Desperate Democrats Take Eye Off Prize As Party Infighting Spreads Across US ⁠97%

By Mary Rooke⁠0%

7/10/2026, 7:59:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 71.1% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 515 faulty-reasoning hits from 97 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 94.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠97% (711 of 20,472 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.50% of the article peer group.

Democrats looked poised to take back control of the U.S. 
House in November, but party chaos might derail their chances. 
Republicans have failed to deliver strong wins on important voter mandates Americans demanded during the 2024 presidential election. 
Voters gave Republicans control of the Senate, House, and the White House, and in return they wanted a friendlier economy and mass deportations, among other issues. 
Instead, they are facing high prices, another war in the Middle East, and allegations that deportation numbers aren’t being reported accurately. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.6%Mary Rooke: 4.3%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias18.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 4.5%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 26.8%Mary Rooke: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic26.8%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 2.4%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 71.1%Mary Rooke: 20.2%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect71.1%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.3%Mary Rooke: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias10.3%This article: 41.2%Mary Rooke: 2.4%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias41.2%This article: 62.9%Mary Rooke: 18.0%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias62.9%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 21.6%Mary Rooke: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias21.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 5.8%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 2.3%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 50.5%Mary Rooke: 9.7%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization50.5%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 2.4%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.4%Mary Rooke: 9.5%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion12.4%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 4.3%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 21.6%Mary Rooke: 3.8%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 40.2%Mary Rooke: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof40.2%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 26.8%Mary Rooke: 4.3%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal26.8%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 26.8%Mary Rooke: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)26.8%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 2.7%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 49.5%Mary Rooke: 20.8%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice49.5%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 4.8%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 50.5%Mary Rooke: 2.2%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias50.5%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 6.8%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Rooke: 2.5%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

97 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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