Sarah Longwell and Alex Seitz-Wald: The Maine Thing ⁠65%

By Sarah Longwell⁠91%

7/23/2026, 7:37:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 37.2% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 523 faulty-reasoning hits from 199 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (7,662 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.00% of the article peer group.

In 2026, everyone who follows politics has an opinion about Maine politics. 
Here’s the thing: a lot of people in Maine think they’re wrong. 
So, Sarah talked to a former national political reporter who moved his family to Maine to help stand up a local paper. 
Former NBC News reporter Alex Seitz-Wald, now deputy editor of the Midcoast Villager, joins to discuss his transition to local journalism, the unique culture of Maine politics, and how Graham Platner’s exit from the U.S. 
Senate race landed with Maine voters. 
They also size up the new Democratic candidate, Troy Jackson, and discuss why Susan Collins has had such staying power, and how–or whether–her luck might finallt run out in 2026. 
As always: Watch, listen, hit the like button or leave a comment. 
We want to hear from you. 
Ad-free editions of The Bulwark Podcast are available exclusively for Bulwark+ members. 
The Bulwark Podcast with Tim Miller is available wherever you get podcasts and on YouTube. 
New shows drop each weekday afternoon. 
If you like the show, leave a comment and ⭐⭐⭐⭐ wherever you listen. 
Add The Bulwark Podcast to your player of choice, here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.0%Sarah Longwell: 9.9%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.4%The Bulwark: 2.9%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 6.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.7%The Bulwark: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Sarah Longwell: 13.7%The Bulwark: 6.8%Framing Effect15.1%This article: 6.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.1%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion6.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias15.1%This article: 6.0%Sarah Longwell: 23.5%The Bulwark: 11.2%Negativity Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.8%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 11.1%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.1%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.1%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 28.6%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect28.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.4%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.1%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.5%Recency Bias15.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 8.0%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 28.6%Sarah Longwell: 1.8%The Bulwark: 3.4%Appeal to Authority28.6%This article: 15.1%Sarah Longwell: 1.8%The Bulwark: 2.2%False Dilemma15.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.1%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.1%Sarah Longwell: 12.2%The Bulwark: 8.2%Hasty Generalization12.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.2%The Bulwark: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.5%Sarah Longwell: 1.4%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon6.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 11.5%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.8%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.1%The Bulwark: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.6%The Bulwark: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.6%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.2%Unattributed Quote20.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.1%Sarah Longwell: 24.6%The Bulwark: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice15.1%This article: 6.5%Sarah Longwell: 6.8%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination6.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 12.9%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.1%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 37.2%Sarah Longwell: 28.3%The Bulwark: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…37.2%

199 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.