). 
Platner’s victory  amid a spate of scandals over his online posts and alleged mistreatment of women  is now exposing the lie of one of his party’s favorite refrains for disciplining the left: that for all our differences, we must “vote blue no matter who.” 
These candidates stand for actual policy, not just mealy-mouthed “messaging.” 
In the Senate race in Michigan, polling is strong for Abdul El-Sayed, a former public health official pushing Medicare for All and centering Israel’s genocide of Palestinians while competing with a both-sides-ing progressive and an outright AIPAC Democrat. 
Philadelphia nominated Chris Rabb, an outspoken anti-genocide democratic socialist, over the party’s political machine-mined candidate in Philadelphia, and Dr. 
Adam Hamawy, a 9/11 first responder who saved Sen. 
Tammy Duckworth’s life as an Army medic but was also tarred with Islamophobic attacks that tried to frame him as a supporter of terrorism, won a crowded 12-way primary in New Jersey earlier this month. 
(The latter three have all appeared on the trail with Hasan Piker, the popular streamer who’s become a potent political force for left-wing Democrats, much to the dismay of centrists who condemn him as “controversial” and worse). 
If you care to pay attention, there’s an obvious through line with all these candidates: They all stand for actual policy, not just mealy-mouthed “messaging,” and they have been unequivocal in their criticism of Israel. 
Mainstream Democrats have long lacked that moral clarity as America’s ally in the Middle East committed a genocide in Gaza and dragged the U.S. into an instantly unpopular war with Iran, and they’re being handed the losses they so richly deserve by candidates running to the left. 
For now, they’ve responded by making overtures of progressive change without meaningful or widespread policy shifts. 
The idea that the party should respond to the will of its voters has become so foreign to the Democrats that Jeffries’s political operation has sneeringly referred to even the notion of a party challenge from the left as coming from “Team Gentrification.” 
On no issue is the division between voters and the national party as stark as it is when it comes to Israel. 
A party that wants to defeat the rise of the far right in this country should look to bring the left in, especially as it continues to win at the ballot box. 
But instead, establishment Democrats have continued to bash and attempt to marginalize the growing left consensus. 
“If you hate the Democratic Party, then please don’t run for our nomination,” former Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison wrote on social media on Tuesday. 
But you can only condescend and disregard your party’s supporters for so long until they look for another vision of the future  one that doesn’t include you. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%Katherine Krueger: 8.2%The Intercept: 5.3%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Katherine Krueger: 4.5%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic13.9%This article: 9.4%Katherine Krueger: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 9.2%Katherine Krueger: 2.0%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Katherine Krueger: 7.4%The Intercept: 9.2%Framing Effect16.6%This article: 5.6%Katherine Krueger: 1.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Loss Aversion5.6%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Katherine Krueger: 2.1%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias3.1%This article: 13.7%Katherine Krueger: 4.2%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias13.7%This article: 57.3%Katherine Krueger: 21.0%The Intercept: 12.3%Negativity Bias57.3%This article: 6.6%Katherine Krueger: 0.8%The Intercept: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias6.6%This article: 6.6%Katherine Krueger: 3.1%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.6%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Katherine Krueger: 7.9%The Intercept: 1.7%In-Group Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 5.8%The Intercept: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Katherine Krueger: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.7%Katherine Krueger: 1.4%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias0.7%This article: 5.5%Katherine Krueger: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 22.8%Katherine Krueger: 11.3%The Intercept: 2.4%Ad Hominem22.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 4.2%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.6%Katherine Krueger: 2.2%The Intercept: 3.4%Appeal to Authority4.6%This article: 37.5%Katherine Krueger: 5.3%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma37.5%This article: 14.9%Katherine Krueger: 5.4%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope14.9%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.5%Katherine Krueger: 14.4%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization12.5%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Katherine Krueger: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 38.5%Katherine Krueger: 10.8%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion38.5%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 1.6%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.6%Katherine Krueger: 4.0%The Intercept: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.6%This article: 3.7%Katherine Krueger: 0.9%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque3.7%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.8%The Intercept: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.6%Katherine Krueger: 1.0%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal7.6%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 23.5%Katherine Krueger: 5.9%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote23.5%This article: 9.4%Katherine Krueger: 2.3%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection9.4%This article: 66.8%Katherine Krueger: 48.0%The Intercept: 10.5%Biased Writer Voice66.8%This article: 20.1%Katherine Krueger: 10.3%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination20.1%This article: 71.0%Katherine Krueger: 24.8%The Intercept: 6.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias71.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.9%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Krueger: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

710 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.7%attributed speech684writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 65 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageJaime Harrison • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jaime Harrison

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+94.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Jaime Harrison: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+79.4 ptsWriter: 20.6%Jaime Harrison: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B-73.7 ptsWriter: 73.7%Jaime Harrison: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-69.3 ptsWriter: 69.3%Jaime Harrison: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-20.9 ptsWriter: 20.9%Jaime Harrison: 0.0%0.0%

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.