Rep. Jim Himes: Tuberville is "participating in a coup d'etat" ⁠93%

By Sam Stein⁠91%

7/17/2026, 10:42:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 57.1% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 259 faulty-reasoning hits from 91 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 87.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠93% (1,616 of 20,496 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.10% of the article peer group.

Sam Stein speaks with Rep. 
Jim Himes about Trump’s election speech, his attacks on voting systems, and the danger of declaring sitting senators illegitimate. 
They also examine how Trump’s own foreign-interference files document Russia’s efforts to help him, spread the Burisma story, and create chaos in American politics. 
As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. 
Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members. 
Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.4%Sam Stein: 2.8%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias26.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 4.3%The Bulwark: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Sam Stein: 16.4%The Bulwark: 6.9%Framing Effect9.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Sam Stein: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias20.9%This article: 57.1%Sam Stein: 28.8%The Bulwark: 11.4%Negativity Bias57.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.6%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.2%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.6%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.9%The Bulwark: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 8.0%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.8%The Bulwark: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.4%The Bulwark: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.5%The Bulwark: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 9.0%The Bulwark: 8.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 4.7%The Bulwark: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 30.8%Sam Stein: 5.1%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion30.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.6%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 26.4%Sam Stein: 1.2%The Bulwark: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)26.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.9%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof20.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 26.4%Sam Stein: 2.1%The Bulwark: 2.2%Anecdotal26.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.9%Sam Stein: 1.2%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.6%The Bulwark: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.9%Sam Stein: 1.2%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection9.9%This article: 9.9%Sam Stein: 24.1%The Bulwark: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice9.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.2%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 14.2%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 36.3%Sam Stein: 24.8%The Bulwark: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…36.3%

91 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers53%attributed speech43writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJim Himes • 9 words • 100.0% coverageSam Stein • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJim Himes • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageBulwark+ Takes • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jim Himes

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words58% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -41.9 ptsWriter: 41.9%Jim Himes: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+32.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jim Himes: 32.1%32.1%Biased Writer Voice+32.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jim Himes: 32.1%32.1%

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.