Jill Biden’s Newest ‘Bestseller’ Vanishes From Bestseller List In Just Two Weeks 27%

By William Buckley0%

6/29/2026, 9:23:27 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.1% saturation with 152 hits. Analysis detected 509 faulty-reasoning hits from 421 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.1% and a BS Rank of 27% (16,167 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.90% of the article peer group.

Former first lady Jill Biden’s new memoir, which debuted on the New York Times bestseller list, has now fallen completely from the rankings. 
“View from the East Wing: A Memoir,” released two weeks ago, topped the New York Times bestseller list upon release. 
However, just two weeks later, the former First Lady’s memoir is nowhere to be found. 
(RELATED: I Read Jill Biden’s Book So You Don’t Have To) 
“It debuted at #1 on the NYT due to astroturfed bulk orders (not my opinion it got the infamous  indicating this) and is now *completely* off the list 2 weeks later,” Democrat-aligned Statistician Nate Silver observed in a post on X. 
“Very rare for a ‘#1’ to fall that fast. 
Virtually no one except political reporters are actually reading it.” 
The reference to the “†” symbol means that the best seller status was influenced by “institutional, special interest, group or bulk purchases,” rather than the standard “completed transactions by vendors and individual end users.” 
“In View from the East Wing, Jill shares her White House experiences for the first time, in her own words,” the memoir’s description says. 
“She reflects on the Biden presidency and its impact on her family. 
She brings you behind the scenes, from Camp David to Air Force One, from grading papers in the Rose Garden to witnessing the abrupt end of her husband’s bid for reelection. 
This is the story of a woman dedicated to her roles as a wife, mother, grandmother, teacher—and First Lady of the United States.” 
Former Biden-Harris White House officials told the Daily Caller in early June that they were unsure of the timing of the memoir. 
“I would just say that no discussion about 2024 is helpful. 
It is either a neutral or a negative, but it does not move the needle in a positive direction.” 
The former first lady faced tough questions during the press tour for her book, including admitting she was worried her husband was having a stroke during a presidential debate. 
The book has also faced some backlash from her own party: “Many Democrats have accused her of rewriting history, arguing the book is unhelpful and, at times, tone-deaf,” Time Magazine reported. 
The New York Times Bestseller rankings are determined by “unit sales reported on a confidential basis by vendors,” simply suggesting Biden’s book is no longer selling. 
Vice President J.D. 
Vance’s new book “Communion” currently tops the New York Times bestseller list for non-fiction. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.2%William Buckley: 5.4%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%William Buckley: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%William Buckley: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias2.4%This article: 2.9%William Buckley: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 36.1%William Buckley: 17.8%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias36.1%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%William Buckley: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.3%William Buckley: 5.8%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority17.3%This article: 4.5%William Buckley: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma4.5%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%William Buckley: 8.9%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.2%William Buckley: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.2%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 10.0%William Buckley: 3.3%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection10.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 8.8%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%William Buckley: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%William Buckley: 6.3%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.9%This article: 2.6%William Buckley: 8.0%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.6%

421 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker14%attributed speech360writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageNate Silver • 42 words • 100.0% coverageNate Silver • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNate Silver • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nate Silver

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words100% of attributed speech50% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Quote-first Misdirection+68.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nate Silver: 68.9%68.9%Politically Right Leaning -3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Nate Silver: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Nate Silver: 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.