David Crowley Reentered the WI Governor's Race, and He's Probably Going to Lose ⁠75%

By Amy Curtis⁠90%

7/22/2026, 7:30:07 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49% saturation with 172 hits. Analysis detected 1,078 faulty-reasoning hits from 351 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (5,287 of 20,498 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.20% of the article peer group.

It's been a wild week in Wisconsin politics. 
Nearly three weeks ago, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley announced that he was dropping out of the race. 
He endorsed current Lt. 
Gov. 
Sara Rodriguez, whose campaign promptly imploded amid campaign finance issues that led to the firing of her campaign manager. 
Rodriguez vowed to limp on to the August 11 primary, and Wisconsin Democrats (WisDems) were putting all their hopes on her to knock the radical socialist Francesca Hong out of the race, fearing Hong would lose the general election. 
Unfortunately, Rodriguez ended her campaign, and WisDems went into full-blown panic mode. 
That prompted them to ask David Crowley to return to the race and to get Governor Tony Evers to endorse him. 
So Crowley held a press conference last Saturday announcing that he was back and Evers, on a trip to Africa, endorsed him. 
Turns out all that work may have been for naught, and Crowley is on his way to an embarrassing finish in the upcoming primary, with one poll showing him a distant third behind Hong and Mandela Barnes. 
The crosstabs aren't much better for Crowley. 
The only group that he makes any headway in is with non-white voters, and even then he's losing to Mandela Barnes by 14 points. 
We have to imagine that Barnes, who wins non-white voters and voters over the age of 65, is livid at how the WisDems have absolutely abandoned his campaign, especially when you remember that Barnes served as Lt. 
Gov. under Evers during his first term. 
Rodriguez didn't have a choice. 
Her campaign was essentially broke. 
The Democratic Primary is August 11, and it looks like the race is Hong's to lose. 
Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. 
Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress. 
Help Townhall continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.7%Amy Curtis: 8.6%Townhall: 5.2%Confirmation Bias21.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 3.7%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Amy Curtis: 2.1%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias10.5%This article: 10.3%Amy Curtis: 10.6%Townhall: 11.4%Framing Effect10.3%This article: 2.6%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.3%Loss Aversion2.6%This article: 1.4%Amy Curtis: 0.3%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.0%Townhall: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.6%Amy Curtis: 2.8%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias25.6%This article: 49.0%Amy Curtis: 15.2%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias49.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.5%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Amy Curtis: 3.6%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error10.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%Amy Curtis: 4.7%Townhall: 4.7%In-Group Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 6.2%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Amy Curtis: 1.3%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 8.3%Townhall: 5.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.4%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.1%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.6%Amy Curtis: 2.7%Townhall: 2.0%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.0%Amy Curtis: 16.7%Townhall: 9.2%Hasty Generalization16.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.8%Amy Curtis: 9.9%Townhall: 11.3%Appeal to Emotion26.8%This article: 1.4%Amy Curtis: 3.1%Townhall: 2.3%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 3.4%Amy Curtis: 2.8%Townhall: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.4%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.6%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.4%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.7%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 26.8%Amy Curtis: 2.3%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)26.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.1%Amy Curtis: 4.1%Townhall: 3.3%Unattributed Quote1.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.4%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 41.9%Amy Curtis: 24.7%Townhall: 16.3%Biased Writer Voice41.9%This article: 4.3%Amy Curtis: 8.0%Townhall: 5.7%Indoctrination4.3%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 20.5%Amy Curtis: 22.2%Townhall: 14.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias20.5%This article: 6.6%Amy Curtis: 6.2%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.6%

351 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers19%attributed speech284writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Crowley • 4 words • 100.0% coverageGov. • 1 words • 0.0% coverageSara Rodriguez • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Crowley • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageGov. • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageTownhall VIP • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sara Rodriguez

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words28% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+54.9 ptsWriter: 45.1%Sara Rodriguez: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -25.4 ptsWriter: 25.4%Sara Rodriguez: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Sara Rodriguez: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Sara Rodriguez: 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.