Slate69%

Who Could Replace Graham Platner? 46%

By Jim Newell66%

7/7/2026, 8:20:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 37% saturation with 323 hits. Analysis detected 1,719 faulty-reasoning hits from 873 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.3% and a BS Rank of 46% (11,462 of 21,230 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.00% of the article peer group.

Democrats’ brief experiment in letting their hair down and nominating a Senate candidate who makes them feel edgy has all but concluded. 
After a Politico story in which an ex claimed that Graham Platner sexually assaulted her, the party has seen enough. 
Democrats ranging from Chuck Schumer to Zohran Mamdani have called on Platner to drop out. 
Prominent early endorsers like Sens. 
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have withdrawn their support and encouraged him to step aside. 
The national Democratic Party said it won’t invest in the race so long as he’s the nominee, and the Maine Democratic Party wants him out too. 
The bottom has fallen out. 
While Platner—whose lead in the race had evaporated after a previous wave of stories about his relationship history—has not yet relented, he has suggested that he’s reassessing his run. 
The Platner campaign told Politico on Monday that he “vigorously denies” the new allegation. 
But in a video statement, Platner said the campaign would be “taking the time to reflect on the best path forward.” 
If he drops out, where do things go from here? 
Who will run against Sen. 
Susan Collins this November? 
Maine law would allow Democrats to field a new candidate by July 27 if Platner drops out by Monday, July 13. 
The mechanics of that replacement process, though, are vague. 
The law merely allows that “a political committee may make a replacement nomination” without specifying a process it must follow. 
In other words, any process—or lack thereof—about who takes the Democratic ballot line would be up to the Maine Democratic Party. 
One idea in that vein was put forward by Nirav Shah, an epidemiologist and former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official who was a runner-up in Maine’s recent Democratic gubernatorial primary. 
“Anyone running for this nomination should agree to at least one televised debate and hold multiple public town halls across every corner of theThe state,” Shah posted Tuesday. 
“I am committed to doing that, if I run.” 
Shah had a full-speed campaign operation just a few weeks ago, so he wouldn’t be starting from scratch. 
That goes for the many other Democratic gubernatorial contenders too. 
This would bring a cycle of Maine Democratic politics full circle: A lot of potential Senate candidates chose the governor’s race instead, either because Collins’ 2020 victory had them shook or because they knew that Chuck Schumer would try to clear the field by recruiting Janet Mills. 
(He did try this, but Platner beat her out.) 
Now Shah—as well as former state Senate President Troy Jackson or Secretary of State Shenna Bellows—could flock back to the potential Senate availability, having lost the governor’s race. 
*Or* they could, once again, be cleared from the field if Mills opts for the nomination. 
There are a couple of ways this would go over. 
*Might* it look a little too much like Washington Democrats pulling the strings if they get their preferred candidate in the end, even though she had suspended her Senate primary campaign after performing so poorly? 
Sure. 
But she also *did* come in second in the primary, anyway. 
And allowing the runner-up to pick up the baton after the winner withdrew would be a simple criterion for the party to move forward. 
But Mills had to be dragged into running the first time, and that reticence showed in her campaigning ability. 
She may not want to be dragged in again—and Democratic voters may not want that either. 
There are also a couple of other interesting names to keep an eye on—and they’re people who have *not* lost an election since Memorial Day. 
Dan Kleban, the founder of the Maine Beer Company, had originally run for Senate but dropped out and endorsed Mills after she entered the race last year. 
* He appears interested in it. 
And then there’s Rep. 
Jared Golden, the Democratic representative of Maine’s 2nd District, a centrist Blue Dog Democrat who has ground out victories in several brutal campaigns. 
He’s retiring from his House seat this cycle because he has a young family and genuinely despises political life in Washington. 
Convincing him to run for Senate, then—especially given that he has worked for Collins and maintained a good relationship with her—would be a tall order, though no doubt many are trying. 
Golden would be a formidable opponent to Collins. 
Whether he could earn that nomination against what would be an ocean of criticism from Maine progressives, though, is another story. 
On the one hand, we get what he’s saying: He won the nomination, so a candidate in his vein should take up the mantle. 
On the other hand: Get outta here, man. 
Platner being able to choose his successor would stain that successor with Platner’s problems for the rest of the campaign! 
Ask Kamala Harris how this sort of thing goes. 
It also wouldn’t jibe with my understanding, at least, of a democratic replacement process. 
Besides, some Platner voters may have had a change of heart since the primary and would like their sudden prioritization of *boringness* to be reflected in their next candidate. 
If there is a next candidate. 
We’ll see. 
Correction, July 7, 2026: This article originally misstated that Kleban founded the Maine Beer Company. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.9%Jim Newell: 3.1%Slate: 4.3%Confirmation Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.2%Slate: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Jim Newell: 3.6%Slate: 3.3%Availability Heuristic3.0%This article: 12.1%Jim Newell: 1.6%Slate: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic12.1%This article: 5.4%Jim Newell: 1.0%Slate: 0.8%Hindsight Bias5.4%This article: 3.6%Jim Newell: 0.9%Slate: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias3.6%This article: 2.5%Jim Newell: 6.4%Slate: 5.9%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.2%Slate: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.6%Slate: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.2%Slate: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.0%Jim Newell: 1.0%Slate: 1.1%Optimism Bias9.0%This article: 10.0%Jim Newell: 1.8%Slate: 1.8%Pessimism Bias10.0%This article: 17.0%Jim Newell: 13.0%Slate: 9.8%Negativity Bias17.0%This article: 1.6%Jim Newell: 0.5%Slate: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 2.4%Jim Newell: 3.3%Slate: 2.1%Fundamental Attribution Error2.4%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.3%Slate: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Jim Newell: 1.7%Slate: 1.5%In-Group Bias2.6%This article: 2.4%Jim Newell: 0.4%Slate: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.4%This article: 2.6%Jim Newell: 1.1%Slate: 2.7%Halo Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.3%Slate: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Jim Newell: 1.8%Slate: 1.0%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.1%Slate: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 3.1%Slate: 1.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.6%Slate: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.4%Jim Newell: 1.6%Slate: 2.8%Appeal to Authority7.4%This article: 7.2%Jim Newell: 1.8%Slate: 1.8%False Dilemma7.2%This article: 2.3%Jim Newell: 1.4%Slate: 1.8%Slippery Slope2.3%This article: 2.7%Jim Newell: 0.4%Slate: 0.1%Circular Reasoning2.7%This article: 5.4%Jim Newell: 6.6%Slate: 7.9%Hasty Generalization5.4%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.5%Slate: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.4%Jim Newell: 0.5%Slate: 0.6%Bandwagon3.4%This article: 9.2%Jim Newell: 4.8%Slate: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion9.2%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.6%Slate: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.7%Jim Newell: 3.0%Slate: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.7%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.3%Slate: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.6%Jim Newell: 0.4%Slate: 0.2%Burden of Proof3.6%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.6%Jim Newell: 2.1%Slate: 3.3%Anecdotal5.6%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.2%Slate: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.1%Jim Newell: 1.6%Slate: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.1%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.2%Slate: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.1%Slate: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.2%Jim Newell: 2.2%Slate: 1.4%Unattributed Quote6.2%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.9%Slate: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 37.0%Jim Newell: 32.9%Slate: 19.8%Biased Writer Voice37.0%This article: 0.6%Jim Newell: 0.6%Slate: 2.5%Indoctrination0.6%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 4.4%Slate: 5.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.4%Slate: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.8%Slate: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

873 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.2%attributed speech836writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageNirav Shah • 28 words • 100.0% coverageNirav Shah • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nirav Shah

76%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Unattributed Quote+72.6 ptsWriter: 3.1%Nirav Shah: 75.7%75.7%Biased Writer Voice-38.6 ptsWriter: 38.6%Nirav Shah: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-0.6 ptsWriter: 0.6%Nirav Shah: 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.