BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Halo Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.7% saturation with 162 hits. Analysis detected 933 faulty-reasoning hits from 746 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.8% and a BS Rank of 66% (7,557 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.50% of the article peer group.

South Carolina Sen. 
Darline Graham is making major headway with the Republican establishment in the primary race to succeed her late brother Lindsey Graham. 
Within hours of announcing her bid to pursue a full six-year Senate term, Graham locked in the support of three party leaders: Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Conference Chair Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Policy Chair Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va. 
Capito made the decision in an instant. 
Informed by reporters that Graham was running, Capito replied: “Sure! 
I’ve been impressed with her and I think she would make a great, great senator.” 
The quick alignment will be a boon to the novice politician, who is simultaneously planning Lindsey Graham’s funeral, serving in his seat via appointment, and launching a snap campaign. 
President Donald Trump was the first in her corner, encouraging Darline Graham to get in the race last week. 
She confirmed on Monday that she would enter the Aug. 11 primary, which already pits her against two sitting House Republicans. 
An Aug. 25 runoff would follow if no candidate hits 50% in the first round of voting. 
Despite South Carolina’s deep-red hue, its surprising new primary race matters because the nominee will face a well-funded Democrat, Annie Andrews, in November. 
Facing a sprawling battleground map, Republicans can’t afford for Andrews to gain momentum. 
Rep. 
Russell Fry, R-S.C., entered the Senate race on Monday, joining Rep. 
Ralph Norman, R.-S.C. 
Norman has already won the endorsements of two of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate: Sens. 
Rick Scott of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah. 
Norman shrugged off Darline Graham’s campaign on Monday and said he’s staying in the race: “I’ve got a conservative record ever since I’ve been in Congress and in the state house. 
No one else can say that.” 
Mark Lynch, who ran unsuccessfully against Lindsey Graham, is also preparing to run against his sister. 
On top of that, Darline Graham faces a review of her eligibility to run for the seat by a state county GOP chairman. 
And she hasn’t officially won over the top campaign hands in the Senate, although she might. 
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he would remain neutral for now but showered her with praise, calling her a “strong candidate” and said that “she obviously carries on Lindsey’s legacy, and I think she’s a very accomplished person in her own right.” 
The National Republican Senatorial Committee, chaired by South Carolina Sen. 
Tim Scott, also hasn’t made an announcement. 
Typically the NRSC and Thune have moved together this cycle, often  but not always  in tandem with Trump. 
In addition, the Senate Leadership Fund, a deep-pocketed super PAC aligned with Thune, has not stated its position on the South Carolina race. 
Some Republicans just met Darline Graham last week. 
Even as they praised her, they indicated they didn’t know enough about the race to back anyone yet. 
Sen. 
Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., a close Trump ally, said he hadn’t made any decision. 
And Sen. 
James Lankford, R-Okla., the No. 
5 GOP leader, told Semafor that, at this point, “I don’t plan to get involved in the race. 
“The people of South Carolina are going to resolve this, but we literally just met last week. 
Incredibly gutsy to be able to step in days after her brother’s death, not only planning his funeral,” Lankford added. 
“But I just don’t know her, and I don’t know the other candidates.” 
Sen. 
Rand Paul, R-Ky., who frequently endorses in primaries, said he hasn’t made a decision on what to do. 
Rep. 
Nancy Mace, R-S.C., announced on Monday that she won’t run. 
Room for Disagreement 
“I don’t think the folks in her state care what I think about it,” said Sen. 
Mike Rounds, R-S.D. 
Most Republicans were under the impression Darline Graham would be an interim appointment when Gov. 
Henry McMaster selected her a week ago. 
Now, incredibly, she’s looking like the safe option for the GOP. 
The party can’t afford more drama this year while battling serious challenges to its majority. 
Graham is untested on the campaign trail and has no real political record, but in the end  thanks in part to Trump’s endorsement  I’d be shocked if most Senate Republicans don’t back her. 
We reported on Friday that she was thinking about getting in the race. 
Mace said that she will still “sh*tpost from time to time , because someone has to call out the dumbasses.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.7%Burgess Everett: 6.0%Semafor: 4.7%Confirmation Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.8%Semafor: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Burgess Everett: 1.9%Semafor: 5.5%Availability Heuristic8.0%This article: 3.1%Burgess Everett: 0.3%Semafor: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic3.1%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 2.2%Semafor: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.6%Semafor: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Burgess Everett: 8.3%Semafor: 15.9%Framing Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.1%Semafor: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.6%Semafor: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.2%Semafor: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.0%Burgess Everett: 1.2%Semafor: 4.9%Optimism Bias6.0%This article: 3.2%Burgess Everett: 1.7%Semafor: 4.0%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 10.5%Burgess Everett: 5.3%Semafor: 12.8%Negativity Bias10.5%This article: 4.2%Burgess Everett: 3.8%Semafor: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.1%Semafor: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 3.0%Semafor: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Burgess Everett: 3.4%Semafor: 2.1%Halo Effect12.9%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.4%Semafor: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 3.3%Semafor: 3.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Burgess Everett: 1.3%Semafor: 0.7%Primacy Effect10.1%This article: 1.7%Burgess Everett: 0.2%Semafor: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.1%Semafor: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.9%Semafor: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.7%Burgess Everett: 5.7%Semafor: 7.0%Appeal to Authority14.7%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.1%Semafor: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.3%Semafor: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.8%Burgess Everett: 4.7%Semafor: 8.3%Hasty Generalization2.8%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.7%Burgess Everett: 1.4%Semafor: 1.1%Bandwagon4.7%This article: 9.1%Burgess Everett: 9.9%Semafor: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion9.1%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.6%Semafor: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 3.3%Semafor: 4.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.8%Semafor: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.3%Semafor: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.1%Semafor: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.9%Semafor: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.4%Semafor: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.8%Semafor: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.2%Semafor: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.7%Burgess Everett: 2.3%Semafor: 5.1%Unattributed Quote1.7%This article: 1.3%Burgess Everett: 2.4%Semafor: 3.9%Quote-first Misdirection1.3%This article: 21.7%Burgess Everett: 8.9%Semafor: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice21.7%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.3%Semafor: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.7%Semafor: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 1.5%Semafor: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Burgess Everett: 0.0%Semafor: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

746 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers34%attributed speech493writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageShelley Moore Capito • 10 words • 100.0% coverageShelley Moore Capito • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRalph Norman • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRalph Norman • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Thune • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageEric Schmitt • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJames Lankford • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJames Lankford • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJames Lankford • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJames Lankford • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRand Paul • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Mace • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMike Rounds • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMike Rounds • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageNancy Mace • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Thune

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words17% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+75.9 ptsWriter: 24.1%John Thune: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%John Thune: 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.