KQED⁠60%

California Governor Candidates Compete for Swalwell's Endorsements, Donors and Voters ⁠0%

By Scott Shafer⁠0% Marisa Lagos⁠88% Guy Marzorati⁠70%

4/17/2026, 11:35:42 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 189 faulty-reasoning hits from 70 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 20,546 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Now that Rep. 
Eric Swalwell has ended his campaign for governor, the remaining contenders are scrambling to scoop up his endorsements, donors and voters. 
Scott, Marisa and Guy assess which candidates stand to benefit the most from Swalwell’s departure and review how the candidates are re-introducing themselves to Californians. 
Check out Political Breakdown’s weekly newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 6.3%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 6.5%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.0%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 50.0%Scott Shafer: 30.0%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect50.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.2%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.5%CalMatters: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.9%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 30.0%Scott Shafer: 22.1%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias30.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.9%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.8%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.1%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 5.3%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 30.0%Scott Shafer: 7.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias30.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.5%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 7.6%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 30.0%Scott Shafer: 2.4%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma30.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 4.2%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.5%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 7.5%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 30.0%Scott Shafer: 3.9%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)30.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.7%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 40.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)40.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.6%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.8%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 44.3%Scott Shafer: 20.5%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice44.3%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 0.7%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 8.4%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Scott Shafer: 8.5%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.7%

70 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech59writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coveragePolitical Breakdown • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Political Breakdown

100%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Political Breakdown: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-52.5 ptsWriter: 52.5%Political Breakdown: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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