D.C. Memo: Craig 28%

By Ana Radelat0%

7/10/2026, 9:12:43 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Halo Effect, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 27.2% saturation with 297 hits. Analysis detected 1,998 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,093 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39% and a BS Rank of 28% (15,762 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.00% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON  Dozens of high-profile Democrats have been pressured to take sides in the brutal political battle between Rep. 
Angie Craig and Lt. 
Gov. 
Peggy Flanagan, who are both running for retiring Sen. 
Tina Smith’s seat. 
But their support for one candidate over the other may not have a huge impact in this ultra-competitive race, even as the endorsements are coming from powerful, well-known and influential Democrats. 
For instance, Flanagan has won the endorsements of many of the standard bearers of the progressive movement, including Sens. 
Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Chris Murphy of Connecticut. 
Flanagan has also won the support of the two most progressive U.S. 
House members from Minnesota  Reps. 
Betty McCollum, D-4th District; and Ilhan Omar, D-5 th District. 
And Smith, whom Flanagan wants to replace, is also backing the lieutenant governor. 
Meanwhile, Craig, considered more moderate than Flanagan, has been endorsed by members of the Democratic leadership, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and fellow moderates like former Transportation Secretary Peter Buttigieg and former Minnesota Rep. 
Collin Peterson. 
Craig also has the backing of Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and St. 
Paul Mayor Kaohly Her and other state and local officials. 
Dozens of other Democrats in the Legislature and in local elected offices have also chosen between the Craig and Flanagan camps, creating amazingly long lists of endorsements. 
“I’m honored to have earned so much support from leaders who show up every day and serve their constituents with courage and compassion,” Craig said in a statement. 
But political analysts say the massive number of endorsements may not make much of a difference when primary voters go to the polls Aug. 11 because informed voters have made up their minds based on what they know of a candidate’s character and record. 
There is one group of voters who could be influenced by an endorsement, however. 
Studies show that if uninformed citizens can identify endorsers who share their interests, they can simply follow their recommendations instead of investing time and energy to learn about the candidates or policy issues debated in a race. 
That’s why political candidates actively seek endorsements from well-known individuals and groups and strategically announce them at key moments during their campaigns. 
David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University, compares political endorsements to lawn signs that proliferate in every neighborhood before an election. 
“There is minimal evidence that lawn signs really matter in changing people’s vote,” he said. 
But like lawn signs, political endorsements are part of the “psychological warfare” deployed during a political campaign. 
“When one side is doing it, the other side feels they have to retaliate,” Schultz said. 
Like the lawn signs, candidate announcements about endorsements are a reminder that an election is coming up, and that might be helpful, Schultz said. 
And the endorsements may make a difference among voters who aren’t paying that much attention to the Craig-Flanagan race, he said. 
“And if you can move this race by even just a percentage point, you might win the race,” Schultz said. 
There is one endorsement that still matters, though. 
The backing of President Donald Trump is still highly valued by GOP candidates. 
“The Republican Party is not divided like the Democratic Party, Schultz said. 
“And it’s Trump’s party.” 
Progressives flex political muscle 
The tsunami of endorsements won by Flanagan and Craig show the schism that is splitting the Democratic Party in this election year. 
Democratic primaries this year have often been heated matches between mainstream Democrats  most of them incumbents  and progressives running as political outsiders who are angered by what they view is their party’s inability to stop President Donald Trump from imposing his initiatives. 
And those progressives have flexed their political muscle. 
For instance, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his allies swept a series of congressional primaries in New York City last month, defeating candidates who were backed by the city’s political establishment, including major labor unions and Speaker Jeffries. 
But sometimes the backing of outsider candidates, preferably working-class political neophytes, has backfired. 
That’s the case in Maine, where Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and military veteran, dropped out of a race for the U.S. 
Senate this week following a series of scandals that included a woman accusing him of sexual assault. 
Platner’s popularity soared in large part because of his plain-spoken populism and his championing of progressive policies like universal health care and affordable housing. 
His candidacy was bolstered by endorsements from Sanders, Warren and other progressive politicians. 
Because he had not held political office before, Platner had not undergone the media scrutiny that politicians are subjected to. 
And his swift climb hampered party efforts to vet him. 
But Flanagan, unlike Platner, is an experienced politician who has held political office, even as she embraces some progressive values and shuns corporate funding of her campaign. 
This year’s progressive movement may help Flanagan next month when voters go to the polls. 
But Minnesota, as a whole, is not as liberal as New York or other states, including Colorado, where progressive candidates have secured primary victories. 
And polls continue to show that the Craig-Flanagan race is a real nailbiter. 
In other news: 
▪️Matthew Blake and Brian Arola wrote about hot races  in the Twin Cities suburbs as well as on the Iron Range and in Moorhead  that could decide whether the next session of the state Legislature is controlled by Republicans or Democrats. 
▪️In Matt’s weekly Capitol Conversations , he predicts the issues Republicans will push if they are able to win a legislative majority in the fall elections. 
On the list are property tax cuts and a ban on transgender women competing in women’s sports. 
▪️Andy Steiner, meanwhile, had a piece about a reprieve  at least temporarily  for Twin Cities “clubhouses” used by people with mental illness. 
The centers run by Vail Communities are getting state funding for another six months as well as a $500,000 donation from retired artist Corey Sauer, who has dealt with mental issues of his own. 
▪️And Maddie Robinson wrote about burned out Emergency Medical Technicians in Hennepin County. 
The emergency responders recently voted “no confidence” in the leader of the department that oversees EMTs, citing, among other things, too few workers. 
Please keep your comments, and any questions, coming. 
I’ll try my best to respond. 
Please contact me at aradelat@minnpost.com. 
I can be reached at aradelat@minnpost.com. 
The post D.C. 
Memo: Craig, Flanagan battle for endorsements as well as votes appeared first on MinnPost . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.0%Ana Radelat: 2.0%MinnPost: 2.0%Confirmation Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 1.4%MinnPost: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Ana Radelat: 2.4%MinnPost: 2.7%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 7.5%Ana Radelat: 1.2%MinnPost: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.5%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.2%MinnPost: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Ana Radelat: 1.9%MinnPost: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias11.2%This article: 12.0%Ana Radelat: 10.7%MinnPost: 5.3%Framing Effect12.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.5%MinnPost: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.2%MinnPost: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Ana Radelat: 1.0%MinnPost: 3.3%Optimism Bias3.6%This article: 3.4%Ana Radelat: 2.1%MinnPost: 1.3%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 23.2%Ana Radelat: 8.6%MinnPost: 6.3%Negativity Bias23.2%This article: 2.6%Ana Radelat: 1.9%MinnPost: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias2.6%This article: 3.7%Ana Radelat: 0.8%MinnPost: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.8%MinnPost: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Ana Radelat: 2.3%MinnPost: 1.1%In-Group Bias4.7%This article: 2.5%Ana Radelat: 0.7%MinnPost: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.5%This article: 13.4%Ana Radelat: 2.1%MinnPost: 2.6%Halo Effect13.4%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.2%Ana Radelat: 1.4%MinnPost: 1.0%Recency Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.2%MinnPost: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.2%MinnPost: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.5%Ana Radelat: 4.3%MinnPost: 4.0%Appeal to Authority9.5%This article: 2.5%Ana Radelat: 1.3%MinnPost: 1.4%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 1.5%Ana Radelat: 0.1%MinnPost: 0.7%Slippery Slope1.5%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.2%MinnPost: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.2%Ana Radelat: 3.3%MinnPost: 4.1%Hasty Generalization5.2%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.2%MinnPost: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.5%MinnPost: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 4.2%MinnPost: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 1.0%MinnPost: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.0%Ana Radelat: 2.9%MinnPost: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.2%Ana Radelat: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.4%Composition/Division2.2%This article: 7.9%Ana Radelat: 2.3%MinnPost: 2.4%Anecdotal7.9%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.6%Ana Radelat: 1.7%MinnPost: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.6%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.3%MinnPost: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 0.1%MinnPost: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.1%Ana Radelat: 1.2%MinnPost: 1.0%Unattributed Quote4.1%This article: 3.9%Ana Radelat: 0.8%MinnPost: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.9%This article: 27.2%Ana Radelat: 4.5%MinnPost: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice27.2%This article: 1.4%Ana Radelat: 0.5%MinnPost: 1.7%Indoctrination1.4%This article: 0.0%Ana Radelat: 2.0%MinnPost: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Ana Radelat: 0.7%MinnPost: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.2%This article: 0.5%Ana Radelat: 0.3%MinnPost: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.5%

1093 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech930writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageAngie Craig • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Schultz • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Schultz • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Schultz • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Schultz • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Schultz • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Schultz • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Schultz • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Schultz • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Angie Craig

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words17% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+98.2 ptsWriter: 1.8%Angie Craig: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.9 ptsWriter: 31.9%Angie Craig: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%Angie Craig: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Angie Craig: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.5 ptsWriter: 0.5%Angie Craig: 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.