Daily Kos84%

A hidden sign that Republicans know they’re cooked this year - Daily Kos 65%

By Emily Singer83%

7/9/2026, 9:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 40.5% saturation with 269 hits. Analysis detected 2,530 faulty-reasoning hits from 664 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.3% and a BS Rank of 65% (7,716 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.70% of the article peer group.

A hidden sign that Republicans know they’re cooked this year 
July 9, 2026 at 2:30 PM 
Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook 
Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky 
Share on X (Opens in new window) X 
Share using Native tools Share Copied to clipboard 
Campaign signs for Republican Rep. 
Monica De La Cruz of Texas and her Democratic challenger Bobby Pulido stand in Edinburg, Texas, in February. 
AP 
Political handicappers and pundits alike disagree on the accuracy of internal campaign polls, with data showing they are often biased in favor of the candidate they’re affiliated with. 
However, history has shown that while the topline numbers in the surveys may not predict the exact outcome of a race, the amount of internal campaign polls released can be predictive of how that party will do in an upcoming election. 
In other words, campaigns that release more internal polls often do well in that next election, while campaigns that do not release many often do poorly. 
And in 2026, it’s Democrats who are releasing more internal polls than Republicans—the latest sign that November is building up to be a bloodbath for the GOP. 
Over the past week, Democratic candidates or groups affiliated with them released at least six internal polls of November’s general election, according to The New York Times’ aggregator . 
Republicans, meanwhile, released just one. 
The Democratic-affiliated polls covered such toss-up races as New York’s 17th District , Pennsylvania’s 7th District , and Wisconsin’s 3rd District . 
In all three, Democratic candidates led their Republican rivals. 
Another Democratic poll came from Texas’ 15th District , a race the Cook Political Report labels as “Likely Republican.” 
However, the poll found Democratic nominee Bobby Pulido leading incumbent Republican Rep. 
Monica De La Cruz by 2 points in a seat that the GOP redrew to make it more Republican leaning. 
Democratic Rep. 
Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, shown in 2020. 
AP 
According to the Times’ aggregator, the sole Republican-affiliated internal poll released in the past week was for Texas’ 34th District. 
That poll showed the GOP nominee up just 3 points on Democratic Rep. 
Vicente Gonzalez, which isn’t great for Republicans, given that their party just redrew the state’s congressional map to make the seat redder. 
President Donald Trump won the district by 10 points under its new lines, according to The Downballot . 
The midterm elections may still be just shy of four months away, but if Republicans had polling showing them ahead, they’d likely release it to try to stop the rapidly cementing conventional wisdom that the midterms will be a disaster for the GOP. 
And they are not doing that. 
Ultimately, at a nearly identical point in the 2018 midterm cycle, CNN Chief Data Analyst Harry Enten pointed out how Democrats were releasing more internal polls than Republicans, writing at that time that “left-wing groups [put] out 93% of the partisan polls collected by FiveThirtyEight compared to only 7% by right-wing groups.” 
Enten went on to say that was a sign Democrats were likely to perform well that fall, writing that based on historical trends, “The more internal polls put out by left-wing groups relative to right-wing groups, the better Democrats tend to do in House elections.” 
That proved to be true a few months later, when Democrats rode a massive wave in the 2018 midterms, gaining 40 House seats on net as well as the chamber’s majority for the first time in nearly a decade. 
A similar internal polling trend seems to be playing out now. 
We'll get straight to the point: The financial hardships that Daily Kos is facing this year are tough. 
We continue to be paywall-free. 
We continue to be supported by our readers, not billionaires or corporations. 
But we need to bring in more revenue. 
We are leaning on our community more than ever to help make ends meet. 
#DemocraticParty #Midterms #Polling #Polls #RepublicanParty 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 28.3%Emily Singer: 6.2%Daily Kos: 5.7%Confirmation Bias28.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.9%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Emily Singer: 4.2%Daily Kos: 3.3%Availability Heuristic16.9%This article: 17.6%Emily Singer: 1.7%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic17.6%This article: 12.7%Emily Singer: 1.7%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.6%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Emily Singer: 9.6%Daily Kos: 8.9%Framing Effect13.9%This article: 6.0%Emily Singer: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion6.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.4%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: 12.5%Emily Singer: 3.0%Daily Kos: 2.0%Pessimism Bias12.5%This article: 14.0%Emily Singer: 19.0%Daily Kos: 15.4%Negativity Bias14.0%This article: 1.8%Emily Singer: 1.0%Daily Kos: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 4.2%Daily Kos: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Emily Singer: 2.3%Daily Kos: 2.1%In-Group Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.3%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.9%Daily Kos: 1.8%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: 9.5%Emily Singer: 2.4%Daily Kos: 1.5%Recency Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.3%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: 0.0%Emily Singer: 8.4%Daily Kos: 5.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.7%Daily Kos: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.4%Emily Singer: 3.6%Daily Kos: 3.2%Appeal to Authority24.4%This article: 8.3%Emily Singer: 1.9%Daily Kos: 2.3%False Dilemma8.3%This article: 10.5%Emily Singer: 2.0%Daily Kos: 1.3%Slippery Slope10.5%This article: 10.7%Emily Singer: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning10.7%This article: 16.7%Emily Singer: 10.1%Daily Kos: 9.8%Hasty Generalization16.7%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.4%Emily Singer: 7.9%Daily Kos: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion15.4%This article: 14.6%Emily Singer: 1.4%Daily Kos: 1.9%Begging the Question14.6%This article: 26.2%Emily Singer: 6.1%Daily Kos: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)26.2%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.7%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.2%Emily Singer: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.8%Burden of Proof1.2%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: 5.0%Emily Singer: 1.4%Daily Kos: 2.0%Anecdotal5.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.3%Emily Singer: 1.8%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 25.9%Emily Singer: 2.8%Daily Kos: 2.8%Unattributed Quote25.9%This article: 2.0%Emily Singer: 2.2%Daily Kos: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 40.5%Emily Singer: 27.4%Daily Kos: 23.1%Biased Writer Voice40.5%This article: 11.6%Emily Singer: 1.5%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination11.6%This article: 9.3%Emily Singer: 14.6%Daily Kos: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Emily Singer: 2.7%Daily Kos: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.4%

664 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers25%attributed speech500writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageThe New York Times’ aggregator • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times’ aggregator • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageThe Downballot • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageHarry Enten • 52 words • 100.0% coverageHarry Enten • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Harry Enten

100%flagged-word coverage
97 attributed words59% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-53.8 ptsWriter: 53.8%Harry Enten: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+43.0 ptsWriter: 10.6%Harry Enten: 53.6%53.6%Indoctrination+40.0 ptsWriter: 6.4%Harry Enten: 46.4%46.4%Attempt to Sell a Product -17.8 ptsWriter: 17.8%Harry Enten: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-12.4 ptsWriter: 12.4%Harry Enten: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Harry Enten: 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.