Daily Kos84%

GOP’s Florida gerrymander is looking a bit fragile 78%

By Emily Singer83%

7/16/2026, 10:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Left Leaning Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.5% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 1,319 faulty-reasoning hits from 375 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.1% and a BS Rank of 78% (4,546 of 20,516 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.80% of the article peer group.

Before Florida Republicans passed a blatantly partisan mid-decade redraw of their state’s congressional map to benefit the GOP, Democrats warned that such a move could backfire. 
“The Republicans are dummymandering their way into the minority before a single vote is cast,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in April, using a term for when a party draws a map it thinks will extract the maximum number of seats but ends up spreading its voters so thin that the opposing party ends up winning more races. 
On Wednesday, we got a sign that Jeffries' warning may prove correct. 
A new poll of Florida’s redrawn 14th District shows incumbent Democratic Rep. 
Kathy Castor ahead of her two possible GOP opponents: former state Rep. 
Mike Beltran and state Rep. 
Kevin Steele. 
Opponents of mid-decade efforts to redraw congressional districts gather to protest in the Florida Capitol, in Tallahassee, last December.AP 
The survey, conducted by St. 
Pete Polls, finds Castor leading Beltran 46% to 38% and leading Steele 46% to 39%. 
The remainder in each are undecided. 
Castor leads even though President Donald Trump carried the newly redrawn seat by nearly 11 percentage points, according to data from The Downballot. 
When Republicans redrew Florida’s districts, even nonpartisan political handicappers warned that doing so could blow back at the GOP. 
“The riskiest play? 
Targeting Castor, b/c surrounding Tampa Bay GOP seats would be absorbing many of her Dem voters,” the Cook Political Report's Dave Wasserman wrote in a post on X in April. 
Florida’s 14th District is yet another seat Trump carried where Republicans appear to be struggling as anger at Trump’s economy threatens both the GOP’s House and Senate majorities. 
Other surveys released over the last two weeks show Democrats leading or neck-and-neck with Republicans in seats Trump carried in 2024. 
What's more, another new survey released this week showed Democrats holding a massive lead of 26 points among Americans who dislike both parties. 
That's a big reversal from 2024, when those voters backed Trump and helped him win the presidency. 
Ultimately, the midterms may prove to be so ugly for Trump and the GOP that not even their corrupt gerrymanders can save them. 
And they have only themselves to blame. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.9%Emily Singer: 6.3%Daily Kos: 5.5%Confirmation Bias21.9%This article: 6.1%Emily Singer: 0.9%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias6.1%This article: 13.3%Emily Singer: 4.0%Daily Kos: 3.2%Availability Heuristic13.3%This article: 4.0%Emily Singer: 1.7%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 4.5%Emily Singer: 1.8%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.7%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Emily Singer: 9.8%Daily Kos: 9.0%Framing Effect15.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.1%Daily Kos: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Emily Singer: 2.9%Daily Kos: 1.9%Pessimism Bias15.7%This article: 39.5%Emily Singer: 19.0%Daily Kos: 15.1%Negativity Bias39.5%This article: 1.9%Emily Singer: 1.1%Daily Kos: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias1.9%This article: 7.5%Emily Singer: 4.3%Daily Kos: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error7.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.3%Daily Kos: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.3%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.9%Emily Singer: 2.2%Daily Kos: 1.4%Recency Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Emily Singer: 8.8%Daily Kos: 5.9%Ad Hominem15.7%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.7%Daily Kos: 1.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.2%Emily Singer: 3.8%Daily Kos: 3.2%Appeal to Authority23.2%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.0%Daily Kos: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.1%Emily Singer: 2.0%Daily Kos: 1.2%Slippery Slope6.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.1%Emily Singer: 9.8%Daily Kos: 9.7%Hasty Generalization21.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.3%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.6%Emily Singer: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.7%Bandwagon5.6%This article: 18.1%Emily Singer: 7.8%Daily Kos: 7.2%Appeal to Emotion18.1%This article: 6.1%Emily Singer: 1.4%Daily Kos: 1.8%Begging the Question6.1%This article: 12.0%Emily Singer: 6.2%Daily Kos: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.8%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.9%Emily Singer: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.7%Burden of Proof1.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.0%Emily Singer: 1.5%Daily Kos: 2.1%Anecdotal12.0%This article: 1.9%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.9%This article: 15.7%Emily Singer: 1.8%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.7%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.2%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground3.2%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 6.1%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading6.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.9%Emily Singer: 2.7%Daily Kos: 2.8%Unattributed Quote5.9%This article: 16.5%Emily Singer: 1.7%Daily Kos: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection16.5%This article: 4.0%Emily Singer: 27.3%Daily Kos: 22.8%Biased Writer Voice4.0%This article: 6.1%Emily Singer: 1.4%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination6.1%This article: 25.6%Emily Singer: 14.3%Daily Kos: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias25.6%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.8%Daily Kos: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

375 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers25%attributed speech283writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageHakeem Jeffries • 59 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageDave Wasserman • 3 words • 100.0% coverageDave Wasserman • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Hakeem Jeffries

100%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words64% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Hakeem Jeffries: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B-33.9 ptsWriter: 33.9%Hakeem Jeffries: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Hakeem Jeffries: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Hakeem Jeffries: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Hakeem Jeffries: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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