KQED⁠60%

Governor's Race Enters the Final Stretch and Down-Ballot Races to Watch ⁠60%

By Scott Shafer⁠0% Marisa Lagos⁠88% Guy Marzorati⁠70%

5/29/2026, 11:30:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 72.7% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 188 faulty-reasoning hits from 77 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠60% (8,300 of 20,371 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.30% of the article peer group.

California’s unpredictable race for governor is in the final stretch. 
Scott, Marisa and Guy dissect the final polls as an unusually high number of Democratic voters have yet to return their ballots. 
Plus, they spotlight a few other down-ballot races worth watching before voting ends. 
For election information including our voter guide, go to kqed.org/voterguide. 
Check out Political Breakdown’s weekly newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 28.6%Scott Shafer: 6.3%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias28.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.7%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 28.6%Scott Shafer: 6.5%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic28.6%This article: 28.6%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic28.6%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: 72.7%Scott Shafer: 30.0%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect72.7%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: 13.0%Scott Shafer: 0.9%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias13.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 22.1%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias0.0%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: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 7.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Scott Shafer: 1.5%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect16.9%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: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 2.4%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%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: 28.6%Scott Shafer: 4.2%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization28.6%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: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 3.9%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%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: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 0.2%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: 0.0%Scott Shafer: 20.5%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%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: 27.3%Scott Shafer: 8.5%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…27.3%

77 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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