RedState91%

Now This Is Funny: Jill Biden's Book Sales Are Raising Questions 88%

By Nick Arama94%

7/1/2026, 8:55:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 67.2% saturation with 356 hits. Analysis detected 1,936 faulty-reasoning hits from 530 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.4% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,751 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.40% of the article peer group.

We reported on some of the bilge that Jill Biden had been trying to serve us up in her book, "View From the East Wing." 
If the purpose of the book was to salvage her reputation, I don't think it did that since it raised even more questions about how she dealt with Joe's cognitive issues. 
Not only did it make her look worse  if that's possible  she also upset Democrats that she's bringing this all up again just as they approach a tough midterm. 
She even ticked off some former Biden aides, and there was some ugly back and forth. 
Probably not a good idea to tick them off, given what they might know. 
Now there are even questions about her book and how it's been selling, as our sister site Hot Air reported. 
It hit number 1 on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction list on June 21, but that was with a big caveat, a †. 
What that dagger symbol means is that the Times has reason to believe the number of books sold is influenced by "bulk sales." 
Then the book dropped to number 3 the following week, and then dropped off the list altogether. 
That prompted some, like former FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver, to speculate that the bulk sales were "astroturfed." 
He thought it was "very rare for a '#1' to fall that fast," and joked that only "political reporters are actually reading it." 
Now, it could also be that there were a lot of bulk sales for her tour appearances, for example. 
But the bottom line for Jill here is how fast it dropped, which would suggest that there isn't a real sustained interest in the book. 
Gee, what a surprise. 
Not. 
By the week ending June 20, it sold 3,221 print copies and had accumulated 29,539 US print sales. 
That looks pretty dismal to me, particularly given all the heavy promotion. 
I mean, really, why would anyone buy the book? 
That, to me, is a judgment right there about what the American people think of her role in the debacle. 
Meanwhile, Joe Biden is still raising concerns, as we saw at the Obama Presidential Center dedication ceremony, when he was left on the stage alone, and he also had people talking at a Maryland campaign event, where he was confused about which direction he was supposed to go, as well. 
By comparison to Jill's book, Melania Trump's book that came out in October 2024 was on the list for 11 weeks  that's much more sustained interest. 
Guess who's in the number 1 slot right now for Hardcover Nonfiction? 
Vice President JD Vance. 
I'm willing to bet it lasts a bit longer than Jill's did. 
Oh, and I'm not seeing any little dagger symbol. 
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at RedState, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical Left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. 
Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.2%Nick Arama: 10.0%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias19.2%This article: 2.3%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias2.3%This article: 12.1%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic12.1%This article: 5.1%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Nick Arama: 1.5%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias4.3%This article: 12.5%Nick Arama: 7.3%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect12.5%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias2.3%This article: 7.0%Nick Arama: 2.6%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 46.6%Nick Arama: 21.4%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias46.6%This article: 2.6%Nick Arama: 1.3%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias2.6%This article: 3.8%Nick Arama: 3.2%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error3.8%This article: 9.4%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias9.4%This article: 5.3%Nick Arama: 6.1%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 5.5%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.5%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Nick Arama: 1.7%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias3.2%This article: 6.0%Nick Arama: 0.6%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect6.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Nick Arama: 11.9%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem4.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 3.1%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.3%Nick Arama: 3.6%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority11.3%This article: 3.6%Nick Arama: 2.3%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma3.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.2%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.3%Nick Arama: 13.6%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization18.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.3%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 18.7%Nick Arama: 7.6%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion18.7%This article: 8.5%Nick Arama: 2.7%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question8.5%This article: 4.7%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.8%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.6%Nick Arama: 0.7%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof2.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.9%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division8.9%This article: 12.5%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal12.5%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.0%Nick Arama: 1.4%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 5.8%Nick Arama: 0.4%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity5.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.7%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.9%Nick Arama: 2.8%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote7.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 67.2%Nick Arama: 34.4%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice67.2%This article: 10.6%Nick Arama: 7.1%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination10.6%This article: 9.4%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias9.4%This article: 7.9%Nick Arama: 24.4%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.9%This article: 10.6%Nick Arama: 5.2%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.6%

530 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech451writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageNate Silver • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 28 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 14 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

RedState

100%flagged-word coverage
56 attributed words71% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +75.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%RedState: 75.0%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-73.8 ptsWriter: 73.8%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.3 ptsWriter: 9.3%RedState: 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.