RedState91%

Watch: Haley Stevens' Bizarre Video Comes As New Poll Jolts Michigan Senate Race 79%

By Nick Arama94%

7/14/2026, 12:50:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 46.9% saturation with 219 hits. Analysis detected 1,581 faulty-reasoning hits from 467 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.7% and a BS Rank of 79% (4,609 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.90% of the article peer group.

Michigan has a couple of wild candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for Senate. 
Sen. 
Gary Peters (D-MI) decided not to run again. 
The two people now vying to replace him are Rep. 
Haley Stevens (MI-11) and a former Wayne County, MI, health director, Abdul El-Sayed. 
And this is another example of a radical, far-leftist anti-Israel candidate with El-Sayed. 
As we noted, he's been caught lying when he claimed he never called for defunding the police. 
Even CNN nailed him on it. 
Now, just because El-Sayed is further left doesn't mean Stevens isn't left, too. 
Then there's...whatever Stevens is doing here. 
Never fear, friends, she's going to be "telling the stories on your behalf," and she's going to be doing it with "a little bit of joy, a little bit of enthusiasm, a little bit of energy, and a little bit of stick it to 'em. 
Because that's the Michigan way!" 
Whatever she's doing, I find it funny. 
In addition to sounding and moving a bit like an unhinged female Chris Farley, the black eyeliner just adds to the overall wild look here. 
What a mess for Democrats that these are their two choices. 
But it looks like the Democrats realize that if they go with El-Sayed for the nomination, they could be in some big trouble in the general election. 
Sen. 
Peters has now endorsed Stevens, likely believing she stands a better chance than the more extreme El-Sayed. 
Meanwhile, El-Sayed has been endorsed by Sen. 
Bernie Sanders (I-VT). 
A new poll from the Detroit News/Glengariff indicates Stevens is leading El-Sayed by seven percentage points, 48 to 47 percent, with 10 percent undecided. 
The leftists are very upset with this poll on X. 
So it doesn't sound like Michigan is buying what El-Sayed is trying to sell. 
Plus, the Graham Platner debacle has to be making people second-guess all their far-leftist candidates and how they will do. 
Stevens is also doing far better with black voters. 
So that looks positive for Stevens. 
However, both Democrats would have a tough time with the likely Republican nominee, Mike Rogers, the former U.S. representative for Michigan's 8th District for 14 years. 
The Real Clear Politics average has them both about the same in a race that's essentially tied at this point with Rogers. 
But you have to think that, given what train wrecks both Democrats are, that's looking good for Rogers. 
Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. 
Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress. 
Help RedState continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.6%Nick Arama: 10.0%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic1.5%This article: 2.8%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.5%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Nick Arama: 7.3%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect6.0%This article: 1.9%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion1.9%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: 4.5%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 15.6%Nick Arama: 2.6%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias15.6%This article: 46.9%Nick Arama: 21.4%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias46.9%This article: 3.6%Nick Arama: 1.3%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias3.6%This article: 5.8%Nick Arama: 3.2%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error5.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Nick Arama: 6.1%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias4.9%This article: 6.4%Nick Arama: 5.5%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.4%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: 9.6%Nick Arama: 1.7%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.6%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.6%Nick Arama: 11.9%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem15.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 3.1%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.3%Nick Arama: 3.6%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority1.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 2.3%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%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: 19.9%Nick Arama: 13.6%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization19.9%This article: 3.0%Nick Arama: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring3.0%This article: 6.0%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon6.0%This article: 33.2%Nick Arama: 7.6%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion33.2%This article: 5.1%Nick Arama: 2.7%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question5.1%This article: 4.3%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.8%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.3%Nick Arama: 0.7%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof11.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.1%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal2.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.3%Nick Arama: 1.4%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground2.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.4%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%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: 32.1%Nick Arama: 2.8%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote32.1%This article: 4.5%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.5%This article: 39.2%Nick Arama: 34.4%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice39.2%This article: 11.8%Nick Arama: 7.1%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination11.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.7%Nick Arama: 24.4%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias19.7%This article: 10.1%Nick Arama: 5.2%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.1%

467 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers14%attributed speech401writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageGary Peters • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageCNN • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageGary Peters • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageBernie Sanders • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 18 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

RedState

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words48% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +96.3 ptsWriter: 3.7%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+47.0 ptsWriter: 9.2%RedState: 56.3%56.3%Politically Right Leaning +42.0 ptsWriter: 14.2%RedState: 56.3%56.3%Biased Writer Voice-45.6 ptsWriter: 45.6%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-33.2 ptsWriter: 33.2%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%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.