Democrats Keep Suffering For Their Destructive MeToo Standard 76%

By Eddie Scarry92%

7/8/2026, 2:15:38 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ad Hominem, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 59.2% saturation with 313 hits. Analysis detected 1,712 faulty-reasoning hits from 529 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.1% and a BS Rank of 76% (5,243 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.00% of the article peer group.

Image Credit Graham Platner/Forbes/YouTube 
Democrats have once again been forced to confront their least favorite dilemma: Either live by their own standards or admit they never took them seriously. 
Democrat U.S. 
Senate candidate Graham Platner of Maine appears likely to abandon his campaign after leaders of the party have withdrawn their support and called for him to step aside for a new candidate. 
Multiple women have accused him of sexual misconduct, including rape, though Platner has denied criminal wrongdoing. 
Sarah Longwell  a woman who pretended to be a Republican right up until Republicans started doing some things their voters demanded  thought she made a searing point this week, observing that while Democrat leaders just dumped their nominee in Maine over such allegations, Republicans continue defending President Trump from similar accusations. 
“Graham Platner was accused of rape and every Democrat tossed him overboard,” she wrote on social media. 
“Donald Trump was accused of rape multiple times and sexual assault and harassment many more times. 
 Republicans nominated him a second time.” 
(Trump was nominated for president three times, but who’s counting?) 
Longwell is suggesting that Democrats are morally superior, to an electoral fault, because the party doesn’t abide by alleged rapists. 
How honorable. 
But like most things out of her mouth with regard to politics, it’s bull. 
Democrats keep trying to claim the moral high ground on this issue, and they keep failing because Trump and his supporters have long since rejected the play as a scam . 
It is. 
Democrats had hoped that the #MeToo movement was their magic spell to bring down anyone at their convenience. 
“Believe all women” was the incantation. 
But starting with Trump and then Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the public rejected it as a pseudoscience. 
More importantly, as anti-American. 
An allegation isn’t a conviction, as much as McCarthy-like Democrats might want it to be (so long as they get to be the accusers). 
Americans have the right to defend themselves and are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. 
But that’s the standard Democrats created. 
Why wouldn’t they be expected to live by it? 
That their political opponents don’t shouldn’t be a reason for them to abandon it, assuming they were ever sincere in supporting it. 
It’s an inconvenient position they’ve placed themselves in. 
That’s too bad, but no one else is required to adopt it. 
Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of " Traitors: The Democrat Party’s Collapse into Anti-American Filth ." 
Visit on Twitter @eScarry 
Shop The #FDRLSTSWAG Store 
Democrats Want To Eliminate The Wealthy So They Can Control Everyone Else 
Democrats Have Alienated Normal Men. 
Now They’re Stuck With Graham Platners 
Congress Went On Vacation Rather Than Pass The SAVE Act, Extend Planned Parenthood Defunding 
Trillionaires Like Elon Musk Aren’t A Problem For America, Envious Leftists Are 
Here’s What You Need To Know About The Charlie Kirk Assassination Trial, Day 3 
Trump Admin Launches Probe Into H-1B Visa Fraudsters Stealing Jobs From Americans 
Judge Who Obstructed ICE Avoids Prison Because She’s A ‘Good Person’ Who Was ‘Upset’ By Enforcing Laws 
Let’s Count The Ways Democrats Are Lying About ICE 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 8.0%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Eddie Scarry: 6.2%The Federalist: 3.5%Availability Heuristic10.4%This article: 3.0%Eddie Scarry: 4.1%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic3.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.4%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.3%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Eddie Scarry: 7.0%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect9.6%This article: 2.3%Eddie Scarry: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion2.3%This article: 1.7%Eddie Scarry: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.1%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.8%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 59.2%Eddie Scarry: 25.0%The Federalist: 12.4%Negativity Bias59.2%This article: 5.9%Eddie Scarry: 1.2%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias5.9%This article: 17.4%Eddie Scarry: 4.8%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error17.4%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 14.9%Eddie Scarry: 5.9%The Federalist: 3.9%In-Group Bias14.9%This article: 4.7%Eddie Scarry: 10.4%The Federalist: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 2.2%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: 1.9%Eddie Scarry: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.3%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 1.7%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 21.2%Eddie Scarry: 19.1%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem21.2%This article: 3.8%Eddie Scarry: 8.1%The Federalist: 2.7%Straw Man3.8%This article: 4.2%Eddie Scarry: 1.6%The Federalist: 5.0%Appeal to Authority4.2%This article: 10.8%Eddie Scarry: 3.0%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma10.8%This article: 2.3%Eddie Scarry: 2.9%The Federalist: 2.3%Slippery Slope2.3%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.2%Eddie Scarry: 21.2%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization17.2%This article: 1.9%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.5%Red Herring1.9%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.4%Eddie Scarry: 14.4%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion16.4%This article: 3.2%Eddie Scarry: 3.1%The Federalist: 3.1%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 2.6%Eddie Scarry: 1.7%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.6%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: 3.2%Eddie Scarry: 7.2%The Federalist: 2.8%Anecdotal3.2%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.0%Eddie Scarry: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.0%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: 6.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading6.0%This article: 5.9%Eddie Scarry: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy5.9%This article: 3.4%Eddie Scarry: 1.1%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote3.4%This article: 5.1%Eddie Scarry: 1.8%The Federalist: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 43.7%Eddie Scarry: 43.8%The Federalist: 19.7%Biased Writer Voice43.7%This article: 9.3%Eddie Scarry: 5.4%The Federalist: 5.2%Indoctrination9.3%This article: 0.0%Eddie Scarry: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%Eddie Scarry: 28.8%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias16.3%This article: 1.5%Eddie Scarry: 1.3%The Federalist: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.5%

529 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker18%attributed speech436writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSarah Longwell • 53 words • 100.0% coverageSarah Longwell • 17 words • 100.0% coverageSarah Longwell • 16 words • 100.0% coverageSarah Longwell • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sarah Longwell

100%flagged-word coverage
93 attributed words100% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice+16.2 ptsWriter: 40.8%Sarah Longwell: 57.0%57.0%Politically Right Leaning -19.7 ptsWriter: 19.7%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+16.0 ptsWriter: 2.3%Sarah Longwell: 18.3%18.3%Unattributed Quote+16.7 ptsWriter: 0.5%Sarah Longwell: 17.2%17.2%Indoctrination-11.2 ptsWriter: 11.2%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Sarah Longwell: 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.