Voters are angry with Washington, and other takeaways from the Colorado primaries ⁠98%

By Erin Cox⁠0%

7/1/2026, 9:04:54 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Unattributed Quote, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 75 hits. Analysis detected 666 faulty-reasoning hits from 75 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 96% and a BS Rank of ⁠98% (606 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 97.10% of the article peer group.

Democrats in Colorado rode a backlash against Washington to victory Tuesday night, as a surge of primary voters picked candidates without ties to Congress. 
Colorado’s Democratic primary had been closely watched to see whether the wave of democratic socialist victories in New York last week would travel west — out of coastal, urban terrain and into more politically diverse stretches of the country. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 32.0%Erin Cox: 8.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias32.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 32.0%Erin Cox: 16.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic32.0%This article: 52.0%Erin Cox: 51.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic52.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Erin Cox: 83.0%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Erin Cox: 4.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias16.0%This article: 16.0%Erin Cox: 12.0%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 52.0%Erin Cox: 39.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias52.0%This article: 52.0%Erin Cox: 13.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect52.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 52.0%Erin Cox: 13.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope52.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 32.0%Erin Cox: 54.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization32.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 52.0%Erin Cox: 13.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon52.0%This article: 16.0%Erin Cox: 8.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion16.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 84.0%Erin Cox: 29.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)84.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 100.0%Erin Cox: 25.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)100.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 100.0%Erin Cox: 25.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote100.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 100.0%Erin Cox: 54.0%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 21.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erin Cox: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

75 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.