Donald Trump Has a New—and Stupid and Likely Ineffective—Favorite Word 32%

By Michael Tomasky64%

7/6/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 36 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 14.4% saturation with 150 hits. Analysis detected 1,348 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,043 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.9% and a BS Rank of 32% (14,977 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.40% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump has a new favorite 
word. 
He’s been calling 
Democrats “communists” ever since a few democratic socialists won some House primaries. 
“These are hardcore, godless communists,” he 
told 
the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference last month. 
“This is the most 
serious threat to our country since its existence.” GOP House Speaker Mike 
Johnson, the ever-loyal Shih Tzu 
on his emperor’s lap, has picked it up as well. 
The midterms, he 
said 
recently, will pit “common sense versus communism.” 
Well. 
The first question here is 
whether Americans even know what communism is (or was) anymore. 
There are five 
countries in the world that still call themselves communist, but one of those 
is China, which at least in economic terms barely counts (the others are Cuba, 
North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos). 
More than that, it’s getting to be close to 40 
years now since the Eastern bloc collapsed. 
A person would have to be at least 
45 years old to have any memory of all that. 
Right now, 57.5 percent of 
Americans are 
under 
that age. 
As you’d expect, young people who 
weren’t alive to see how cruel, corrupt, and lethargic the Soviet Union was either 
don’t know much about communism or don’t see it as such a bad thing. 
A 
poll 
released last week 
by the libertarian Cato Institute had some interesting 
numbers. 
Among all Americans, capitalism was viewed favorably by just 52 
percent (that’s the number that would be worrying me if I were a Friedmanesque 
free-marketeer; it’s insanely low!). 
Socialism was viewed favorably by 37 
percent. 
And communism got a thumbs up from 21 percent. 
That’s overall. 
Among respondents 
under 30 years old, 38 percent said they had a favorable view of communism. 
But 
in the Queens of Donald Trump’s youth, calling someone a commie packed a real 
wallop, so he clearly thinks it still can. 
The word doesn’t actually apply to 
any of these people he’s trying to condemn, of course. 
As I 
noted 
last week 
, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Zohran Mamdani, and even Bernie 
Sanders himself aren’t really socialists, in the proper historical sense of the 
word. 
I don’t hear any of them calling for the state to seize the means of 
production, which is the basic historical position of socialism. 
They’re social 
democrats. 
The only one among the crop who has 
apparently 
said 
a few nice things 
about actual communism is Darializa Avila Chevalier, the 
32-year-old who won the Democratic primary in an upper Manhattan district. 
Her 
leftism appears to be much more of the campus-radical variety than Mamdani’s 
sewer socialism; we’ll see in two years whether the voters of her district are 
good with that, or whether she has indeed “grown considerably” since she wrote 
those social media posts. 
Meanwhile, on the Fourth of July, a 
bunch of white supremacists from something called the Patriot Front felt at 
home enough in Trump’s Washington to 
march 
in front of the Capitol 
wearing masks, sunglasses, and ballcaps with the 
group’s logo boldly displayed, and carrying an array of flags including the 
Confederate flag. 
(These ghouls undoubtedly went unmasked during the pandemic 
to protest supposedly totalitarian public health policies, and now they’re 
dressing like totalitarians in an attempt to terrorize regular people.)   
And that night, of course, America, or that 
portion of it that was interested, listened to another windy address from a 
president who once invited avowed white supremacist Nick Fuentes to dine with 
him at his house and told the extremist Proud Boys to stand by. 
That same president participated 
back in May in 
Rededicate 
250 
, a Christian nationalist prayer gathering that, whatever its organizers 
said, was clearly intended to pound home the idea that the United States is 
supposed to be a Christian nation, which of course it is not. 
Democratic 
Representative Jared Huffman of California accurately told PBS that the event 
“would have the founders rolling in their graves.”  
This doesn’t begin to 
scratch the surface of right-wing radicalism in this country, most of which 
Trump tacitly or sometimes explicitly endorses with rhetoric that’s clearly 
fascist. 
And beyond Trump himself, many rank-and-file Republicans are shocking 
extremists; remember 
Nazis 
mingling openly 
at the 2024 CPAC conference, or 
those 
leaked text messages 
by young Republicans last fall (“I love Hitler”)? 
It’s crystal clear in a factual 
sense which party is more radical today. 
The Democrats could elect two dozen 
socialists and they 
still 
wouldn’t be anywhere near as far left 
as the GOP has gone far right. 
Oh, 
and by the way: For all the media attention socialist candidates get when they 
win, it’s still a fact that on balance, mainstream and even centrist Democrats 
are winning more primaries this year. 
The Cook Political Report 
revealed 
over the weekend 
that in the 22 GOP-controlled congressional districts 
where Democrats have held primaries so far, 14 have been won by candidates with 
mainstream and centrist backing. 
Only four have been won by candidates backed 
by the Progressive Caucus. 
So in swing districts, Democratic voters are still 
mainly choosing the nominees they calculate have a better shot at winning 
such a district. 
But we’re going to be hearing all 
about communists for the next four months. 
Trump is obviously trying to make 
the midterms a referendum on the Democratic Party and not on him.  
History tells 
us this rarely works. 
It didn’t work for him in 2018, when he was 
around 
40 percent 
in the polls and tried to make the dreaded caravan headed toward 
the Rio Grande from Central America the central issue. 
And the economy was 
comparatively good then, unlike now, when a soaring stock market is benefitting 
the rich while most Americans continue to struggle with Trump-juiced inflation. 
So Democrats, who tend to freak out 
about things, should not freak out about this. 
Sure, communism is a scary word, 
at least to people of a certain age and ideological bent. 
But I’d imagine very few people who 
aren’t dyed in the wool MAGA believe the Democratic Party is a bunch of 
communists. 
I hope that instead of lamely denying it and moving on to gas 
prices, they have the guts to fight fire with fire and point out to voters who 
the real extremists in this country are. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.8%Michael Tomasky: 3.6%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias7.8%This article: 1.6%Michael Tomasky: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias1.6%This article: 4.1%Michael Tomasky: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 5.1%Michael Tomasky: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Michael Tomasky: 2.8%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias2.6%This article: 3.0%Michael Tomasky: 4.6%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.2%Michael Tomasky: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Michael Tomasky: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 5.8%Michael Tomasky: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias5.8%This article: 12.4%Michael Tomasky: 8.9%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias12.4%This article: 1.3%Michael Tomasky: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias1.3%This article: 2.2%Michael Tomasky: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error2.2%This article: 2.4%Michael Tomasky: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.4%This article: 2.1%Michael Tomasky: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias2.1%This article: 1.2%Michael Tomasky: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Michael Tomasky: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 0.9%Michael Tomasky: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.9%This article: 1.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.0%This article: 4.6%Michael Tomasky: 7.7%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem4.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.2%Michael Tomasky: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority1.2%This article: 0.9%Michael Tomasky: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma0.9%This article: 1.0%Michael Tomasky: 3.6%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope1.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.9%Michael Tomasky: 7.3%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization9.9%This article: 0.1%Michael Tomasky: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.5%Michael Tomasky: 7.1%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion10.5%This article: 6.8%Michael Tomasky: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question6.8%This article: 4.0%Michael Tomasky: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.2%Michael Tomasky: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof1.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.6%Michael Tomasky: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 1.9%Michael Tomasky: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.9%This article: 2.6%Michael Tomasky: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Michael Tomasky: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote2.1%This article: 1.6%Michael Tomasky: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection1.6%This article: 14.4%Michael Tomasky: 13.0%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice14.4%This article: 2.5%Michael Tomasky: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination2.5%This article: 1.2%Michael Tomasky: 7.6%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Tomasky: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1043 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers3.3%attributed speech1,009writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageFaith & Freedom Coalition • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageCato Institute • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJared Huffman • 1 words • 100.0% coveragePBS • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCook Political Report • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jared Huffman

100%flagged-word coverage
1 attributed words2.9% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+98.8 ptsWriter: 1.2%Jared Huffman: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.9 ptsWriter: 14.9%Jared Huffman: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Jared Huffman: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.7 ptsWriter: 1.7%Jared Huffman: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.1 ptsWriter: 1.1%Jared Huffman: 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.