The Lindsey Graham Conspiracy Theories Are Already Running Wild 26%

By Will Sommer83%

7/13/2026, 11:31:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Representativeness Heuristic as the most egregious example at 30.4% saturation with 114 hits. Analysis detected 1,187 faulty-reasoning hits from 375 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.9% and a BS Rank of 26% (16,250 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.20% of the article peer group.

A PROMINENT 71-YEAR-OLD can’t just die of cardiovascular disease these days. 
Instead, judging by some people’s reactions to the death of Sen. 
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), there has to be a hidden hand at play. 
“Was Lindsey Graham assassinated by Russia or Iran?” 
asked right-wing activist Laura Loomer, adding that Vladimir Putin–friendly American podcaster Tucker Carlson should be investigated by the FBI just to be sure. 
“Lindsey Graham dying out of the blue like this doesn’t make any sense at all,” wrote conservative activist Matt Van Swol, in a message reposted by former Trump spokesman Sean Spicer. 
And on it went. 
Conservative columnist Marc Thiessen suggested that Graham, who recently visited Ukraine, might be just the latest Putin foe to fall victim to an assassination. 
(Graham apparently died of an aortic dissection, and Thiessen was commenting on a post noting that “Graham has dealt with blood pressure issues since his 40s. 
His father also died of cardiac arrest at age 69.”) 
Former CBS News reporter-turned-conspiracy theorist Lara Logan, meanwhile, is dabbling in numerology, scrutinizing the timing of Donald Trump’s posts about Graham’s death to see if they hold clues. 
“This doesn’t look like a guy who would die hours later,” commented billionaire Bill Ackman on a video of a not-particularly-healthy-looking Graham. 
Ackman—who, like the other people quoted above, is not a physician—later deleted the tweet. 
The rush to avoid the obvious explanation for Graham’s death—that Graham died of heart disease, as 71-year-old men with busy schedules sometimes do—offers a glimpse into the dynamics of the MAGA internet in 2026. 
It’s a place where nothing is as it seems, and even something as simple as an older man dying is grist for the conspiracy theory mill. 
Studying conspiracy theorists, academic Michael Barkun noted that one core tenet is their belief that nothing that happens is a coincidence. 
So Graham can’t just die randomly in a way that more or less fits with his actuarial table—he had to have been killed by a secret team of Russian assassins waiting around in Kyiv for an American senator to show up, or by opponents of the SAVE Act, or because he once was vaccinated for COVID. 
What’s different now is that 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.3%Will Sommer: 7.6%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias24.3%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Will Sommer: 6.4%The Bulwark: 2.9%Availability Heuristic12.3%This article: 30.4%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic30.4%This article: 7.5%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 11.4%The Bulwark: 6.8%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.6%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Will Sommer: 4.2%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 22.1%Will Sommer: 21.1%The Bulwark: 11.2%Negativity Bias22.1%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Will Sommer: 1.4%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error2.9%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Will Sommer: 4.2%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias6.9%This article: 5.6%Will Sommer: 6.7%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.7%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 1.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.1%Will Sommer: 2.3%The Bulwark: 1.5%Recency Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Will Sommer: 4.3%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem6.1%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 3.0%The Bulwark: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.7%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 3.4%Appeal to Authority3.7%This article: 29.3%Will Sommer: 3.6%The Bulwark: 2.2%False Dilemma29.3%This article: 14.9%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope14.9%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.5%Will Sommer: 11.5%The Bulwark: 8.2%Hasty Generalization12.5%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 2.2%The Bulwark: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 8.4%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 8.3%Will Sommer: 6.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question8.3%This article: 13.9%Will Sommer: 0.3%The Bulwark: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.9%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.1%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof6.1%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.9%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division6.9%This article: 17.1%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.4%Anecdotal17.1%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 2.5%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 11.2%Will Sommer: 2.3%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity11.2%This article: 14.9%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading14.9%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.9%Will Sommer: 0.4%The Bulwark: 2.2%Unattributed Quote14.9%This article: 2.9%Will Sommer: 1.2%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 13.1%Will Sommer: 30.1%The Bulwark: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice13.1%This article: 9.1%Will Sommer: 1.4%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination9.1%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 7.2%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Will Sommer: 1.6%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias15.5%This article: 0.0%Will Sommer: 8.2%The Bulwark: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

375 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers29%attributed speech267writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageLaura Loomer • 8 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Loomer • 23 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Van Swol • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMarc Thiessen • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageBill Ackman • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Marc Thiessen

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words22% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +87.3 ptsWriter: 12.7%Marc Thiessen: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-21.0 ptsWriter: 21.0%Marc Thiessen: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.4 ptsWriter: 18.4%Marc Thiessen: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%Marc Thiessen: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Marc Thiessen: 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.