RedState91%

Ro Khanna Might Just Make the Pandering Hall of Fame With Bonkers Post About Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman 95%

By Nick Arama94%

7/16/2026, 7:18:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 59.2% saturation with 349 hits. Analysis detected 2,230 faulty-reasoning hits from 590 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 91.9% and a BS Rank of 95% (1,136 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.80% of the article peer group.

Once upon a time, some used to consider Democratic Rep. 
Ro Khanna (CA-17) a moderate. 
He was backed by a lot of Silicon Tech guys on that basis, and they must be regretting that now as they see him imploding all over the place—between his support for Graham Platner, the former Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine, and his pathetic West Bank detention story. 
Khanna thought all this would help his chances to run for president in 2028, but this may be one of the most disastrous "announcement" efforts I've ever seen. 
I'm finding it amusing because he's a great example of how messed up the Democrats are right now. 
But Khanna wasn't quite done with pandering. 
He made yet another post that just might be up there for the idiotic, pandering hall of fame. 
Today over 100 Democrats voted for the Massie Amendment to zero aid to Israel. 
My brother @RepBowman & @CoriBush lost their seats for this stand 2 years ago. 
As a colleague told me, Black martyrdom is normalized in America. 
Today I want to recognize their courage. 
What the heck is he even talking about? 
First, neither former representative is dead; they just lost their primaries. 
It was the people who voted them out, no great conspiracy. 
Second, they lost to their fellow Democrats. 
Is Khanna saying Democrats are somehow guilty of making "black martyrs"? 
That sounds like Democrats are pretty evil. 
Third, Cori Bush lost to a black man, Rep. 
Wesley Bell (D-MO-01), and none of this had anything at all to do with race. 
Fourth, trying to equate losing a primary to another Democrat to "martyrdom" seems offensive to people who actually suffered or died while fighting for black civil rights. 
Talk about trying to pander for the black vote, even referring to Bowman as "my brother." 
Even as Khanna was praising how more than 100 Democrats voted; he left out that the 313 who voted against it, including all the Republicans (except Massie) and 98 Democrats, so it still failed. 
So while Democrats are in a lot of confusion, the majority of them in the House are still rejecting Khanna's radical positions. 
Not to mention that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been calling for zeroing out the aid himself, although continuing the cooperation. 
It's black martyrdom, like Khanna claiming he was "violently detained" in the West Bank, and Graham Platner is a sterling human being for whom you should vote. 
It was amusing that Cori Bush weighed in, saying, "The people have spoken." 
The people have spoken. 
They want to see their tax dollars spent on housing, healthcare, and education here at home, not war and genocide overseas.@bell4mo's not listening https://t.co/nYCHJjxiZv 
Yes, they did, and they rejected you - for a black man. 
But otherwise, Khanna understandably got a huge backlash for his efforts. 
I present you the slimiest most pandering congressman in all of the land, ladies and gentlemen… https://t.co/z2DrXeGu24 
Hall of fame level pandering and theater kid energy just dropped. 
Ro Khanna calling Jamaal Bowman “my brother” and a “black martyr” is next level. https://t.co/MzxR542t0C 
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: 19.7%Nick Arama: 10.0%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias19.7%This article: 0.8%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.8%This article: 1.9%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic1.9%This article: 2.4%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Nick Arama: 1.5%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias7.8%This article: 13.6%Nick Arama: 7.3%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect13.6%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: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Nick Arama: 2.6%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias6.6%This article: 51.9%Nick Arama: 21.4%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias51.9%This article: 4.7%Nick Arama: 1.3%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias4.7%This article: 1.9%Nick Arama: 3.2%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error1.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Nick Arama: 6.1%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias5.4%This article: 2.5%Nick Arama: 5.5%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.5%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: 1.9%Nick Arama: 1.7%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias1.9%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: 30.2%Nick Arama: 11.9%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem30.2%This article: 4.6%Nick Arama: 3.1%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man4.6%This article: 6.3%Nick Arama: 3.6%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority6.3%This article: 8.5%Nick Arama: 2.3%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma8.5%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: 15.4%Nick Arama: 13.6%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization15.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.1%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon3.1%This article: 24.4%Nick Arama: 7.6%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion24.4%This article: 4.7%Nick Arama: 2.7%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question4.7%This article: 1.9%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.9%This article: 2.0%Nick Arama: 1.8%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque2.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.7%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.5%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division1.5%This article: 12.5%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal12.5%This article: 4.6%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman4.6%This article: 6.4%Nick Arama: 1.4%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.4%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: 1.4%Nick Arama: 0.4%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity1.4%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: 8.6%Nick Arama: 2.8%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote8.6%This article: 8.8%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection8.8%This article: 59.2%Nick Arama: 34.4%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice59.2%This article: 10.7%Nick Arama: 7.1%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination10.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 23.4%Nick Arama: 24.4%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias23.4%This article: 18.8%Nick Arama: 5.2%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…18.8%

590 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers7.8%attributed speech544writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageCori Bush • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

RedState

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words91% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Indoctrination+61.0 ptsWriter: 5.7%RedState: 66.7%66.7%Politically Right Leaning +46.4 ptsWriter: 20.2%RedState: 66.7%66.7%Biased Writer Voice-64.2 ptsWriter: 64.2%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +15.5 ptsWriter: 17.8%RedState: 33.3%33.3%Quote-first Misdirection-9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%RedState: 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.