Raw Story⁠93%

Red state's GOP election chief blows a hole in Trump's primetime speech scare ⁠64%

By Daniel Hampton⁠74%

7/18/2026, 12:50:57 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 29% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 804 faulty-reasoning hits from 279 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (7,598 of 20,882 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.60% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump used a primetime address Thursday night to sound the alarm about foreign threats to American elections, and one of his own party's top election officials responded that, in effect, his state hasn't heard about any . 
West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner, a Republican, former state GOP chairman, and a Trump appointee to a U.S. 
Department of Agriculture post during his first term, issued a statement Friday after the president's speech, asserting no one in the federal government has flagged a genuine danger to his state's upcoming vote. 
"West Virginia has yet to receive a call from the White House, the intelligence community, or any other federal agency, alerting us to a real, existing threat to our 2026 general election," Warner said. 
He framed that federal silence as consistent with his own office's findings. 
"That's great news for us, because it's exactly what we're seeing on our end, as well," he added. 
Warner said the state stays open to "any actionable intelligence," but until it arrives, "we'll stay the course." 
The statement landed hours after Trump falsely alleged that China pulled off the largest compromise of election data in history and that intelligence officials buried it. 
Analysts who reviewed the declassified documents he released found nothing to back the claim , and a March 2021 intelligence assessment had already concluded that China did not deploy efforts to change the 2020 outcome. 
Warner, West Virginia's chief elections officer, has broken with the stolen-election narrative before. 
During his 2024 campaign, he said he did not believe the 2020 election was stolen in West Virginia. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.0%Daniel Hampton: 3.8%Rawstory: 7.7%Confirmation Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.6%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Daniel Hampton: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic12.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 12.5%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.6%Daniel Hampton: 11.7%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect18.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.5%Daniel Hampton: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 28.0%Daniel Hampton: 18.1%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias28.0%This article: 6.5%Daniel Hampton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Daniel Hampton: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.3%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias9.3%This article: 6.5%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority29.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 4.3%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning4.3%This article: 11.8%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization11.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.3%Daniel Hampton: 8.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 6.5%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question6.5%This article: 9.3%Daniel Hampton: 5.0%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.1%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal11.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 26.2%Daniel Hampton: 2.4%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)26.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 24.0%Daniel Hampton: 2.3%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote24.0%This article: 4.7%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection4.7%This article: 24.4%Daniel Hampton: 7.6%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice24.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 4.6%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

279 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker48%attributed speech146writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageKris Warner • 33 words • 100.0% coverageKris Warner • 34 words • 100.0% coverageKris Warner • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKris Warner • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKris Warner • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKris Warner • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kris Warner

100%flagged-word coverage
133 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Unattributed Quote+50.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kris Warner: 50.4%50.4%Biased Writer Voice-46.6 ptsWriter: 46.6%Kris Warner: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%Kris Warner: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.