This is not the ‘red wave’ America needs 78%

By Doug Blair0%

7/11/2026, 12:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 40 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.1% saturation with 267 hits. Analysis detected 2,633 faulty-reasoning hits from 784 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.7% and a BS Rank of 78% (4,841 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.90% of the article peer group.

A specter is haunting America  the specter of communism. 
Across the country, socialists are emerging from the political margins, convinced that their moment has arrived. 
Recent victories by Zohran Mamdani and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York and Melat Kiros in Colorado have emboldened the Democratic Socialists of America. 
The organization is now looking beyond deep-blue strongholds toward battleground states such as Michigan and Wisconsin. 
The red wave is rising. 
Americans must stop it before it reaches shore. 
Abdul El-Sayed could very well capture the Democratic nomination for U.S. 
Senate in Michigan, while Francesca Hong is mounting a serious campaign for governor of Wisconsin. 
Hong recently finished close behind Lt. 
Gov. 
Sara Rodriguez in a straw poll of Democratic state convention activists. 
The movement suffered a setback in Maine , where Graham Platner ended his Senate campaign after a former girlfriend accused him of sexual assault. 
Platner denied the allegation. 
His departure, however, does not mean the socialist faction will relinquish its growing influence within the Democratic Party. 
Some Democrat leaders are now trying to distance themselves from the movement. 
They cannot so easily escape responsibility for it. 
For decades, Democrats at every level have cultivated the soil in which this radicalism has grown. 
In Portland, Oregon, activists tore down statues of America’s founders while local leaders proved unwilling or unable to stop them. 
More recently, Mamdani used his Independence Day address to portray his opponents as believing that America is “an arena of supremacy” reserved for those with the correct race, accent, or ancestry. 
The remark did not directly condemn America as such. 
It did, however, reflect the left’s familiar habit of interpreting the country primarily through oppression, exclusion, and domination. 
Gallup’s latest polling shows how deeply that attitude has penetrated the Democrat electorate. 
Only 14% of Democrats say they are extremely proud to be American, compared with 70% of Republicans and 28% of independents. 
RELATED: What if the commies were right after all? 
bauhaus1000/iStock/Getty Images 
Patriots instinctively recoil from such contempt for the country. 
But they should also understand precisely why socialism and communism are incompatible with American principles. 
The founders built the republic on natural rights. 
From those rights flow liberty, private property, religious freedom, free enterprise, and self-government. 
Communism rejects them all. 
It replaces private property with state control, religious faith with materialism, voluntary exchange with centralized planning, and political dissent with coercion. 
The modern democratic socialist may avoid the language of dictatorship and revolution. 
The underlying tendency remains the same : Transfer more authority from citizens and local institutions to the state. 
Mamdani calls for government-run grocery stores, rent controls, and sweeping redistribution. 
Hong favors aggressive state action to impose her economic and climate agenda. 
El-Sayed campaigns for Medicare for All , placing still more of the health care system under federal control. 
Each proposal is presented as an isolated benefit. 
Together, they describe a political philosophy in which government assumes ever more responsibility for providing food, housing, medical care, employment, and personal security. 
That bargain always comes with a price. 
Socialists begin by promising free goods and services, financed by taking the people’s “fair share” from wealthy “parasites.” 
But economies do not run on resentment. 
When governments suppress prices, punish investment, seize property, and replace market signals with political commands, the results are familiar: shortages, corruption, censorship, and poverty. 
Stalin’s Soviet Union imposed collectivization and famine on Ukraine, killing millions. 
Castro’s Cuba still struggles to provide reliable electricity and basic goods. 
Venezuela fell from one of Latin America’s wealthiest countries into hyperinflation, scarcity, and mass emigration. 
These catastrophes were not unfortunate deviations from socialism. 
They followed from concentrating economic and political power in the same hands. 
America rests on the opposite premise. 
It trusts citizens more than bureaucrats to understand their own needs, pursue their own interests, and build their own lives. 
The Constitution divides power precisely because the founders feared a state capable of crushing liberty while claiming to act for the public good. 
RELATED: Democrats can’t outrun their socialist wing 
mj0007/iStock/Getty Images 
The Democratic Party now faces a pipeline of candidates who reject that inheritance, moving from DSA chapters into Democratic primaries and, increasingly, elected office. 
The stakes extend beyond New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Colorado. 
America will not survive another 50 years  let alone another 250  by embracing the ideas that impoverished, terrorized, and destroyed societies throughout the previous century. 
The new socialists may have better branding, fashionable social-media accounts, and carefully softened language. 
Their program still demands that Americans surrender more of their property, independence, and authority to the state. 
The red wave is rising. 
Americans must stop it before it reaches shore. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.2%Doug Blair: 9.4%Blaze Media: 5.6%Confirmation Bias24.2%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Doug Blair: 6.0%Blaze Media: 3.2%Availability Heuristic11.5%This article: 9.2%Doug Blair: 2.3%Blaze Media: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic9.2%This article: 1.0%Doug Blair: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.8%Hindsight Bias1.0%This article: 7.8%Doug Blair: 1.9%Blaze Media: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias7.8%This article: 9.9%Doug Blair: 14.0%Blaze Media: 9.6%Framing Effect9.9%This article: 5.2%Doug Blair: 1.8%Blaze Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion5.2%This article: 4.1%Doug Blair: 2.1%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Doug Blair: 3.0%Blaze Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias8.4%This article: 34.1%Doug Blair: 10.2%Blaze Media: 9.8%Negativity Bias34.1%This article: 2.3%Doug Blair: 0.6%Blaze Media: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias2.3%This article: 1.5%Doug Blair: 0.9%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 3.1%Doug Blair: 0.8%Blaze Media: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.1%This article: 3.4%Doug Blair: 1.4%Blaze Media: 2.7%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 2.3%Doug Blair: 2.8%Blaze Media: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.4%Doug Blair: 3.1%Blaze Media: 1.1%Recency Bias12.4%This article: 1.7%Doug Blair: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Doug Blair: 2.3%Blaze Media: 2.6%Ad Hominem6.9%This article: 9.2%Doug Blair: 5.9%Blaze Media: 1.2%Straw Man9.2%This article: 5.6%Doug Blair: 1.4%Blaze Media: 3.7%Appeal to Authority5.6%This article: 3.3%Doug Blair: 1.9%Blaze Media: 2.4%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 10.1%Doug Blair: 8.7%Blaze Media: 1.5%Slippery Slope10.1%This article: 2.9%Doug Blair: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning2.9%This article: 26.4%Doug Blair: 16.0%Blaze Media: 8.9%Hasty Generalization26.4%This article: 2.8%Doug Blair: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.8%Red Herring2.8%This article: 4.3%Doug Blair: 1.6%Blaze Media: 0.9%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 11.9%Doug Blair: 9.6%Blaze Media: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion11.9%This article: 5.2%Doug Blair: 1.9%Blaze Media: 1.5%Begging the Question5.2%This article: 14.4%Doug Blair: 6.9%Blaze Media: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.4%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.4%Doug Blair: 1.3%Blaze Media: 0.3%Appeal to Nature5.4%This article: 7.7%Doug Blair: 1.9%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division7.7%This article: 8.7%Doug Blair: 4.0%Blaze Media: 2.6%Anecdotal8.7%This article: 0.5%Doug Blair: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.5%This article: 6.0%Doug Blair: 1.5%Blaze Media: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.4%Doug Blair: 0.4%Blaze Media: 2.8%Unattributed Quote1.4%This article: 5.1%Doug Blair: 2.8%Blaze Media: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 4.6%Doug Blair: 15.1%Blaze Media: 10.6%Biased Writer Voice4.6%This article: 13.5%Doug Blair: 8.6%Blaze Media: 4.5%Indoctrination13.5%This article: 4.0%Doug Blair: 1.0%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.0%This article: 33.9%Doug Blair: 30.9%Blaze Media: 7.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias33.9%This article: 0.0%Doug Blair: 0.0%Blaze Media: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

784 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers8.8%attributed speech715writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageSara Rodriguez • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageGraham Platner • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageZohran Mamdani • 11 words • 0.0% coverageFrancesca Hong • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Francesca Hong

100%flagged-word coverage
12 attributed words17% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +64.5 ptsWriter: 35.5%Francesca Hong: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-14.8 ptsWriter: 14.8%Francesca Hong: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%Francesca Hong: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.3 ptsWriter: 1.3%Francesca Hong: 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.