Tight Race in Michigan ⁠31%

By John Light⁠77%

8/5/2026, 3:09:08 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Anchoring Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Actor-Observer Bias as the most egregious example at 33.3% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 224 faulty-reasoning hits from 105 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠31% (21,225 of 30,474 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.60% of the article peer group.

Tighter than we expected based on the polls, at least! 
NBC has called the Democratic Senate primary for Abdul El-Sayed. 
TPM tends to go with the AP for calls, or wait for multiple networks to call it. 
Seemingly based on the NBC call, Mallory McMorrow, a third Democratic primary candidate who sought to occupy the middle ground between El-Sayed and Haley Stevens before dropping out, congratulated and endorsed El-Sayed early this morning. 
Update, 6:41 a.m.: With the vast majority of the votes now in, El-Sayed and Stevens are separated by less than 20,000. 
El-Sayed still leads by roughly a percentage point. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%John Light: 5.6%Talking Points Memo: 5.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 27.6%John Light: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Anchoring Bias27.6%This article: 20.0%John Light: 2.7%Talking Points Memo: 2.1%Availability Heuristic20.0%This article: 16.2%John Light: 1.5%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic16.2%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.9%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%John Light: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias7.6%This article: 3.8%John Light: 10.9%Talking Points Memo: 9.4%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%John Light: 2.3%Talking Points Memo: 2.2%Pessimism Bias9.5%This article: 3.8%John Light: 15.2%Talking Points Memo: 11.3%Negativity Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 33.3%John Light: 0.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias33.3%This article: 0.0%John Light: 2.6%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.5%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.5%John Light: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.2%Recency Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 1.5%Talking Points Memo: 2.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.5%John Light: 2.2%Talking Points Memo: 2.5%Appeal to Authority9.5%This article: 0.0%John Light: 1.2%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 2.8%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 33.3%John Light: 7.5%Talking Points Memo: 4.8%Hasty Generalization33.3%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 3.4%Talking Points Memo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 1.2%Talking Points Memo: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 1.1%Talking Points Memo: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.7%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.3%Talking Points Memo: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.2%John Light: 0.8%Talking Points Memo: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.2%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.8%Talking Points Memo: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.9%John Light: 16.5%Talking Points Memo: 12.6%Biased Writer Voice22.9%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 13.1%Talking Points Memo: 7.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Light: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

105 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers43%attributed speech60writer words
Selected voice

Mallory McMorrow

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words78% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.3 ptsWriter: 23.3%Mallory McMorrow: 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.