BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12.6% saturation with 117 hits. Analysis detected 542 faulty-reasoning hits from 927 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 15.7% and a BS Rank of 7% (27,311 of 29,097 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.90% of the article peer group.

In a public park abutting Last Chance Gulch, not far from where independent Senate candidate Seth Bodnar months ago held his first Helena meet and greet, lay a pile of campaign signs urging Democrat Alani Bankhead to drop out of the race. 
“Bow Out Bankhead,” the signs read. 
“Stand up for Montana Step Back.” 
A coagulated splash of something red was dried to a concrete block wall nearby, and weeds pushed through the alley silt. 
Earlier that morning, before being uprooted by persons unknown, the placards had protruded from a nearby flowerbed on city property. 
Few people would have seen the signs (aside from the MTFP staffer who’d noticed they’d been moved on her walk to work). 
It was Aug. 6, the Thursday before the Monday deadline for withdrawing from the race without appearing on the November ballot. 
Meanwhile, on social media, supporters of Bodnar and Bankhead traded heated posts insisting that one or the other drop out. 
Montana Freedom PAC, a pro-Bodnar committee, poured money into signs and digital ads suggesting Bankhead should leave the race. 
The PAC has spent more than $1 million on advertising benefiting Bodnar since mid-July, according to campaign records. 
Bankhead, who exited June with just $21,000 to campaign on , suggested that it was Bodnar, with $1 million on hand and the backing of several influential Democrats, who should go. 
Republicans circulated a video in which Bodnar said he would leave the race if there was another non-Republican with a campaign capable of defeating Republican Kurt Alme . 
As the countdown to drop-out ticked down to just days, the pro-Alme PAC More Jobs, Less Government notified the Federal Election Commission that it would be launching a modest $6,000 text-message campaign concerning Bankhead, an ominous reminder of the $1 million More Jobs spent on advertising supporting Bankhead during the Democratic primary election, according to federal election records. 
More Jobs spent $866,000 opposing Bodnar in July, while leaving Bankhead alone. 
Wednesday, the Teton County Democratic Central Committee issued a vote of no confidence in Bankhead, and the Service Employees International Union, usually a dependable supporter of Democratic candidates, announced its support for Bodnar. 
In three other states where independent candidates are running for Senate, underfunded Democratic candidates have dropped out. 
Sam Forstag is Montana’s only Democratic candidate for federal office deemed competitive by his national party. 
Now he might even receive some financial support from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 
The DCCC added Forstag to its 30-candidate “red to blue” list at the end of July. 
The party committee for House Democrats in February recognized Montana’s Western District as one of 44 congressional districts it considered “in play,” back when two-term incumbent Republican Ryan Zinke was expected to seek reelection. 
Zinke opted not to run again , throwing his support and his congressional staff behind well-known conservative talk show host Aaron Flint . 
The “D trip,” as the committee is known, has given Montana Democratic House candidates its “red to blue” designation in two out of the previous four elections. 
When Monica Tranel received the designation in 2024, the DCCC spent $95,000 on advertising in the race, which Tranel lost to Zinke by 7.7%. 
The previous year, Tranel lost by 3.16%, the tightest margin for a Montana U.S. 
House seat since 1994. 
Democrat Kathleen Williams received red-to-blue status in 2018 when she ran against then U.S. 
Rep. 
Greg Gianforte for Montana’s at-large U.S. 
House seat. 
The distinction came with $388,000 in advertising. 
Williams lost the race by 4.6%. 
Speaking of Forstag, the Democrat was making the rounds in Bozeman at July’s end. 
End Citizens United, a group focused on undoing the federal government’s no-limits rules for PAC spending, played host to a town hall meeting featuring Forstag and former U.S. 
Sen. 
Jon Tester. 
Ahead of the town hall, Forstag joined the Grounded Podcast with Tester and journalist Maritsa Georgiou. 
There is now a fifth candidate for U.S. 
Senate in Montana. 
Jami Woodman, who managed Democrat Reilly Neill’s primary campaign for the. 
Senate seat, registered as a write-in candidate Wednesday. 
Woodman told Capitolized on Thursday that she is disgusted by the way the election has played out, with billionaires putting down big money to influence the outcome. 
Her write-in status will ensure there’s space for voters to pen in a name they can say yes to, even if it’s not Woodman’s. 
Two Super PACs descended on the five-candidate Democratic primary this spring and spent $5 million on ad campaigns featuring candidates Alani Bankhead and Neill. 
The ads raised voter awareness of the two candidates in ways that neither campaign could have afforded to. 
Bankhead won the primary with 43.7% of the vote. 
Neill finished second with 33%. 
PAC spending for Bankhead has flatlined after the primary. 
The candidate, who exited June with just $21,000 in her campaign account, has advertised little, while her better-funded opponents have conducted more conventional campaigns. 
“I think Montanans deserve a choice and not this shitshow,” Woodman said. 
Woodman wanted voters to have a chance to write in a candidate if they disapprove of the current lineup for U.S. 
Senate. 
But the only way to get the write-in line on the ballot was to declare a write-in candidacy, she explained. 
That’s because the 2025 Legislature chose to remove the write-in line from ballots whenever a race doesn’t have a registered write-in candidate. 
The change in the law also means only a registered write-in candidate’s votes get counted. 
Sorry, Mickey Mouse. 
Woodman’s campaign website is alineontheballot.com. 
The filing fee to become a write-in candidate was $1,740. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.7%Montana Free Press: 0.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 1.9%Montana Free Press: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Tom Lutey: 1.5%Montana Free Press: 1.2%Availability Heuristic1.8%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.4%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.1%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.2%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Tom Lutey: 5.8%Montana Free Press: 2.5%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.3%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.4%Tom Lutey: 0.1%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.2%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Tom Lutey: 0.8%Montana Free Press: 1.5%Optimism Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.7%Montana Free Press: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Tom Lutey: 1.8%Montana Free Press: 2.0%Negativity Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.7%Montana Free Press: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Tom Lutey: 0.3%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error5.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.1%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.4%Montana Free Press: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.6%Montana Free Press: 0.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.3%Montana Free Press: 0.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.5%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.2%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 2.1%Montana Free Press: 1.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 1.4%Montana Free Press: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.1%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.8%Tom Lutey: 2.1%Montana Free Press: 1.2%Hasty Generalization1.8%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.2%Tom Lutey: 0.8%Montana Free Press: 1.4%Appeal to Emotion4.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.3%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.2%Tom Lutey: 1.1%Montana Free Press: 0.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.3%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.6%Montana Free Press: 0.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.9%Montana Free Press: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.1%Montana Free Press: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.1%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.1%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Tom Lutey: 0.6%Montana Free Press: 0.4%Unattributed Quote1.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.9%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.9%Tom Lutey: 0.7%Montana Free Press: 0.5%Biased Writer Voice9.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Lutey: 0.5%Montana Free Press: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.5%Tom Lutey: 0.0%Montana Free Press: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.5%

927 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers26%attributed speech687writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words24% of attributed speech20% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+95.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%More Jobs, Less Government: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-1.7 ptsWriter: 1.7%More Jobs, Less Government: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.7 ptsWriter: 0.7%More Jobs, Less Government: 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.