Raw Story⁠93%

George Conway bashes 'psychotic' Trump's election scheme ⁠89%

By María Teresita Armstrong-Matta⁠92%

7/15/2026, 12:15:01 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55.5% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 793 faulty-reasoning hits from 200 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 82.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠89% (2,267 of 20,539 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.00% of the article peer group.

George Conway bashes 'psychotic' Trump's election scheme 
Conservative attorney-turned-anti-Trump activist George Conway criticized President Donald Trump on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" for his ongoing six-year campaign to delegitimize the 2020 election. 
His criticism extended to President Donald Trump's plans to declare Georgia Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff illegitimate based on unfounded fraud and foreign interference claims, powers the president does not possess. 
"It seems these two things are locked together: Donald Trump's desire to get back at anybody who's wronged him, and also his desire, his need to prove that he's not a loser," said anchor Katy Tur. 
And Conway agreed. 
Conway stated Trump is attempting to undermine faith in elections ahead of likely congressional losses, describing the situation as evidence of Trump's fundamental mental and moral unfitness to be president. 
"If he doesn't believe this and he's just saying this to be manipulative, that's psychopathic. 
If he actually believes any of this, he's psychotic. 
He may well be both," he added. 
Conway highlighted the logical inconsistency of Trump's election fraud narrative, noting Trump accepts 2016 and 2024 results while claiming 2020 was rigged despite controlling election apparatus. 
Watch the video below. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 11.4%Rawstory: 7.6%Confirmation Bias29.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 2.7%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic13.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 6.4%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 17.0%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect12.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias15.0%This article: 55.5%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 19.3%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias55.5%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 31.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 8.7%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error31.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.4%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 13.2%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.9%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 15.5%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.8%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma15.5%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 7.6%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization18.0%This article: 12.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring12.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 34.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 7.4%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion34.0%This article: 44.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.4%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question44.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 1.0%Rawstory: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.9%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof15.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.5%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.2%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.5%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 4.3%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 7.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 4.1%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection7.0%This article: 40.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 11.0%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice40.0%This article: 16.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 1.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination16.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 7.7%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.0%

200 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers63%attributed speech74writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageKaty Tur • 36 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Conway • 3 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Conway • 30 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Conway • 15 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Conway • 9 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Conway • 7 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Conway • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

George Conway

97%flagged-word coverage
90 attributed words71% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination-43.2 ptsWriter: 43.2%George Conway: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice+14.4 ptsWriter: 18.9%George Conway: 33.3%33.3%Quote-first Misdirection-18.9 ptsWriter: 18.9%George Conway: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%George Conway: 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.