Hannity Trashes Fox News Poll On James Talarico: 'I Don't Believe It For Two Seconds' ⁠81%

By John Amato⁠95%

8/5/2026, 6:00:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 46% saturation with 198 hits. Analysis detected 893 faulty-reasoning hits from 430 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (5,258 of 27,714 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.00% of the article peer group.

On Tuesday's primary night, Sean Hannity vehemently denied the legitimacy of the Fox News poll results showing James Talarico has a three-point lead over the morally bankrupt Ken Paxton. 
Former New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, who is a frequent Fox News guest, debated Hannity over progressive values and the excellent record of James Talarico, which caused Hannity to regurgitate truthful data and attack his own network's poll results. 
Because of the disaster that is the Trump administration, the only talking points Republicans can come up with are to smear the entire Democratic Party as Communists/Socialists that want to destroy the country. 
It's weak sauce. 
HANNITY: But they put it in writing, and this is now 250 members around the country that are part of your Democratic Party that hold these hardcore beliefs that you are spinning into other issues. 
DeBLASIO: In Midwestern states, these folks are winning because they're talking about the economic issues people care about. 
And they're not beholden to the special interests. 
They're not beholden to the special interests. 
They're not beholden to the big donors and the billionaires. 
That's why they're winning. 
And that's why they're going to win in the general election, too. 
Hannity pitched a fit and then switched to the Texas Senate race. 
HANNITY: So you think six-gendered Talarico, who believes God is non-binary, that believes biological men should play women's sports, and believes that biological men should have access to abortion, he's going to win. 
DeBLASIO: Did you read your own poll today for Talarico's beating Paxton? 
HANNITY: OK, I don't believe it for two seconds. 
Not for two seconds. 
Hannity brought up the Graham Platner nomination as a diss, even though he dropped out of the race, but forgot to mention how Rep. 
Max Miller is still running after the much, much worse allegations of wife and child abuse reverberate throughout Washington, DC. 
Not to be undone, De Blasio destroyed Hannity's arguments and laid down a truth bomb. 
"Talarico is reaching out across the spectrum in Texas, politically in Texas. 
He's a seminarian: De Blasio said. 
"He's a guy who talks about faith all the time, but also talks about economic populism. 
"Paxton, for God's sakes, is a moral train wreck." 
Fox News polling is considered a very credible operation, unlike Trump's favorite polls that he never mentions. 
I'm sure those running the Decision Desk are not happy with Hannity's smears. 
Keep sticking your head in the sand, Sean. 
It looks good on you. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%John Amato: 8.6%Crooks and Liars: 7.4%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 1.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 1.7%Crooks and Liars: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.6%Crooks and Liars: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%John Amato: 2.8%Crooks and Liars: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 2.4%Crooks and Liars: 7.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 1.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 1.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%John Amato: 3.4%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Optimism Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 3.7%Crooks and Liars: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.6%John Amato: 19.4%Crooks and Liars: 17.5%Negativity Bias22.6%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 3.7%Crooks and Liars: 3.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 3.5%Crooks and Liars: 2.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%John Amato: 6.5%Crooks and Liars: 2.3%In-Group Bias14.7%This article: 7.7%John Amato: 2.0%Crooks and Liars: 2.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.7%This article: 3.7%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.6%Halo Effect3.7%This article: 2.1%John Amato: 7.2%Crooks and Liars: 2.3%Horn Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%John Amato: 20.7%Crooks and Liars: 10.8%Ad Hominem16.5%This article: 15.3%John Amato: 1.0%Crooks and Liars: 2.4%Straw Man15.3%This article: 4.0%John Amato: 2.8%Crooks and Liars: 3.0%Appeal to Authority4.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 3.6%Crooks and Liars: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 1.1%Crooks and Liars: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.3%John Amato: 19.2%Crooks and Liars: 10.3%Hasty Generalization25.3%This article: 5.6%John Amato: 0.6%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Red Herring5.6%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.3%Crooks and Liars: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 5.5%Crooks and Liars: 7.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 1.6%Crooks and Liars: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 3.2%Crooks and Liars: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 4.7%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 1.2%Tu Quoque4.7%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 1.1%Crooks and Liars: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.6%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 2.8%Crooks and Liars: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.1%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Personal Incredulity2.1%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.9%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.6%Crooks and Liars: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 7.4%Crooks and Liars: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.4%John Amato: 0.8%Crooks and Liars: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection1.4%This article: 46.0%John Amato: 30.8%Crooks and Liars: 23.7%Biased Writer Voice46.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 4.1%Crooks and Liars: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 24.0%John Amato: 18.2%Crooks and Liars: 9.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias24.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.4%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Amato: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

430 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers44%attributed speech241writer words
Selected voice

Sean Hannity

100%flagged-word coverage
81 attributed words43% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Biased Writer Voice-82.2 ptsWriter: 82.2%Sean Hannity: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-42.7 ptsWriter: 42.7%Sean Hannity: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Sean Hannity: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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