Why resisting Trump has galvanized Black Democrats as the midterms approach ⁠99%

By Gregory S. Schneider⁠0%

6/29/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Biased Writer Voice, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 98.3% saturation with 57 hits. Analysis detected 480 faulty-reasoning hits from 58 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 98.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠99% (384 of 20,453 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.10% of the article peer group.

ST. 
STEPHEN, S.C. — Black voters in South Carolina and other southern states are turning out in defiance of what many see as President Donald Trump’s efforts to suppress their political power, fueling Democratic hopes of clinching upset wins in the region in this fall’s midterm elections. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 2.5%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias19.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.4%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 79.3%Gregory S. Schneider: 4.6%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic79.3%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.8%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.1%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 98.3%Gregory S. Schneider: 20.5%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect98.3%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.5%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 1.3%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.2%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 3.5%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 3.3%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 11.2%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias19.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 1.8%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.3%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 79.3%Gregory S. Schneider: 6.5%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias79.3%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 1.5%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.6%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.7%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.2%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 1.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.7%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 2.5%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.3%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.2%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 79.3%Gregory S. Schneider: 5.3%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization79.3%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.2%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.1%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 10.8%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 98.3%Gregory S. Schneider: 3.1%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)98.3%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.6%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 79.3%Gregory S. Schneider: 2.9%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)79.3%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.3%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 1.8%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.8%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 1.5%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 98.3%Gregory S. Schneider: 12.9%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice98.3%This article: 79.3%Gregory S. Schneider: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination79.3%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 10.7%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 98.3%Gregory S. Schneider: 1.2%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias98.3%This article: 0.0%Gregory S. Schneider: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

58 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.