Democratic Sen. John Fetterman has more support among Pa. Republicans than GOP Sen. Dave McCormick, new poll shows 38%

By Michelle Baruchman44%

7/15/2026, 10:34:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Recency Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 17.7% saturation with 125 hits. Analysis detected 1,605 faulty-reasoning hits from 707 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.9% and a BS Rank of 38% (13,682 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.50% of the article peer group.

Sen. 
John Fetterman has insisted he has no plans to leave the Democratic Party, despite continued attempts to sway him. 
“I remain strongly pro-choice, pro-weed, pro-LGBT, pro-SNAP, pro-labor and even pro-rib-eye over bio slop,” he wrote in an opinion piece published in the Washington Post in May. 
But if he changed his mind, a new poll shows he might have a home in Pennsylvania’s GOP. 
Just under half of registered voters in the state approve of how Fetterman is handling his job as a U.S. senator, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday. 
But the vast majority of the first-term Democrat’s support comes from voters in the opposing party: 77% of surveyed Republicans said they approve of Fetterman while just 19% of Democrats do. 
That’s a higher share of voter support than even Republican Sen. 
Dave McCormick received from his own party, with 68% of surveyed Republicans approving of his job performance. 
Fetterman also faced more ire from Democrats than his GOP counterpart  with 69% of Pennsylvania Democrats disapproving of their party’s senator compared to 52% who disapprove of McCormick. 
The Quinnipiac survey, conducted June 9-13, polled 895 registered Pennsylvania voters and has a 4.3 percentage point margin of error. 
Since Fetterman began casting key votes in support of President Donald Trump and publicly criticizing progressives in his party, conservatives have been leaving the door open and, at times, rolling out a welcome mat. 
State Sen. 
Greg Rothman, chair of the Pennsylvania GOP, said he could consider supporting Fetterman’s reelection if he switched parties, and Fox News’ Sean Hannity said Trump himself urged Hannity to coax Fetterman into becoming a Republican in exchange for the president’s support. 
Democrats, meanwhile, have mostly taken a hands-off approach. 
The Pennsylvania Democratic Party has previously declined to comment on Fetterman’s positions and actions, including his new, joint fundraising committee with McCormick. 
The venture, announced earlier this month, allows them to split money from donors who want to give to both of their campaigns, a boost for Fetterman who has reported raising significantly fewer campaign funds on his own. 
Democratic Gov. 
Josh Shapiro has also avoided directly criticizing Fetterman, but admits their relationship is estranged. 
In an interview with POLITICO in May, Shapiro said it’s been “probably years” since he’s seen Fetterman at an event in Pennsylvania. 
“I’m not saying he hasn’t been at one, but I haven’t seen him and I’m at most things,” he said. 
Fetterman was most recently in Philadelphia at an event with McCormick to promote Trump Accounts, the new federally backed savings accounts for kids that became law with President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 
More than half of registered Pennsylvania voters want Fetterman to leave the Democratic Party altogether, according to the Quinnipiac poll. 
It’s a figure that represents both push and pull: 57% of Democrats surveyed said they want him to leave, and 55% of Republicans do too. 
The poll did not ask whether he would be welcomed into the GOP. 
“The Democrats would like to show him the door. 
The Republicans seem to be welcoming him in. 
Thus is the political irony of Senator John Fetterman,” Tim Malloy, a polling analyst at Quinnipiac, said. 
Fetterman, who is likely to face a primary opponent, has not yet disclosed whether he plans to seek a second six-year term in 2028. 
U.S. 
Reps. 
Brendan Boyle (D, Philadelphia), Chris Deluzio (D., Allegheny), and former U.S. 
Rep. 
Conor Lamb, a Western Pennsylvania Democrat who lost the Senate primary to Fetterman in 2022, are all considered to be potential contenders. 
» READ MORE: What Chris Rabb’s win in Philly could mean for the 2028 Democratic battle to replace John Fetterman 
Malloy called Fetterman’s approval among Republicans “stunningly high.” 
“He’s a maverick,” he said. 
“He is certainly one of the most unique politicians in the country.” 
“Being an independent voice that works with the other side to deliver for Pennsylvanians might put me at odds with the party that I have stayed committed to and have no plans to leave  but I will continue to put the commonwealth and the country first,” Fetterman wrote in the Post. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.7%Michelle Baruchman: 4.2%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Confirmation Bias17.7%This article: 1.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 1.0%Anchoring Bias1.0%This article: 3.5%Michelle Baruchman: 1.6%Inquirer.com: 2.5%Availability Heuristic3.5%This article: 7.5%Michelle Baruchman: 2.1%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic7.5%This article: 4.8%Michelle Baruchman: 0.7%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias4.8%This article: 4.5%Michelle Baruchman: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias4.5%This article: 10.7%Michelle Baruchman: 15.9%Inquirer.com: 5.0%Framing Effect10.7%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 1.0%Inquirer.com: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Michelle Baruchman: 2.3%Inquirer.com: 2.7%Optimism Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Michelle Baruchman: 4.2%Inquirer.com: 5.7%Negativity Bias16.5%This article: 10.2%Michelle Baruchman: 3.3%Inquirer.com: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias10.2%This article: 5.2%Michelle Baruchman: 0.7%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error5.2%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Michelle Baruchman: 2.6%Inquirer.com: 1.2%In-Group Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Michelle Baruchman: 2.8%Inquirer.com: 4.4%Halo Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.4%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.3%Michelle Baruchman: 2.9%Inquirer.com: 1.4%Recency Bias11.3%This article: 1.8%Michelle Baruchman: 1.0%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.4%Michelle Baruchman: 3.2%Inquirer.com: 2.3%Appeal to Authority13.4%This article: 2.5%Michelle Baruchman: 0.4%Inquirer.com: 1.1%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.2%Michelle Baruchman: 1.9%Inquirer.com: 3.3%Hasty Generalization10.2%This article: 2.8%Michelle Baruchman: 0.4%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Red Herring2.8%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.3%Michelle Baruchman: 1.8%Inquirer.com: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 7.4%Michelle Baruchman: 1.0%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Begging the Question7.4%This article: 10.0%Michelle Baruchman: 3.4%Inquirer.com: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.8%Michelle Baruchman: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Burden of Proof1.8%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.4%Michelle Baruchman: 1.6%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Composition/Division4.4%This article: 9.9%Michelle Baruchman: 1.6%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Anecdotal9.9%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.3%Michelle Baruchman: 1.9%Inquirer.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.3%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.8%Michelle Baruchman: 4.9%Inquirer.com: 1.3%Unattributed Quote9.8%This article: 3.8%Michelle Baruchman: 1.0%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection3.8%This article: 5.1%Michelle Baruchman: 10.0%Inquirer.com: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice5.1%This article: 7.4%Michelle Baruchman: 1.4%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Indoctrination7.4%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Baruchman: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Michelle Baruchman: 0.8%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.9%

707 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers49%attributed speech362writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Fetterman • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Fetterman • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageQuinnipiac University • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageQuinnipiac University • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageGreg Rothman • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coveragePennsylvania Democratic Party • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Shapiro • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Shapiro • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Shapiro • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageQuinnipiac University • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTim Malloy • 9 words • 100.0% coverageTim Malloy • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTim Malloy • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageTim Malloy • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTim Malloy • 5 words • 0.0% coverageTim Malloy • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Fetterman • 52 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Fetterman

100%flagged-word coverage
98 attributed words28% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Indoctrination+53.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%John Fetterman: 53.1%53.1%Quote-first Misdirection+27.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%John Fetterman: 27.6%27.6%Unattributed Quote+19.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%John Fetterman: 19.4%19.4%Biased Writer Voice-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%John Fetterman: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%John Fetterman: 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.