America Dodges Bullet: Congress To Remain Kennedy-Free After Jack Schlossberg Fails in New York 91%

By Andrew Stiles92%

6/24/2026, 1:43:41 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 75.8% saturation with 466 hits. Analysis detected 2,117 faulty-reasoning hits from 615 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85% and a BS Rank of 91% (2,009 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.80% of the article peer group.

Against all odds, Manhattan voters made the right call on Tuesday. 
Jack Schlossberg, the 33-year-old Kennedy scion who has never worked a real job, was handily defeated in the Democratic primary for New York's 12th Congressional District, sitting in third place with less than 11 percent of the vote. 
George Conway, the mentally disturbed Lincoln Project cofounder and frequent guest on *The Jim Acosta Show*, sat in fifth, trailing not just Schlossberg but also a woman named Nina Schwalbe. 
Schlossberg's defeat is worth celebrating for several reasons. 
The Kennedy family is a toxic cabal of bloated, boat-shoed sex pests and trust-fund layabouts still living off the fortune amassed by Joseph P. 
Kennedy, the wealthy patriarch best known for his efforts to make peace with Adolf Hitler. 
Tuesday's outcome suggests the family's once-mythic reputation is in the midst of a long-overdue correction. 
John F. 
Kennedy, Schlossberg's grandfather, was the Eric Swalwell of the White House, while his great uncle Ted Kennedy was the Eric Swalwell of the U.S. 
Senate, a reputation he cemented in 1985 by making a "waitress sandwich" with Chris Dodd at a local fine-dining establishment. 
To be fair to Swalwell, there's no evidence (that we know of) to suggest he's ever fled the scene of an accident after a woman drowned in his car. 
Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, continued to serve in public office until 2009, more than 40 years after Mary Jo Kopechne's death. 
Days before the election, Schlossberg <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/jack-schlossberg-new-york-congressional-primary-69f8a3de" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> the *Wall Street Journal* he would view his loss in the primary as proof that our political system is irrevocably broken. 
"If I can't do it, then nobody can," he said. 
Indeed, if a 33-year-old Kennedy brat with <a href="https://freebeacon.com/democrats/kennedy-scion-jack-schlossberg-had-no-earned-income-in-2025-but-has-four-trust-funds-disclosures-show/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">four trust funds</a> and what the *New York Times* described as "little traditional work experience" can lose a primary in one of the country's wealthiest congressional districts despite being endorsed by David Letterman and spending $1 million of his own inheritance, the American Dream is truly dead. 
Schlossberg, who was also backed by former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, rose to semi-prominence thanks to his bizarre social media antics. 
By cracking <a href="https://freebeacon.substack.com/p/kennedy-scion-jack-scholssberg-tweeted" target="_blank" rel="noopener">jokes</a> about guzzling "Jew blood" and "male jizz," he has sought to usher the Camelot brand into the digital age. 
When it came to actually running a campaign, Schlossberg's limited exposure to the demands of adult responsibility may have been a disadvantage. 
The *Times* <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/14/nyregion/jack-schlossberg-campaign.html? 
unlocked_article_code=1.iVA.Lx0w.25NS8oykuZRw&amp;smid=nytcore-ios-share" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> in May that Schlossberg rarely showed up to campaign meetings and often disappeared "for long stretches with little notice or explanation." 
He fired his staff early and often, though some ex-employees kept coming to work for weeks because he "never bothered to tell them." 
In the end, Schlossberg was unable to parlay his social media following—primarily among TikTok tweens and Facebook grannies who dubbed him "America's babygirl"—into success at the ballot box. 
The *Times* recently <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/22/nyregion/jack-schlossberg-campaign-congress.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accompanied</a> the candidate to greet voters on an Upper East Side street corner. 
After speaking to a 72-year-old retiree named Robin who called him "nice looking," Schlossberg was mobbed by a pack of 10th-grade girls who wanted a photo. 
"Do you guys have parents that might want to vote?" 
he asked. 
America dodged a bullet on Tuesday. 
Not since Kamala Harris's defeat in 2024 has the country been spared such a calamitous outcome. 
Congress has been Kennedy-free since Massachusetts voters wisely <a href="https://freebeacon.com/parody/joe-kennedy-senate-fail/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rejected</a> former congressman Joe Kennedy III's bid for U.S. 
Senate in 2020. 
In a just world, it would stay that way for as long as the republic endures. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.4%Andrew Stiles: 6.0%freebeacon.com: 7.0%Confirmation Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.5%freebeacon.com: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Andrew Stiles: 3.2%freebeacon.com: 2.9%Availability Heuristic9.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.9%freebeacon.com: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.4%Andrew Stiles: 2.6%freebeacon.com: 0.9%Hindsight Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.8%freebeacon.com: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Andrew Stiles: 5.9%freebeacon.com: 12.7%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.0%freebeacon.com: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.5%Andrew Stiles: 0.7%freebeacon.com: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.2%freebeacon.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.5%Andrew Stiles: 0.5%freebeacon.com: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.5%This article: 10.2%Andrew Stiles: 1.4%freebeacon.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias10.2%This article: 58.9%Andrew Stiles: 23.3%freebeacon.com: 15.7%Negativity Bias58.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 1.3%freebeacon.com: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Andrew Stiles: 2.2%freebeacon.com: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.2%freebeacon.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Andrew Stiles: 2.8%freebeacon.com: 2.2%In-Group Bias6.5%This article: 3.9%Andrew Stiles: 1.2%freebeacon.com: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.9%This article: 3.4%Andrew Stiles: 2.1%freebeacon.com: 2.1%Halo Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 1.6%freebeacon.com: 1.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.0%freebeacon.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%Andrew Stiles: 1.3%freebeacon.com: 1.1%Recency Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 1.1%freebeacon.com: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Andrew Stiles: 0.2%freebeacon.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias4.7%This article: 26.7%Andrew Stiles: 12.3%freebeacon.com: 5.8%Ad Hominem26.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 1.3%freebeacon.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 3.4%freebeacon.com: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 1.6%Andrew Stiles: 1.5%freebeacon.com: 2.0%False Dilemma1.6%This article: 9.3%Andrew Stiles: 0.5%freebeacon.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope9.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.2%freebeacon.com: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 23.6%Andrew Stiles: 9.6%freebeacon.com: 8.7%Hasty Generalization23.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 2.3%freebeacon.com: 0.9%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 1.1%freebeacon.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.4%Andrew Stiles: 7.1%freebeacon.com: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion16.4%This article: 3.1%Andrew Stiles: 1.4%freebeacon.com: 1.2%Begging the Question3.1%This article: 9.8%Andrew Stiles: 1.9%freebeacon.com: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 1.3%freebeacon.com: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 1.1%freebeacon.com: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.2%freebeacon.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.3%freebeacon.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 20.2%Andrew Stiles: 4.5%freebeacon.com: 2.1%Anecdotal20.2%This article: 3.9%Andrew Stiles: 0.4%freebeacon.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman3.9%This article: 5.0%Andrew Stiles: 1.7%freebeacon.com: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.0%freebeacon.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.0%freebeacon.com: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.1%freebeacon.com: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.4%freebeacon.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 2.6%freebeacon.com: 2.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.1%Andrew Stiles: 4.1%freebeacon.com: 2.8%Unattributed Quote8.1%This article: 14.8%Andrew Stiles: 2.7%freebeacon.com: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection14.8%This article: 75.8%Andrew Stiles: 40.4%freebeacon.com: 17.5%Biased Writer Voice75.8%This article: 4.4%Andrew Stiles: 1.3%freebeacon.com: 1.6%Indoctrination4.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 1.5%freebeacon.com: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 6.4%freebeacon.com: 10.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Stiles: 0.2%freebeacon.com: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

615 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers10%attributed speech553writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageThe *Times* • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageThe *Times* • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Wall Street Journal

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words48% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+96.4 ptsWriter: 3.6%Wall Street Journal: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+89.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%Wall Street Journal: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-84.3 ptsWriter: 84.3%Wall Street Journal: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Wall Street Journal: 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.