Ohio Politics & News 48%

By Rebecca Downs57%

6/26/2026, 1:19:18 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 63.8% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 201 faulty-reasoning hits from 69 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.3% and a BS Rank of 48% (11,397 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.10% of the article peer group.

Gov. 
DeWine Vetoed Voter ID for Mail-In Ballots. 
What’s Next? 
On Wednesday night, Gov. 
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, vetoed House Bill 472, which in its final form included provisions requiring a photo ID for mail-in ballots. 
The fight for voter integrity does not appear to be over in the Buckeye State, however. 
In vetoing the bill, DeWine released a statement noting that “the bill “would not… 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.3%Rebecca Downs: 4.0%Daily Signal: 6.2%Confirmation Bias20.3%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.3%Daily Signal: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 30.4%Rebecca Downs: 2.2%Daily Signal: 3.1%Availability Heuristic30.4%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.9%Daily Signal: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.8%Daily Signal: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.8%Daily Signal: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 63.8%Rebecca Downs: 6.9%Daily Signal: 8.5%Framing Effect63.8%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.6%Daily Signal: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.2%Daily Signal: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.1%Daily Signal: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 26.1%Rebecca Downs: 1.9%Daily Signal: 1.3%Pessimism Bias26.1%This article: 33.3%Rebecca Downs: 11.4%Daily Signal: 9.1%Negativity Bias33.3%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 5.4%Daily Signal: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.3%Daily Signal: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.4%Daily Signal: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 2.7%Daily Signal: 3.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 1.2%Daily Signal: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.2%Daily Signal: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.5%Daily Signal: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 2.0%Daily Signal: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.1%Daily Signal: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 4.9%Daily Signal: 3.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.8%Daily Signal: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 2.7%Daily Signal: 4.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.9%Daily Signal: 2.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.1%Daily Signal: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.5%Daily Signal: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 4.9%Daily Signal: 9.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.6%Daily Signal: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.8%Daily Signal: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 10.2%Daily Signal: 7.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 2.1%Daily Signal: 2.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 2.8%Daily Signal: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.4%Daily Signal: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.6%Daily Signal: 1.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 3.0%Daily Signal: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.3%Rebecca Downs: 1.9%Daily Signal: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.3%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.3%Daily Signal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.1%Daily Signal: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.7%Daily Signal: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.7%Daily Signal: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.3%Rebecca Downs: 3.1%Daily Signal: 2.7%Unattributed Quote20.3%This article: 23.2%Rebecca Downs: 1.2%Daily Signal: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection23.2%This article: 30.4%Rebecca Downs: 5.4%Daily Signal: 9.7%Biased Writer Voice30.4%This article: 23.2%Rebecca Downs: 0.8%Daily Signal: 3.9%Indoctrination23.2%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.9%Daily Signal: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 5.8%Daily Signal: 10.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Downs: 0.3%Daily Signal: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

69 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker51%attributed speech34writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMike DeWine • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageMike DeWine • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike DeWine

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words100% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Indoctrination-47.1 ptsWriter: 47.1%Mike DeWine: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+40.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mike DeWine: 40.0%40.0%Quote-first Misdirection+34.1 ptsWriter: 5.9%Mike DeWine: 40.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice+19.4 ptsWriter: 20.6%Mike DeWine: 40.0%40.0%

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.