MS NOW94%

Indiana Republicans defied Trump on gerrymandering. Today, they find out what it cost 89%

By Hunter Woodall98% Ebony Davis79%

5/5/2026, 11:48:07 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Framing Effect, and False Dilemma, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 55.1% saturation with 238 hits. Analysis detected 1,316 faulty-reasoning hits from 432 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.5% and a BS Rank of 89% (2,442 of 20,446 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.10% of the article peer group.

Indiana Republicans who defied Donald Trump are fighting for their political lives Tuesday in a key measure of whether the president’s grip on his own party is starting to slip. 
The contests for state Senate seats in Indiana’s part-time legislature would ordinarily draw little national attention. 
But after a December vote in which a bloc of Indiana Republicans resisted the White House’s pressure campaign and voted against gerrymandering the state’s two Democratic-held congressional districts out of existence, Trump set out to make examples of them. 
On social media, Trump endorsed challengers against seven of the eight sitting GOP state senators who voted against the gerrymandering push: Jim Buck, Spencer Deery, Dan Dernulc, Greg Goode, Travis Holdman, Linda Rogers and Greg Walker. 
“There are eight Great Patriots running against long seated RINOS  Let’s see how those RINOS do tonight!” 
Trump said in a Truth Social post Tuesday before polls closed, deploying a label  Republican In Name Only  that has become his standard brand for those who defy him regardless of their conservative bonafides. 
For Trump, who has carried Indiana in each of his three presidential campaigns and faces no meaningful threat to his standing in the state, the primaries amount to a test of whether he can punish defectors inside his own party over an issue many voters have barely registered, in races usually decided by yard signs and county chairs rather than national politics. 
Beneath that is a larger question, one that will only sharpen as his second term wears on: whether a president who is constitutionally barred from running again and whose approval ratings are the lowest of his tenure still commands the fear that built his hold on the GOP in the first place. 
Trump has a track record of endorsing primary challengers in races around the country to enforce and reward loyalty  most prominently against the House Republicans who voted to impeach him after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. 
Capitol. 
Nearly all were driven from office. 
Wading into something as relatively small scale as state Senate primaries, however  especially over an issue that may be more esoteric for many voters  has provided a clash between national politics and the kind of grassroots approach that typically looms large in these kinds of races. 
It is one thing for Trump to be furious about the December vote in Indianapolis; it is another for Republican primary voters in Terre Haute or West Lafayette to be. 
Photos: Courtesy of the campaigns 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.3%Hunter Woodall: 4.8%MS NOW: 7.6%Confirmation Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Hunter Woodall: 2.6%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic1.4%This article: 11.1%Hunter Woodall: 1.1%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.1%This article: 12.0%Hunter Woodall: 3.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.2%Hunter Woodall: 17.8%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect22.2%This article: 1.6%Hunter Woodall: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion1.6%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 1.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 37.5%Hunter Woodall: 6.5%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias37.5%This article: 12.7%Hunter Woodall: 21.5%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%Hunter Woodall: 6.2%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error14.4%This article: 9.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias9.0%This article: 4.2%Hunter Woodall: 8.2%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 1.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 3.2%MS NOW: 4.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 3.3%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 21.3%Hunter Woodall: 2.4%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma21.3%This article: 12.0%Hunter Woodall: 2.6%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope12.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.7%Hunter Woodall: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization15.7%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.2%Hunter Woodall: 2.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon4.2%This article: 11.1%Hunter Woodall: 2.8%MS NOW: 9.9%Appeal to Emotion11.1%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 7.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.3%Hunter Woodall: 4.8%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.3%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 1.1%MS NOW: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 2.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 8.3%Hunter Woodall: 1.7%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman8.3%This article: 3.7%Hunter Woodall: 3.6%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.1%Hunter Woodall: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground11.1%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.2%Hunter Woodall: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote4.2%This article: 4.2%Hunter Woodall: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection4.2%This article: 55.1%Hunter Woodall: 32.2%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice55.1%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 5.7%MS NOW: 5.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hunter Woodall: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

432 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker8.3%attributed speech396writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 62 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words100% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-60.1 ptsWriter: 60.1%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Trump: 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.