Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to stump for Abdul el Sayed in Michigan Senate primary 35%

By Carson Swick0%

7/11/2026, 3:59:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.1% saturation with 75 hits. Analysis detected 427 faulty-reasoning hits from 355 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37% and a BS Rank of 35% (17,068 of 26,004 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.60% of the article peer group.

Sen. 
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) will hit the campaign trail in Michigan next weekend for a left-wing Senate challenger. 
According to local reports , Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez will embark on their “The People vs. 
The Powerful” tour in Michigan from July 18 to 19. 
They will appear with Abdul el Sayed, who is now one of two Democrats vying for the party’s nomination to replace retiring Sen. 
Gary Peters (D-MI). 
El Sayed, 41, is a former health director of Wayne County, which includes Detroit. 
Born in Michigan to Egyptian parents, he has made opposition to Israel a centerpiece of his 2026 Senate campaign against Rep. 
Haley Stevens (D-MI), who has the backing of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and establishment Democrats. 
A Tavern Research poll conducted from July 6 to 7 showed Stevens and el Sayed in a statistical tie, with 42% and 41% support, respectively. 
Compared with earlier polls, the Tavern survey showed significantly fewer Michigan Democrats were undecided after state Sen. 
Mallory McMorrow dropped out of the primary. 
Stevens and el Sayed sparred over Israel, their financial backers, and the electability of left-wing candidates in a July 7 debate. 
MICHIGAN SENATE DEBATE: EL SAYED AND STEVENS SLAM EACH OTHER OVER FINANCIAL INTERESTS 
Sanders has already campaigned with el Sayed this year, as the two appeared together at a May 3 rally in Detroit. 
Ocasio-Cortez has been more cautious than her progressive mentor in the 2026 campaign cycle, as she refrained from endorsing scandal-plagued Graham Platner in Maine and waited until July 2 to back el Sayed . 
AOC has spent her career taking on the powerful on behalf of everyday people, and she has shown all of us what courageous, smart, values-driven leadership looks like. 
I'm deeply honored to earn her endorsement. 
Onward to victory. 
2018 2026 pic.twitter.com/5U149jlP44 
 Dr. 
Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) July 2, 2026 
The Michigan Democratic Senate primary is on Tuesday, Aug. 
4. 
Either el Sayed or Stevens will face former Rep. 
Mike Rogers, who is running unopposed in the Republican primary. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 4.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Carson Swick: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Anchoring Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.0%Carson Swick: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Carson Swick: 12.4%Washington Examiner: 8.1%Framing Effect10.7%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.8%Carson Swick: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.8%Carson Swick: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Carson Swick: 6.3%Washington Examiner: 8.9%Negativity Bias19.2%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Carson Swick: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 2.0%In-Group Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Carson Swick: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Halo Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.8%Carson Swick: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 3.7%Appeal to Authority4.8%This article: 2.5%Carson Swick: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 2.8%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.9%Carson Swick: 5.6%Washington Examiner: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion7.9%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.0%Carson Swick: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.5%Carson Swick: 4.3%Washington Examiner: 2.0%Unattributed Quote2.5%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 21.1%Carson Swick: 4.6%Washington Examiner: 10.8%Biased Writer Voice21.1%This article: 7.9%Carson Swick: 2.6%Washington Examiner: 3.3%Indoctrination7.9%This article: 9.6%Carson Swick: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Carson Swick: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 4.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Carson Swick: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.8%

355 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.7%attributed speech349writer words
Selected voice

Abdul El-Sayed

0%flagged-word coverage
6 attributed words100% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-21.5 ptsWriter: 21.5%Abdul El-Sayed: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Abdul El-Sayed: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Abdul El-Sayed: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Abdul El-Sayed: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.9 ptsWriter: 0.9%Abdul El-Sayed: 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.