Platner Exits Maine Senate Race - The American Conservative ⁠81%

By David Brady⁠66%

7/9/2026, 8:45:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Anecdotal, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 40.3% saturation with 102 hits. Analysis detected 647 faulty-reasoning hits from 253 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (4,215 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.70% of the article peer group.

The Democrat Graham Platner dropped out of the Maine Senate race Wednesday evening following new allegations of sexual assault, the latest in a string of scandals dogging his campaign. 
After days of speculation and high-profile endorsement revocations, from including Rep. 
Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Sen. 
Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Platner announced his withdrawal from the race. 
“We are not doing it because of the allegations, we are doing it because of the structures being taken away from us by those in power,” he said in a video statement. 
POLITICO on Monday reported new allegations of sexual assault from a woman who had dated Platner. 
Jenny Racicot, the accuser, had in an interview with the New York Times previously described “positive memories” of her time with the candidate despite Platner showing up drunk to her home, an incident during which she now says that Platner sexually assaulted her. 
Platner denied the allegations in a Monday video statement . 
Platner won the Democratic primary for Senate in Maine last month amid controversies including a Nazi- related tattoo, offensive comments online , and the Times ’ report on past relationships. 
His withdrawal comes just days before a deadline that would allow the Maine Democratic Party to replace him on the ballot by July 27. 
This is not a paywall! 
Your support helps us continue our mission of providing thoughtful, independent journalism. 
With your contribution, we can maintain our commitment to principled reporting on the issues that matter most. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%David Brady: 5.4%The American Conservative: 8.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 1.3%The American Conservative: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%David Brady: 2.6%The American Conservative: 3.8%Availability Heuristic15.8%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.3%The American Conservative: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 2.3%The American Conservative: 1.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 1.8%The American Conservative: 3.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%David Brady: 5.8%The American Conservative: 8.1%Framing Effect9.5%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.7%The American Conservative: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.2%The American Conservative: 1.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 1.6%The American Conservative: 2.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 40.3%David Brady: 13.1%The American Conservative: 10.6%Negativity Bias40.3%This article: 12.6%David Brady: 2.1%The American Conservative: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 2.8%The American Conservative: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 1.1%The American Conservative: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 2.2%The American Conservative: 2.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 2.7%The American Conservative: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 1.1%The American Conservative: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.4%The American Conservative: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%David Brady: 3.9%The American Conservative: 1.4%Recency Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.4%The American Conservative: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 4.0%The American Conservative: 2.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 2.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 4.3%The American Conservative: 4.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 1.5%The American Conservative: 3.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.5%The American Conservative: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.5%The American Conservative: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 3.1%The American Conservative: 10.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.0%David Brady: 1.6%The American Conservative: 0.7%Bandwagon4.0%This article: 15.4%David Brady: 3.6%The American Conservative: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion15.4%This article: 12.6%David Brady: 1.3%The American Conservative: 1.6%Begging the Question12.6%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 9.0%The American Conservative: 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.2%The American Conservative: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 28.5%David Brady: 1.9%The American Conservative: 2.1%Anecdotal28.5%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 23.3%David Brady: 3.5%The American Conservative: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.3%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.6%The American Conservative: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.6%The American Conservative: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 29.6%David Brady: 4.5%The American Conservative: 3.4%Unattributed Quote29.6%This article: 12.6%David Brady: 2.4%The American Conservative: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection12.6%This article: 23.3%David Brady: 15.6%The American Conservative: 17.3%Biased Writer Voice23.3%This article: 2.0%David Brady: 2.2%The American Conservative: 2.9%Indoctrination2.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.8%The American Conservative: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Brady: 0.0%The American Conservative: 3.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.8%David Brady: 2.9%The American Conservative: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…19.8%

253 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers42%attributed speech147writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRo Khanna • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageGraham Platner • 32 words • 100.0% coveragePOLITICO • 16 words • 100.0% coverageJenny Racicot • 43 words • 100.0% coverageGraham Platner • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jenny Racicot

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words41% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jenny Racicot: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-40.1 ptsWriter: 40.1%Jenny Racicot: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -23.1 ptsWriter: 23.1%Jenny Racicot: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Jenny Racicot: 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.