WDIV31%

Democrats could take preliminary vote on their 2028 presidential primary calendar later this week 20%

By Meg Kinnard10% Joey Cappelletti51% Associated Press60%

7/20/2026, 11:12:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Overconfidence Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.6% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 533 faulty-reasoning hits from 394 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.4% and a BS Rank of 20% (17,580 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.30% of the article peer group.

COLUMBIA, S.C.  Democrats could vote as early as this week on the order of their primary calendar for the 2028 presidential election, although the decision wouldn't be final until the full Democratic National Committee agrees. 
The panel that sets the party's voting order could make that determination as early as Friday when it meets in Washington, two people with knowledge of the party's process but not authorized to discuss it publicly told The Associated Press on Monday. 
The Rules and Bylaws Committee has been holding monthly meetings as it considers the order in which states will vote during the 2028 primaries. 
The panel has heard presentations from a dozen states hoping to kick off the party's primaries and caucuses, including Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. 
The calendar isn't considered set until it's approved by the full DNC, which is scheduled to meet in August. 
The DNC did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
Democrats upended their process for setting their calendar after Iowa's 2020 Democratic caucus debacle, which led to days of uncertainty over who had won. 
The party since then has favored more diverse states. 
For the 2024 cycle, President Joe Biden led a DNC effort to have South Carolina  which for years has held the party's first Southern contest  go first overall in the party’s primaries. 
He cited the state’s more racially diverse population compared to the traditional first-in-the-nation states of Iowa and New Hampshire, which are overwhelmingly white. 
Four years earlier, Rep. 
Jim Clyburn, South Carolina's lone congressional Democrat and for a time the top Black Democratic lawmaker on Capitol Hill, helped Biden revive his flagging primary campaign and win a resounding victory in the state. 
He then went on to secure the party's presidential nomination. 
South Carolina's Democratic leaders have pushed for the state to lead off again, lobbying for support and getting buy-in from Democratic Party chairs in five Southern states. 
In May, they pressed for South Carolina to reprise its role as the party’s first-in-the-nation contest holder, arguing that the state best represents the initial playing field for presidential candidates to build the coalitions needed to win. 
A quarter of the state's population is Black and about 9% is Hispanic, according to the Census Bureau. 
___ 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 1.1%WDIV: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.7%WDIV: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.3%Meg Kinnard: 0.4%WDIV: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic2.3%This article: 6.1%Meg Kinnard: 0.7%WDIV: 0.2%Hindsight Bias6.1%This article: 10.7%Meg Kinnard: 1.5%WDIV: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias10.7%This article: 5.8%Meg Kinnard: 3.5%WDIV: 4.4%Framing Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.1%WDIV: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Meg Kinnard: 0.5%WDIV: 2.0%Optimism Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.2%WDIV: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 2.2%WDIV: 6.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.5%WDIV: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.5%WDIV: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.1%WDIV: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Meg Kinnard: 1.0%WDIV: 0.7%In-Group Bias8.6%This article: 5.8%Meg Kinnard: 0.2%WDIV: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.8%This article: 8.6%Meg Kinnard: 10.0%WDIV: 2.2%Halo Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.2%WDIV: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 1.1%WDIV: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.1%WDIV: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.5%WDIV: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.6%Meg Kinnard: 1.5%WDIV: 3.9%Appeal to Authority24.6%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.1%WDIV: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 1.1%WDIV: 2.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.3%WDIV: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.9%Meg Kinnard: 0.1%WDIV: 0.6%Bandwagon6.9%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 2.3%WDIV: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.3%WDIV: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 17.3%Meg Kinnard: 0.5%WDIV: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.3%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.1%WDIV: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.8%Meg Kinnard: 0.1%WDIV: 0.2%Appeal to Nature5.8%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.3%WDIV: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.7%Meg Kinnard: 0.5%WDIV: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.7%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.1%WDIV: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.7%Meg Kinnard: 1.3%WDIV: 1.8%Unattributed Quote10.7%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 1.0%WDIV: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 2.0%WDIV: 1.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.3%WDIV: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.1%WDIV: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kinnard: 0.0%WDIV: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

394 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers30%attributed speech274writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageRules and Bylaws Committee • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDemocratic National Committee • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Joe Biden • 34 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Joe Biden • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJim Clyburn • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageCensus Bureau • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

President Joe Biden

40%flagged-word coverage
57 attributed words48% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-15.3 ptsWriter: 15.3%President Joe Biden: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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