What Do Nate Blouin’s Old Social Media Posts Mean for State Democrats? ⁠88%

4/21/2026, 4:18:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 36.3% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 323 faulty-reasoning hits from 160 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠88% (2,633 of 21,182 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.60% of the article peer group.

In the posts, Blouin ridiculed the LDS faith, mocked domestic violence, and threatened physical assault. 
He has since apologized, but the fallout comes as a recent campaign poll shows him running second in the Salt Lake County race, behind centrist candidate and former U.S. 
Representative Ben McAdams. 
The moment now tests whether Blouin can retain his status as a leading voice among the state’s progressive Democrats. 
Political reporters Sean Higgins and Robert Gehrke are among our guests to discuss the consequences of Blouin’s crude online posts and the ideological tensions within the Utah Democratic Party. 
GUESTS 
Robert Gehrke is a politics and government reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune. 
Sean Higgins is a KUER politics reporter and co-host of the podcast “State Street.” 
Gabi Finlayson is a senior partner at Elevate Strategies, a Democratic political consulting firm. 
Mitchell Vice is the chair of the Utah State Progressive Caucus. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.6%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect20.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.9%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 27.5%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias27.5%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 18.1%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias18.1%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 18.1%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias18.1%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.9%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority26.9%This article: 11.9%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma11.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.4%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion9.4%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.4%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection9.4%This article: 36.3%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice36.3%This article: 11.9%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination11.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

160 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers34%attributed speech105writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageBen McAdams • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Gehrke • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSean Higgins • 14 words • 0.0% coverageGabi Finlayson • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMitchell Vice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Gabi Finlayson

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words25% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-55.2 ptsWriter: 55.2%Gabi Finlayson: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-18.1 ptsWriter: 18.1%Gabi Finlayson: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-14.3 ptsWriter: 14.3%Gabi Finlayson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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