From algae to socialism, Democrats have jumped the shark 77%

By Joe Concha0%

6/24/2026, 6:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 38 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 33.9% saturation with 295 hits. Analysis detected 3,295 faulty-reasoning hits from 869 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68.7% and a BS Rank of 77% (4,926 of 21,166 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.70% of the article peer group.

It was the summer of 1986. 
America’s economy was booming. 
President Ronald Reagan’s approval sat at 63%, according to Gallup. 
Patriotism was on display, especially in our movies, with Tom Cruise’s Top Gun being the runaway No. 1 hit of the year. 
Forty years later, NBC News asked the same question, but the result is decidedly, and disturbingly, different: A record-high 78% feel the American dream is out of reach, with just 5% saying it is within reach and 16% saying the bar is about the same. 
These numbers may explain another NBC News poll result, which found just 12% of those who voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 said they are extremely proud to be American, while 90% of Republicans say they’re proud or extremely proud. 
Most of this is likely driven by hatred of President Donald Trump. 
It’s important to note that during the eight years of Barack Obama in the Oval Office, Republicans stayed around that 90% mark of being proud to be an American. 
They disagreed with Obama and Democrats in power, but their faith in American exceptionalism never wavered. 
The Democratic Party used to support working-class families in creating a level playing field, an economy that lifts all boats, or as the slogan of the 1996 presidential campaign of Bill Clinton said: “Opportunity. 
Responsibility. 
Community.” 
But things have changed. 
The party has abandoned any premise of talking about the issues and has become more about playing on voters’ emotions and victimhood and less about proposals to solve the issues impacting their constituents. 
Exhibit A is the myopic focus on the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall, which Trump pledged to clean up ahead of America’s 250th birthday celebration and the World Cup. 
At first, the draining and refilling of the pool was a success, with blue water, instead of algae-infested water, shining between the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial. 
But algae returned days later, sparking a media cycle dominated by mocking Trump for his effort to clean the reflecting pool. 
“In many cases, visitors appeared to gaze with more interest at the contents of the murky pool than toward the historic monuments reflected in its waters,” reports the *New York Times*. 
“Pro-algae liberals have also been recorded speaking directly to the water.” 
“Green algae, everybody’s proud of you,” one woman with pink hair said to the water. 
“You are single-handedly doing more to fight fascism than any American has.” 
“The United States Park Police have arrested multiple individuals for vandalizing our nation’s magnificent Reflecting Pool,” Trump posted on Truth Social. 
“Who would do such a thing? 
These are very serious crimes having to do with the destruction of National Monuments. 
Years in jail! 
Work will begin immediately on its repair.” 
Overall, an analysis by the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group, found that between June 14 and Monday, the reflecting pool story received 411 minutes of coverage across the major broadcast networks and cable news networks, or an average of more than 45 minutes per day. 
CNN, which is a distant third in the cable news ratings race, predictably leads the way, dedicating 215 minutes of coverage to the pool. 
“There is an actual logical scientific reason why painting the pool blue has resulted in this growth of algae, and it is ridiculous that in America, nobody’s gone to jail because of being in the Epstein files,” former Republican strategist Ana Navarro said in an unhinged rant on CNN <em>Newsnight</em> recently. 
“Algae, that’s all anybody talked about at home this weekend,” Rep. 
Debbie Dingell (D-MI) claimed on Monday. 
“They were outraged.” 
The outrage, of course, is laughably selective. 
In 2012, Obama spent $34 million on fixing and cleaning the Reflecting Pool over a two-year period, only for algae to also become a recurring problem. 
And not one politician or member of the media took any issue with that. 
As the outrage over Trump and reflecting pools and algae continues, socialists continue to take over large cities in America. 
In New York, socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani endorsed three socialist candidates, and they all won comfortably over their establishment opponents. 
In Washington, socialist Janeese Lewis George cruised to a 17-point victory over Kenyan McDuffie. 
Seattle also has a socialist mayor in Katie Wilson, while Los Angeles may have one in the form of Nithya Raman, who has a decent chance to unseat unpopular incumbent Karen Bass. 
Per Gallup, two-thirds of Democratic voters now view socialism favorably, compared to 42% who view capitalism favorably. 
That is a stunning number. 
Bottom line: It’s not good to be seen as establishment-anything on the Democratic side these days. 
Socialists have the energy, the momentum, and the organization, while the Democratic National Committee is rudderless and millions in debt. 
Outrage and victimhood. 
That’s their brand these days. 
TUCKER CARLSON’S ANTI-ISRAEL OBSESSION HAS BECOME DANGEROUS 
Democrats are facing a watershed moment: Go further to the left and embrace socialism? 
Or pivot back to the center, the way Bill Clinton did after a shellacking in the 1994 midterm elections that led to a landslide victory in the 1996 presidential race? 
Their answer appears to be the former. 
The result will be disaster. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.8%Joe Concha: 6.4%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias20.8%This article: 5.3%Joe Concha: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias5.3%This article: 8.3%Joe Concha: 2.9%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 2.5%Joe Concha: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.5%This article: 3.5%Joe Concha: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 6.1%Joe Concha: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias6.1%This article: 7.9%Joe Concha: 11.1%Washington Examiner: 8.5%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.9%Joe Concha: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.9%This article: 3.0%Joe Concha: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect3.0%This article: 3.7%Joe Concha: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Optimism Bias3.7%This article: 2.4%Joe Concha: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias2.4%This article: 24.6%Joe Concha: 10.6%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias24.6%This article: 1.4%Joe Concha: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias1.4%This article: 11.0%Joe Concha: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error11.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Joe Concha: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%In-Group Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 3.2%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Joe Concha: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.2%Joe Concha: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%Joe Concha: 5.5%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem14.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 3.3%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.6%Joe Concha: 3.8%Washington Examiner: 3.9%Appeal to Authority14.6%This article: 13.0%Joe Concha: 5.6%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma13.0%This article: 2.9%Joe Concha: 3.2%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope2.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 30.0%Joe Concha: 17.2%Washington Examiner: 9.0%Hasty Generalization30.0%This article: 3.5%Joe Concha: 2.2%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring3.5%This article: 2.3%Joe Concha: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Bandwagon2.3%This article: 12.0%Joe Concha: 6.0%Washington Examiner: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion12.0%This article: 3.5%Joe Concha: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Begging the Question3.5%This article: 10.6%Joe Concha: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.0%Joe Concha: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division2.0%This article: 19.6%Joe Concha: 5.3%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal19.6%This article: 1.6%Joe Concha: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.6%This article: 5.5%Joe Concha: 1.8%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.5%Joe Concha: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy3.5%This article: 33.9%Joe Concha: 5.5%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote33.9%This article: 12.0%Joe Concha: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection12.0%This article: 33.0%Joe Concha: 16.7%Washington Examiner: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice33.0%This article: 4.6%Joe Concha: 2.4%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination4.6%This article: 7.1%Joe Concha: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.1%This article: 27.4%Joe Concha: 10.9%Washington Examiner: 4.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias27.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Concha: 1.2%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

869 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers16%attributed speech727writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 21 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 6 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 14 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 3 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageAna Navarro • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageDebbie Dingell • 6 words • 0.0% coverageDebbie Dingell • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ana Navarro

100%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words36% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +74.3 ptsWriter: 25.7%Ana Navarro: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+74.0 ptsWriter: 26.0%Ana Navarro: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-37.6 ptsWriter: 37.6%Ana Navarro: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Ana Navarro: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Ana Navarro: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Ana Navarro: 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.