Trump Voters Say JD Vance Gives Them the Willies ⁠99%

By Sarah Longwell⁠92%

7/17/2026, 8:16:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 72.7% saturation with 72 hits. Analysis detected 369 faulty-reasoning hits from 99 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 99% and a BS Rank of ⁠99% (319 of 20,516 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.40% of the article peer group.

Sarah Longwell and Sam Stein (filling in for JVL) discuss Trump’s tedious (and still scary!) 
election speech, the documents that undercut his election claims, JD Vance’s cringe appearance on Joe Rogan, Trump voters’ brutal reactions to Vance, and Democrats’ missed opportunities at the Todd Blanche hearing. 
Finally: There are more tickets to see Sarah and JVL on September 8 in NYC! 
We are about to sell out the orchestra section—but we want to sell out the balcony, too. 
It’s a point of pride. 
Come hang with us. 
Tickets are here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.2%Sarah Longwell: 10.8%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias15.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Sarah Longwell: 3.6%The Bulwark: 3.0%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.7%The Bulwark: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.2%Sarah Longwell: 14.7%The Bulwark: 6.9%Framing Effect24.2%This article: 19.2%Sarah Longwell: 2.1%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion19.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Sarah Longwell: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect15.2%This article: 36.4%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 1.6%Optimism Bias36.4%This article: 15.2%Sarah Longwell: 1.1%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias15.2%This article: 24.2%Sarah Longwell: 25.9%The Bulwark: 11.4%Negativity Bias24.2%This article: 17.2%Sarah Longwell: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.6%The Bulwark: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.2%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.5%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.8%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: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Sarah Longwell: 1.1%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect15.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 9.0%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.9%The Bulwark: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.4%The Bulwark: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%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: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 12.5%The Bulwark: 8.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.5%The Bulwark: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 15.2%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon15.2%This article: 30.3%Sarah Longwell: 12.9%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion30.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.4%The Bulwark: 2.6%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: 1.7%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: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.8%The Bulwark: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.2%Sarah Longwell: 2.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.2%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: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.1%Sarah Longwell: 0.9%The Bulwark: 2.1%Unattributed Quote9.1%This article: 15.2%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection15.2%This article: 24.2%Sarah Longwell: 27.0%The Bulwark: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice24.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 7.3%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 14.5%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.3%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 72.7%Sarah Longwell: 28.5%The Bulwark: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…72.7%

99 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.