Democrats Have Alienated Normal Men. Now They’re Stuck With Graham Platners 91%

By Eddie Scarry93%

7/7/2026, 7:24:38 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Anecdotal, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 86% saturation with 585 hits. Analysis detected 3,255 faulty-reasoning hits from 680 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.2% and a BS Rank of 91% (2,079 of 21,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.20% of the article peer group.

So long as the Democrat Party continues hating normal men, pushing them away with their gruesome policy positions, there will only be more Graham Platners. 
Because Democrats refuse to acknowledge the inherently repulsive, anti-American essence at the core of their views and positions, they continue desperately trying to convince themselves that the real problem isn't their policies. 
Instead, they argue, it's the bigoted voters who prefer electing straight (white) men over "black and brown bodies." 
That's why they keep saddling themselves with freaks like U.S. 
Senate candidate Graham Platner. 
All the normal men who were in the Democrat Party are just about gone. 
The dynamic has been playing out for several years now. 
Democrats lost the presidency to Donald Trump in 2016 and ever since have maintained that the best way for them to win competitive elections is not to adopt more appealing positions, but to conceal their perverse drag queen identity beneath a corny, manifestly fraudulent aesthetic. 
We'll call it "straight guy coded." 
Their latest attempt just blew up in Maine, where Graham Platner is facing yet another accusation of sexual misconduct, as reported Monday in Politico. 
“I remember him grabbing my pelvis and being really forceful of me,” said Platner's accuser, 41-year-old Jenny Racicot, regarding an incident she alleges took place in 2021. 
“I remember the specific moment where I thought to myself, like, ‘This is no longer my choice.’” 
She said her twilight public confession, coming only after Maine's Democrat primary contest, was because she struggled with a "moral conflict" between "supporting his politics, but not supporting him as a person." 
Platner has denied Racicot's claim and previous accusations of abusive conduct. 
Incidentally, he has pleaded ignorance of the meaning of a tattoo on his chest that appeared to be a Nazi symbol before he had it altered late last year. 
If that weren't enough, Platner has also proudly told the story about the time he took off nearly all of his clothes, exposing his puffy pink gut at his brother's wedding reception, where he obnoxiously sang along to a Miley Cyrus song, an act that Platner generously described as his "wedding gift." 
This is who Democrats are dealing with. 
It's not just in Maine. 
It's everywhere. 
They nominated Joe Biden in 2020 on the "straight guy coded" strategy, gambling that voters would accept the former vice president as normal and stable enough. 
He turned out to be just short of dead, and his presidency was an indisputable catastrophe. 
They've nominated "straight guy coded" James Talarico in Texas for U.S. 
Senate, a person who describes his still elusive girlfriend as his "rock" and who is more preoccupied with the sexuality of children than Jeffrey Epstein. 
Talarico has also bragged about being a Christian who hates his own professed religion and declared it a great accomplishment that his "church" has had atheists as members. 
Democrats hate normal men, so this is who they have left to recruit  little goblins and fiends itching to crush the American middle class and wipe out Christianity, but while wearing a straight guy skin suit. 
It hasn't been entirely unsuccessful. 
They did manage to elect U.S. 
Sens. 
Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Jon Ossoff of Georgia, though neither of them drew nearly the national scrutiny as other straight guy coded Democrats. 
Should they run for president  as the dying media are certainly wanting them to  they will. 
Gallego will be seen in his ridiculously tight jeans and Ossoff is an aging twink, yet to be fully vetted. 
But for every Gallego or Ossoff there's an Andrew Gillum, who, it turns out, was just busted (again) for alleged illegal drug possession. 
Recall that Gillum nearly became Florida's Democrat governor in 2018 before he lost to Ron DeSantis  and before he was found passed out naked on the floor of a hotel room stacked with drugs, and where Gillum had apparently been partying with a male prostitute. 
Or as Gillum's wife might refer to that period: the good old days. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.1%Eddie Scarry: 8.0%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias18.1%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Eddie Scarry: 6.2%The Federalist: 3.4%Availability Heuristic18.8%This article: 5.9%Eddie Scarry: 4.1%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.9%This article: 6.6%Eddie Scarry: 1.4%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias6.6%This article: 0.3%Eddie Scarry: 1.3%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.3%This article: 2.5%Eddie Scarry: 7.0%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.6%Eddie Scarry: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.7%Eddie Scarry: 0.1%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.7%This article: 3.2%Eddie Scarry: 0.8%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 66.2%Eddie Scarry: 25.0%The Federalist: 12.2%Negativity Bias66.2%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.2%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Eddie Scarry: 4.8%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error8.4%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Eddie Scarry: 5.9%The Federalist: 4.0%In-Group Bias2.6%This article: 5.4%Eddie Scarry: 10.4%The Federalist: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 3.3%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.2%Recency Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 35.1%Eddie Scarry: 19.1%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem35.1%This article: 8.1%Eddie Scarry: 8.1%The Federalist: 2.8%Straw Man8.1%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.6%The Federalist: 5.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.5%Eddie Scarry: 3.0%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 9.1%Eddie Scarry: 2.9%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope9.1%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.1%Eddie Scarry: 21.2%The Federalist: 11.3%Hasty Generalization22.1%This article: 4.7%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.4%Red Herring4.7%This article: 2.6%Eddie Scarry: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.6%Bandwagon2.6%This article: 50.0%Eddie Scarry: 14.4%The Federalist: 8.1%Appeal to Emotion50.0%This article: 4.7%Eddie Scarry: 3.1%The Federalist: 3.2%Begging the Question4.7%This article: 11.8%Eddie Scarry: 1.7%The Federalist: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.8%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 2.0%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 35.4%Eddie Scarry: 7.2%The Federalist: 2.7%Anecdotal35.4%This article: 2.1%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman2.1%This article: 4.6%Eddie Scarry: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.6%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.7%Eddie Scarry: 1.1%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote8.7%This article: 6.5%Eddie Scarry: 1.8%The Federalist: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 86.0%Eddie Scarry: 43.8%The Federalist: 19.9%Biased Writer Voice86.0%This article: 10.9%Eddie Scarry: 5.4%The Federalist: 5.3%Indoctrination10.9%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Eddie Scarry: 28.8%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias18.8%This article: 3.5%Eddie Scarry: 1.3%The Federalist: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.5%

680 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers12%attributed speech600writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageGraham Platner • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageJenny Racicot • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJenny Racicot • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJenny Racicot • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jenny Racicot

100%flagged-word coverage
76 attributed words95% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%47.5%95.0%Biased Writer Voice-50.1 ptsWriter: 92.2%Jenny Racicot: 42.1%42.1%Quote-first Misdirection+57.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jenny Racicot: 57.9%57.9%Politically Right Leaning -21.3 ptsWriter: 21.3%Jenny Racicot: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.3 ptsWriter: 12.3%Jenny Racicot: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Jenny Racicot: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Jenny Racicot: 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.