BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 65.2% saturation with 351 hits. Analysis detected 2,220 faulty-reasoning hits from 538 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,804 of 20,453 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.20% of the article peer group.

Arizona has been very strange, but we have some good news from the primary elections there this week: It may not stay strange after November. 
Arizona is the state that gave us Barry Goldwater, but it’s also the state that gave us John McCain and Jeff Flake. 
That split personality has persisted, and a divided GOP has been a gift to the left. 
A conservative state with solid Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature has handed over its executive branch to an appalling gang of dismal far-left ladyboss Democrats. 
Factionalism in the Arizona Republican Party may have peaked with Kari Lake’s failed 2022 run for governor, as she famously told McCain Republicans to “get the hell out.” 
As the conservative Arizona journalist Jon Gabriel noted at the time, they did. 
The division has had real costs. 
Far-left dimwit lunatic Gov. 
Katie Hobbs has vetoed more than 500 bills from the Republican-led legislature, pushing hard to the left in a state that doesn’t lean that way, while Attorney General Kris Mayes has focused like a laser on her sleazy work as a political commissar. 
Democrats have not slept on their control of a conservative state, as (for example) an early executive order from Hobbs guaranteed public funding for sexual mutilation surgery. 
On Tuesday, Trump-backed conservatives swept the Arizona Republican primaries, putting up numbers that suggest a trend toward at least a modest amount of tactical conservative unity. 
Trump-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Andy Biggs, currently a member of the House Freedom Caucus, won more than 70 percent of the Republican vote. 
In Maricopa County, which is becoming East California as Gavin Newsom's failing state bleeds taxpayers, Trump-endorsed Jay Feely won the GOP nomination for a must-hold Republican congressional seat. 
And in the race to replace Mayes as attorney general, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen will almost certainly be the Republican nominee, with an unusually solid voting record in the legislature. 
The conservative Arizona Republican Assembly rates Petersen’s voting record as the most consistently conservative in the state Senate. 
The reactions tell the story. 
The Prickly Pear, an influential Arizona conservative news site, concludes on the basis of the numbers for Biggs that “Republican voters were not subtle. 
A blowout of that size is a verdict on who owns the party’s base in a true battleground, and the answer was not close.” 
That site now warns Republicans to keep an eye on the race for Arizona's 1st Congressional District: “The House runs through Scottsdale. 
In Congressional District 1, Trump-backed Jay Feely won the GOP primary for a seat analysts say neither party can win the House without.” 
In the other very telling reaction, legacy media are howling a warning that far-right MAGA conspiracy theorists are surging toward power. 
As The Hill warns in a panicked story about the Arizona results, “election denialism holds strong.” 
(“Arizona Republicans have a long history of nominating election deniers or those who have questioned past election results,” the outlet adds.) 
And here’s NPR's laughter-inducing headline this morning: 
On the Wednesday morning after the Tuesday primaries, Arizona conservatives are pleased and the national political media are alarmed. 
It would be hard to miss the meaning of those signals. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.9%Chris Bray: 6.7%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 1.7%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Chris Bray: 3.1%The Federalist: 3.4%Availability Heuristic9.7%This article: 12.6%Chris Bray: 1.2%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic12.6%This article: 13.4%Chris Bray: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias13.4%This article: 5.8%Chris Bray: 1.1%The Federalist: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias5.8%This article: 3.5%Chris Bray: 13.9%The Federalist: 10.2%Framing Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.0%Chris Bray: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias11.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 2.3%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 45.2%Chris Bray: 19.0%The Federalist: 12.2%Negativity Bias45.2%This article: 3.0%Chris Bray: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias3.0%This article: 8.0%Chris Bray: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error8.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Chris Bray: 2.7%The Federalist: 4.0%In-Group Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 1.2%The Federalist: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 1.6%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.9%Chris Bray: 1.2%The Federalist: 1.2%Recency Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 24.3%Chris Bray: 6.9%The Federalist: 5.2%Ad Hominem24.3%This article: 3.9%Chris Bray: 4.3%The Federalist: 2.8%Straw Man3.9%This article: 9.7%Chris Bray: 2.8%The Federalist: 5.2%Appeal to Authority9.7%This article: 8.7%Chris Bray: 3.2%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma8.7%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 1.8%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.5%Chris Bray: 12.7%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization27.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.0%Chris Bray: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.6%Bandwagon10.0%This article: 17.3%Chris Bray: 9.2%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion17.3%This article: 2.0%Chris Bray: 1.1%The Federalist: 3.2%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 9.1%Chris Bray: 1.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.1%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.1%Chris Bray: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division4.1%This article: 4.5%Chris Bray: 3.5%The Federalist: 2.7%Anecdotal4.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%Chris Bray: 3.3%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.4%Chris Bray: 5.6%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote8.4%This article: 4.1%Chris Bray: 3.9%The Federalist: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection4.1%This article: 65.2%Chris Bray: 30.3%The Federalist: 19.9%Biased Writer Voice65.2%This article: 20.3%Chris Bray: 2.7%The Federalist: 5.4%Indoctrination20.3%This article: 3.0%Chris Bray: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.0%This article: 37.5%Chris Bray: 12.9%The Federalist: 15.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias37.5%This article: 0.0%Chris Bray: 0.4%The Federalist: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

538 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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