With time running out, Trump digs in on changing midterm election rules ⁠100%

By Patrick Marley⁠0% Ben Binday⁠0%

6/28/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Recency Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 54 hits. Analysis detected 372 faulty-reasoning hits from 54 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (58 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 99.70% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump’s efforts to alter how elections are run faced an avalanche of setbacks last week, as Republican senators rebuffed him and court after court hindered his administration’s plans to, as one judge put it, undercut “the sacred right to vote.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.3%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 3.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Patrick Marley: 23.3%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.1%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.2%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.5%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 4.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Patrick Marley: 17.6%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias100.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.7%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 3.2%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.9%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 77.8%Patrick Marley: 3.2%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias77.8%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 77.8%Patrick Marley: 2.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority77.8%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.3%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 7.8%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 77.8%Patrick Marley: 4.1%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion77.8%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.2%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.8%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.8%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.7%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 3.3%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 77.8%Patrick Marley: 3.5%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote77.8%This article: 77.8%Patrick Marley: 2.1%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection77.8%This article: 100.0%Patrick Marley: 14.4%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 7.6%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 1.6%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Marley: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

54 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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