NOTUS0%

Mallory McMorrow Drops Out of Michigan's Senate Primary Race 59%

By Stephen Neukam0%

7/5/2026, 6:16:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 17.3% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 567 faulty-reasoning hits from 336 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.4% and a BS Rank of 59% (9,024 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.80% of the article peer group.

Michigan Democrat Mallory McMorrow suspended her campaign for Senate on Sunday, clearing the way for a head-on clash between progressives and the party’s establishment in next month’s primary. 
McMorrow, a state senator who rose to prominence in part because of her social media presence and critique of Democratic leaders, announced Sunday that she’s “suspending this campaign, but I am not leaving the fight.” 
“Ten years ago, I started this work heartbroken, typing five words into a search bar,” McMorrow said in a social media post. 
“And I learned the only thing that has ever really changed this country: ordinary people who love something enough to fight for it.” 
McMorrow was locked in a three-way race between Rep. 
Haley Stevens (D-Michigan) and former public health official Abdul El-Sayed for the party’s nomination in the must-win Michigan Senate race this fall. 
Recent polling of the race has shown El-Sayed and Stevens have consolidated support, while McMorrow has faded. 
A host of national Democratic figures publicly endorsed McMorrow in the primary, including Sens. 
Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut). 
But El-Sayed is a progressive with the support of lefty vanguard Sen. 
Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), while Stevens had locked down the party’s moderate base, including Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. 
It’s one of the races where Schumer’s role in primaries, which has led to frustration among many Democrats, is being heavily tested. 
In a statement, El-Sayed said McMorrow “showed what it looks like to fight back against a politics that rigs the system against too many of us.” 
“While we have policy disagreements, I never questioned whether Senator McMorrow would fight for a better America for my daughters and hers,” El-Sayed said. 
Stevens was also quick to respond to McMorrow’s news, adding in a statement, “I look forward to working with her in the future to build a stronger Michigan for everyone.” 
In her announcement, McMorrow did not endorse any of the remaining candidates. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 1.6%NOTUS: 2.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.5%Stephen Neukam: 1.6%NOTUS: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.5%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Stephen Neukam: 1.7%NOTUS: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias6.8%This article: 16.1%Stephen Neukam: 12.9%NOTUS: 6.6%Framing Effect16.1%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.9%Stephen Neukam: 2.2%NOTUS: 3.3%Optimism Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 3.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.0%Stephen Neukam: 5.1%NOTUS: 10.5%Negativity Bias17.0%This article: 7.1%Stephen Neukam: 1.8%NOTUS: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias7.1%This article: 10.4%Stephen Neukam: 2.6%NOTUS: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error10.4%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Stephen Neukam: 3.2%NOTUS: 2.1%In-Group Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Stephen Neukam: 1.4%NOTUS: 1.3%Halo Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Stephen Neukam: 2.5%NOTUS: 1.2%Recency Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.8%Stephen Neukam: 2.5%NOTUS: 4.7%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 8.3%Stephen Neukam: 2.1%NOTUS: 1.0%False Dilemma8.3%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.6%Stephen Neukam: 8.0%NOTUS: 4.9%Hasty Generalization11.6%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.2%Stephen Neukam: 1.0%NOTUS: 0.9%Bandwagon4.2%This article: 17.3%Stephen Neukam: 17.1%NOTUS: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion17.3%This article: 7.7%Stephen Neukam: 1.9%NOTUS: 0.7%Begging the Question7.7%This article: 6.5%Stephen Neukam: 1.6%NOTUS: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.5%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.8%Stephen Neukam: 1.7%NOTUS: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.8%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.6%Stephen Neukam: 2.7%NOTUS: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice3.6%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 4.6%NOTUS: 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.9%NOTUS: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephen Neukam: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

336 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers37%attributed speech211writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageMallory McMorrow • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMallory McMorrow • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAbdul El-Sayed • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAbdul El-Sayed • 24 words • 0.0% coverageHaley Stevens • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Abdul El-Sayed

100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words40% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.7 ptsWriter: 5.7%Abdul El-Sayed: 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.