The FP⁠74%

What the Movement Taking Over the Democratic Party Wants ⁠84%

By The Editors⁠97%

7/22/2026, 12:14:11 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Overconfidence Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 44.8% saturation with 151 hits. Analysis detected 717 faulty-reasoning hits from 337 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,357 of 20,515 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.60% of the article peer group.

In the span of just a couple of weeks, Democratic voters across the country did something that establishment strategists claim voters never do: They threw out safe, entrenched incumbents for candidates far to their left. 
Claire Valdez, Brad Lander, and Darializa Avila Chevalier swept New York’s House primaries after New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani campaigned hard on their behalf. 
A week later in Colorado, Melat Kiros ousted a 15-term congresswoman. 
More races like these are coming. 
In Michigan, progressive Abdul El-Sayed is ahead in the polls heading into the state’s Senate primary in two weeks. 
If he wins the nomination in a swing state carried twice by Donald Trump, it will be the clearest signal yet that this movement can succeed beyond deep-blue districts. 
On the Fourth of July, President Trump warned of a “resurgence of the communist menace in our land,” calling it “a mortal threat to American liberty.” 
Democrats, meanwhile, are divided over what to call it. 
Rep. 
Tom Suozzi of New York has unveiled a pledge opposing the party’s leftward drift, while others are wearing the socialist label proudly. 
We have covered this story closely because the ground is shifting beneath American politics. 
Is this communism, as the president says? 
Or democratic socialism, as the rising candidates say? 
Or something else entirely—Third Worldism, generational economic grievance, an identity crisis? 
We asked some important contributors to make sense of what we are seeing. 
Though they might not agree on a name for it, all of them agree that what’s happening now will define the Democratic Party’s future. 
Read on to see where they land. —The Editors 
Natan Sharansky: Marxism, Rebranded 
In his speech marking America’s 250th anniversary, Trump warned of the return of communism, pointing to the results of the Democratic primaries. 
At first glance, this may seem like nothing more than a cheap scare tactic. 
Yet, as Soviet dissidents used to joke: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that no one is following you. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.4%The Editors: 18.1%The FP: 6.1%Confirmation Bias18.4%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%The Editors: 7.2%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic12.2%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%The Editors: 10.5%The FP: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias15.7%This article: 5.3%The Editors: 11.5%The FP: 10.1%Framing Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%The Editors: 0.6%The FP: 1.1%Optimism Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%The Editors: 6.5%The FP: 10.9%Negativity Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%The Editors: 2.2%The FP: 1.7%In-Group Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.4%The Editors: 5.3%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 1.4%The FP: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 4.3%The FP: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.5%The Editors: 3.7%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma4.5%This article: 1.8%The Editors: 0.6%The FP: 0.8%Slippery Slope1.8%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.4%The Editors: 16.2%The FP: 8.8%Hasty Generalization10.4%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.1%The Editors: 2.4%The FP: 1.3%Bandwagon7.1%This article: 13.4%The Editors: 9.6%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion13.4%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 2.9%The FP: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.5%The Editors: 4.6%The FP: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.5%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 5.4%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.3%The Editors: 1.1%The FP: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.3%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Editors: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.7%The Editors: 2.6%The FP: 2.3%Unattributed Quote7.7%This article: 13.4%The Editors: 7.0%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection13.4%This article: 44.8%The Editors: 19.1%The FP: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice44.8%This article: 2.1%The Editors: 0.7%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination2.1%This article: 6.5%The Editors: 2.2%The FP: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.5%This article: 6.5%The Editors: 4.4%The FP: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.5%This article: 2.7%The Editors: 0.9%The FP: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.7%

337 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers22%attributed speech263writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageTom Suozzi • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageNatan Sharansky • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
48 attributed words65% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-57.4 ptsWriter: 57.4%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+54.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 54.2%54.2%Quote-first Misdirection+46.9 ptsWriter: 7.2%Donald Trump: 54.2%54.2%Politically Right Leaning +45.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 45.8%45.8%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%Donald Trump: 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.