Did more Democrats run for Wisconsin governor in 2018 than in 2026? 11%

By Hope Karnopp6% Milwaukee Journal Sentinel9%

7/16/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 390 faulty-reasoning hits from 258 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28% and a BS Rank of 11% (19,500 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.10% of the article peer group.

If the 2026 Democratic primary for Wisconsin governor seems large, 2018 certainly had it beat. 
That year, 10 names were on the Democratic primary ballot, plus an 11th write-in candidate, according to results of the 2018 partisan primary kept by the Wisconsin Elections Commission. 
Two Republican candidates and two additional write-ins appeared on the 2018 GOP primary ballot. 
The Aug. 11, 2026, primary ballot includes seven Democrats and two Republicans. 
In both years, a few candidates dropped out of the race, but their names remained on the ballot due to approval deadlines . 
As of July 14, that includes Democrats Missy Highes and David Crowley . 
So, only five of the Democrats on the Aug. 11 ballot are still campaigning. 
In 2018, two higher-profile candidates had also dropped out by late June: Andy Gronik and Dana Wachs, though both appeared on the ballot. 
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one . 
Wisconsin Elections Commission: 2018 Fall Partisan Primary Results: Ward by Ward  Governor 
MyVote Wisconsin: What’s On My Ballot 
Wisconsin Elections Commission: Commission Meeting June 9, 2026  Ballot Access 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Democrat Missy Hughes drops out of Wisconsin governor race 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Milwaukee County Exec David Crowley withdraws from governor's race 
Did more Democrats run for Wisconsin governor in 2018 than in 2026? 
is a post from Wisconsin Watch , a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. 
Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.2%Hope Karnopp: 1.9%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Confirmation Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 3.1%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 2.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.9%Hope Karnopp: 1.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Hindsight Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Hope Karnopp: 3.4%Wisconsin Watch: 3.8%Framing Effect5.8%This article: 3.5%Hope Karnopp: 1.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Loss Aversion3.5%This article: 8.9%Hope Karnopp: 1.5%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Hope Karnopp: 5.5%Wisconsin Watch: 5.3%Negativity Bias15.1%This article: 4.7%Hope Karnopp: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Hope Karnopp: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Halo Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.8%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Recency Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.8%Hope Karnopp: 7.7%Wisconsin Watch: 3.1%Appeal to Authority19.8%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 2.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.8%Hope Karnopp: 1.5%Wisconsin Watch: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion5.8%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 1.7%Wisconsin Watch: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.4%Hope Karnopp: 3.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.4%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.2%Hope Karnopp: 1.9%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Unattributed Quote11.2%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.2%Hope Karnopp: 1.9%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%Biased Writer Voice11.2%This article: 6.2%Hope Karnopp: 1.6%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Indoctrination6.2%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hope Karnopp: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Hope Karnopp: 3.7%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.1%

258 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers38%attributed speech159writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWisconsin Elections Commission • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWisconsin Elections Commission • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMyVote Wisconsin • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWisconsin Elections Commission • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMilwaukee Journal Sentinel • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMilwaukee Journal Sentinel • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWisconsin Watch • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Wisconsin Watch

100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words16% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.2 ptsWriter: 18.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -13.2 ptsWriter: 13.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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