Daily Kos84%

Key GOP candidate reportedly has strong Nazi ties 79%

By Oliver Willis92%

7/16/2026, 4:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Hasty Generalization, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 45% saturation with 236 hits. Analysis detected 1,336 faulty-reasoning hits from 524 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.8% and a BS Rank of 79% (4,798 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.10% of the article peer group.

The son-in-law of Rep. 
Mike Collins, the Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia, has an extensive online history of promoting white supremacy and Nazi apologia, CNN reported on Thursday. 
David Alan Scheer II, who is married to Collins’ daughter, has been featured in Collins’ campaign materials amid his run for a U.S. 
Senate seat. 
Scheer also attended Collins’ victory party after he secured the Republican nomination. 
Collins is running for the Senate seat held by Democrat Jon Ossoff. 
The race is a top priority for Republicans desperate to retain control of the chamber. 
President Donald Trump won Georgia by just 2.2 percentage points in the 2024 election after losing the state to former President Joe Biden in 2020 by a narrow 0.2 points. 
Based on posts unearthed by CNN, Collins’ son-in-law appears to be an influencer within an white supremacist community online. 
On his Instagram account, Scheer promoted the white nationalist group Patriot Front, which marched on Washington, D.C., this past Fourth of July. 
Scheer also reportedly expressed several views associated with white supremacy, including the claim that white people are going extinct, that America should somehow be restored by “clearing our land of other people,” and said that Jewish people are responsible for ideas that “undermine the white Christian nature of America.” 
In one since-deleted online comment, Scheer proposed creating a video titled “Why Gen Z doesn’t hate Hitler.” 
“Only a known bigot and antisemite like Mike Collins would enable the ongoing spread of neo-Nazi propaganda,” Ossoff said in a statement responding to the news. 
“How much has Mike Collins paid neo-Nazi David Alan Scheer and is Scheer still based on Collins’ property? 
Mike Collins must apologize immediately for his and his office’s disqualifying ties to neo-Nazi ideology and notorious white supremacists.” 
The revelations about Collins’ unsettling ties come about a month after Trump endorsed him ahead of the Republican primary, which Collins won. 
“Mike is strongly supported by the most Highly Respected MAGA Patriots in Georgia and beyond, and many Republicans in the U.S. 
House and Senate  He is a WARRIOR and WINNER!” 
Trump wrote on June 14. 
Trump also praised Collins for supporting his implementation of racist anti-immigrant policies and falsely claimed that Ossoff is a “Radical Left Lunatic” who “wants to abolish our Borders.” 
The news about Collins’ son-in-law is not the first red flag about the congressman’s affiliations. 
In 2024, he came under fire for an online exchange with an antisemitic social media account that singled out a reporter for her Jewish heritage. 
Collins’ troubles fall in line with campaign problems plaguing another Senate candidate anointed by Trump. 
After the president backed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Lone Star State Republican has been dealing with criticism of his past corruption and decision to take a vacation to Europe in the middle of the campaign. 
Polling shows Ossoff with a slight lead over Collins, and Ossoff recently reported bringing in $20 million in campaign donations in the second quarter of the year, significantly ahead of his Republican rival, who brought in just $2.1 million in the same period of time. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.0%Oliver Willis: 10.7%Daily Kos: 5.7%Confirmation Bias13.0%This article: 14.3%Oliver Willis: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias14.3%This article: 8.4%Oliver Willis: 3.4%Daily Kos: 3.3%Availability Heuristic8.4%This article: 6.5%Oliver Willis: 0.8%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic6.5%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 1.9%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 1.0%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Oliver Willis: 9.6%Daily Kos: 8.9%Framing Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.3%Daily Kos: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Oliver Willis: 1.8%Daily Kos: 2.0%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 45.0%Oliver Willis: 19.6%Daily Kos: 15.4%Negativity Bias45.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.7%Daily Kos: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Oliver Willis: 3.6%Daily Kos: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error2.3%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Oliver Willis: 3.3%Daily Kos: 2.1%In-Group Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 3.2%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Oliver Willis: 0.4%Daily Kos: 1.8%Halo Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.0%Oliver Willis: 2.3%Daily Kos: 1.5%Recency Bias9.0%This article: 2.9%Oliver Willis: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Oliver Willis: 8.4%Daily Kos: 5.8%Ad Hominem13.7%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 3.4%Daily Kos: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.8%Oliver Willis: 1.9%Daily Kos: 3.2%Appeal to Authority8.8%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 3.2%Daily Kos: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 2.5%Daily Kos: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.7%Oliver Willis: 17.5%Daily Kos: 9.8%Hasty Generalization19.7%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.0%Oliver Willis: 1.1%Daily Kos: 0.6%Bandwagon4.0%This article: 24.2%Oliver Willis: 10.3%Daily Kos: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion24.2%This article: 3.4%Oliver Willis: 3.3%Daily Kos: 1.9%Begging the Question3.4%This article: 11.3%Oliver Willis: 6.9%Daily Kos: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.3%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 1.0%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.6%Oliver Willis: 1.5%Daily Kos: 0.8%Burden of Proof3.6%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.9%Oliver Willis: 0.7%Daily Kos: 0.3%Composition/Division2.9%This article: 11.6%Oliver Willis: 2.4%Daily Kos: 2.0%Anecdotal11.6%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 1.4%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 1.5%Daily Kos: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.9%Oliver Willis: 2.7%Daily Kos: 2.8%Unattributed Quote17.9%This article: 6.5%Oliver Willis: 2.2%Daily Kos: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 7.3%Oliver Willis: 35.3%Daily Kos: 23.1%Biased Writer Voice7.3%This article: 8.4%Oliver Willis: 1.9%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination8.4%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 23.5%Daily Kos: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Willis: 1.4%Daily Kos: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

524 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers18%attributed speech430writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJon Ossoff • 26 words • 100.0% coverageJon Ossoff • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJon Ossoff • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jon Ossoff

100%flagged-word coverage
63 attributed words67% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Quote-first Misdirection+39.4 ptsWriter: 1.9%Jon Ossoff: 41.3%41.3%Unattributed Quote+25.5 ptsWriter: 15.8%Jon Ossoff: 41.3%41.3%Indoctrination+24.3 ptsWriter: 5.8%Jon Ossoff: 30.2%30.2%Biased Writer Voice-8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%Jon Ossoff: 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.