MS NOW95%

Texas GOP primary suddenly looks like a wipeout ahead of Tuesday runoff 54%

By Nora McKee0%

5/24/2026, 9:15:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Recency Bias, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.9% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 806 faulty-reasoning hits from 397 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.6% and a BS Rank of 54% (9,765 of 21,165 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.90% of the article peer group.

The Senate GOP primary runoff in Texas is suddenly shaping up to be a wipeout, according to prediction markets, as Republican voters prepare to choose Tuesday who will face Democrat James Talarico in November. 
In what was once a toss-up Senate primary race, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Sen. 
John Cornyn battled for an endorsement from President Donald Trump. 
Paxton won that fight, and the shift in markets quickly followed suit. 
As of Sunday afternoon, Paxton led incumbent John Cornyn by nearly 90% on the online prediction market Kalshi. 
And on Polymarket, Paxton had a 96% chance of winning Tuesday’s election. 
Just days earlier, on May 18, Kalshi had Paxton with a 63.7% chance of winning the nomination and Cornyn at 37.2%. 
Trump’s endorsement came on May 19. 
And by the next morning, the market had completely split. 
Paxton surged to 90.1%, with Cornyn at 10.3%. 
Texas Republican primary runoff polling also showed Paxton surging ahead of Cornyn in the days immediately following Trump’s endorsement. 
The two will go head to head on Tuesday in a runoff that will decide who advances to face Talarico, a 36-year-old state lawmaker, in the general election in November. 
The president called Paxton a “true MAGA Warrior” who has “ALWAYS delivered for Texas” in his endorsement posted on social media. 
Trump called Cornyn a “good man” but deemed him as “not supportive” when “times were tough”  though he didn’t outright mention the GOP incumbent’s vote on Jan. 6, 2021, not objecting to certifying the 2020 presidential election results. 
Senate Republicans have voiced frustrations over the president’s endorsement as they hoped to keep their current colleague, Cornyn, in his seat. 
Republicans worry that Paxton, who supported Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, carries too much baggage from his indictment on charges of felony securities fraud and impeachment, among other controversies. 
“To call Paxton ethically challenged is to call Jeffrey Dahmer suffering from an eating disorder,” Sen. 
Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said Sunday on CNN. 
“This guy is an empty suit and will do us no service by being in the U.S. 
Congress. 
I hope that Texans realize how tough John Cornyn is.” 
In spite of the uphill battle, Cornyn continued fighting Sunday to fend off Paxton, touting external endorsements and encouraging registered voters to turn out on Tuesday. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.8%Nora McKee: 5.1%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias9.8%This article: 4.0%Nora McKee: 2.7%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias4.0%This article: 8.6%Nora McKee: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic8.6%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.5%Nora McKee: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias2.5%This article: 7.6%Nora McKee: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias7.6%This article: 11.6%Nora McKee: 5.7%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect11.6%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.3%Nora McKee: 1.9%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Nora McKee: 4.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 2.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.9%Nora McKee: 9.0%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias23.9%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.3%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Nora McKee: 2.6%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias2.5%This article: 4.0%Nora McKee: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.0%This article: 5.3%Nora McKee: 4.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 20.9%Nora McKee: 3.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Nora McKee: 3.6%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem8.3%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.3%Nora McKee: 5.3%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority8.3%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.0%Nora McKee: 4.1%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization3.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.6%Nora McKee: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon8.6%This article: 21.7%Nora McKee: 5.9%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion21.7%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 1.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.8%Nora McKee: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.3%Nora McKee: 2.5%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.3%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 4.9%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 13.9%Nora McKee: 3.0%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection13.9%This article: 6.5%Nora McKee: 4.5%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice6.5%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nora McKee: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

397 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers28%attributed speech286writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 16 words • 100.0% coverageThom Tillis • 7 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 17 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 1 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words54% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Quote-first Misdirection+65.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 65.0%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

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

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

Analysis

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