In Illinois 90%

By Monica Showalter93%

7/10/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 58.9% saturation with 282 hits. Analysis detected 2,006 faulty-reasoning hits from 479 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 83.6% and a BS Rank of 90% (2,212 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.90% of the article peer group.

Just how bad is one-state rule in the bluest states? 
Bad enough that not only are people fleeing for friendlier regions -- some three million of whom have done that in the last decade -- some are trying to take their counties with them. 
According to NBC News: 
Nearly one-third of Illinois' counties have voted to potentially explore creating a new state separate from Cook County, and seven more counties could join them this November. 
According to the latest reports from Illinois Separation, a group aiming to get separation referendums onto ballots in the November election, those counties' boards have approved the non-binding ballot measure for voters to consider later this year. 
In all, 33 counties have already voted on similar referendums between 2020 and 2024, a nd all 33 have approved the measures by wide margins. 
The map shows that the southern part of the state, and parts in the west, have had it with blue-state rule, with its massive taxes, its fiscal mismanagement, its failure to deliver anything of value, its bizarre social policies, its gun control, and its endorsement of lawlessness, whether in soft-on-crime acts or incentives to illegal immigration. 
What would a rural county in a state like Illinois have in common with the oppressive shambles of Chicago's Cook County, which calls the shots on everything, when in reality, the state itself outside of Chicago is far more like balanced states such as Missouri and Iowa and Indiana? 
Imagine having to live in a state like Illinois ruled by one monstrous blue oligarchy and watching the other states in the region growing and prospering while your similar area is left behind without anyone advocating on behalf of your legitimate interests? 
It roughly parallels the secession movements in western Oregon and northern California, which is also drawing growing support for forming new states more responsive to their needs instead of the winner-takes-all system seen now with blue state capitals surrounded by red-voting rural and suburban areas with no voice in their governments. 
The NBC article cautions to add that it's nearly impossible for any secession movement to gain ground based on constitutional restraints, which are true enough, and not just Democrat rigging at the last minute, such as we see in California on many matters. 
Blue state governors, such as Illinois's J.B. 
Pritzker, know this, and govern with indifference to the rural areas even as the Democrat party swings to the extremist left. 
Pritzker even gaslights in the NBC item about governing everyone equally, which is quite the gaslight. 
That's what's fueling these separatist movements, the utter failure of one-party blue rule that completely excludes rural areas. 
As the lunacy continues to burn on the left and the state coffers go empty and the taxes go up, count on these separatist movements to strengthen and multiply. 
Image: Wikimedia Commons, via Picryl // public domain 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.9%Monica Showalter: 20.5%American Thinker: 10.6%Confirmation Bias21.9%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Monica Showalter: 6.3%American Thinker: 3.7%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 10.6%Monica Showalter: 1.9%American Thinker: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic10.6%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 1.1%American Thinker: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 3.6%American Thinker: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.0%Monica Showalter: 7.1%American Thinker: 7.1%Framing Effect24.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Monica Showalter: 1.1%American Thinker: 1.6%Optimism Bias6.1%This article: 18.6%Monica Showalter: 2.6%American Thinker: 2.6%Pessimism Bias18.6%This article: 43.4%Monica Showalter: 21.1%American Thinker: 13.0%Negativity Bias43.4%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 1.6%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 4.8%American Thinker: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 4.3%American Thinker: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Monica Showalter: 5.8%American Thinker: 5.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 4.0%American Thinker: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 1.4%American Thinker: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.3%Monica Showalter: 1.4%American Thinker: 1.3%Recency Bias16.3%This article: 5.2%Monica Showalter: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.7%Primacy Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%Monica Showalter: 7.7%American Thinker: 5.6%Ad Hominem16.7%This article: 10.2%Monica Showalter: 2.3%American Thinker: 4.0%Straw Man10.2%This article: 8.6%Monica Showalter: 4.5%American Thinker: 4.7%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 20.9%Monica Showalter: 4.2%American Thinker: 4.7%False Dilemma20.9%This article: 16.7%Monica Showalter: 2.8%American Thinker: 3.3%Slippery Slope16.7%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.3%Monica Showalter: 23.7%American Thinker: 16.8%Hasty Generalization12.3%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 1.3%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.5%Monica Showalter: 9.9%American Thinker: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion20.5%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 4.3%American Thinker: 2.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.1%Monica Showalter: 5.3%American Thinker: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.1%This article: 9.0%Monica Showalter: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.3%Tu Quoque9.0%This article: 4.4%Monica Showalter: 2.5%American Thinker: 1.7%Burden of Proof4.4%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.5%Monica Showalter: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.8%Composition/Division1.5%This article: 7.1%Monica Showalter: 5.3%American Thinker: 3.6%Anecdotal7.1%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 1.1%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.6%Monica Showalter: 2.9%American Thinker: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.6%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.3%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 1.9%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.8%Monica Showalter: 2.0%American Thinker: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.8%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 2.5%American Thinker: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 58.9%Monica Showalter: 33.4%American Thinker: 22.9%Biased Writer Voice58.9%This article: 18.6%Monica Showalter: 8.0%American Thinker: 5.9%Indoctrination18.6%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.9%American Thinker: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 37.6%Monica Showalter: 20.3%American Thinker: 14.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias37.6%This article: 0.0%Monica Showalter: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

479 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers31%attributed speech331writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageNBC News • 4 words • 100.0% coverageNBC News • 27 words • 0.0% coverageIllinois Separation • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageNBC News • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJ.B. Pritzker • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJ.B. Pritzker • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

J.B. Pritzker

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words25% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-25.9 ptsWriter: 69.2%J.B. Pritzker: 43.2%43.2%Politically Right Leaning +21.7 ptsWriter: 35.0%J.B. Pritzker: 56.8%56.8%Indoctrination-26.9 ptsWriter: 26.9%J.B. Pritzker: 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.