BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Burden of Proof, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 8.1% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 558 faulty-reasoning hits from 545 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.1% and a BS Rank of 9% (19,921 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.00% of the article peer group.

Today, the Maine Democratic Party will officially announce that Troy Jackson will replace Graham Platner on the ballot. 
The field has basically cleared for this candidate, who has his own issues—reportedly a fierce temper—but he’s likely to secure the necessary endorsements to have his name on the ballot. 
About 600 delegates will make their decision later this morning. 
If everything goes smoothly, Jackson is expected to face incumbent Sen. 
Susan Collins (R-ME). 
However, one Maine lawmaker isn’t convinced that Jackson is eligible. 
In a letter to Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, State Rep. 
James White asked for an investigation into the matter. 
Jackson’s eligibility depends on the June primaries—he ran for governor and was not successful. 
The issue is that the state doesn’t have an explicit ‘sore loser’ law, but it’s something to watch (via The Maine Wire): 
Just hours before Maine Democrats are scheduled to meet in Bangor to select a replacement nominee for the U.S. 
Senate, a Republican state lawmaker is asking Secretary of State Shenna Bellows to determine whether former Senate President Troy Jackson is legally eligible to receive the nomination at all. 
In a letter dated July 24, State Rep. 
James White (R-Guilford) formally requested that Bellows immediately investigate whether Jackson—or any candidate who sought and lost a race for another federal, state, or county office in Maine’s June primary, is legally eligible to become a replacement nominee under Maine election law. 
White contends that Maine’s election statutes prohibit a candidate from seeking another office after already appearing on the primary ballot for a different office. 
He points specifically to Title 21-A, Section 331, which provides that “a person may not file, whether by primary election or nomination petition, as a candidate for more than one federal, state or county office at any election.” 
White also cites Section 351, which contains similar restrictions, and Section 363, which provides that a political committee filling a vacancy “shall choose a qualified person to fill the vacancy.” 
White’s argument also relies on the U.S. 
Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in Storer v. 
Brown, in which the Court described primary elections as “an integral part of the entire election process.” 
According to White, supporters of Jackson’s candidacy must treat Maine’s June primary and November general election as separate elections in order for Jackson to qualify. 
He argues that interpretation conflicts with both the Supreme Court’s reasoning and the Legislature’s decision to prohibit candidates from seeking more than one office “at any election.” 
The letter further argues that so-called “sore loser” laws exist to protect the integrity of elections by preventing candidates who lose one race from reaching the general election ballot through another avenue. 
Whether White’s argument ultimately prevails remains an open legal question. 
Unlike several states, Maine does not have an explicit “sore loser” statute that expressly bars a candidate defeated in a primary from later appearing on the general election ballot for another office. 
Instead, White argues that existing provisions of Title 21-A, when read together, effectively create that prohibition. 
What a mess. 
We’ll see if this gets reviewed, but it all circles back to Democrats creating this fiasco by supporting a man, Platner, with Nazi tattoos and allegations of rape and domestic abuse. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.7%Matt Vespa: 6.0%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias5.7%This article: 2.0%Matt Vespa: 0.7%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias2.0%This article: 4.0%Matt Vespa: 2.5%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.8%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.1%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.8%Townhall: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Matt Vespa: 8.3%Townhall: 11.2%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Matt Vespa: 1.1%Townhall: 1.4%Optimism Bias5.5%This article: 2.4%Matt Vespa: 2.2%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias2.4%This article: 8.1%Matt Vespa: 14.0%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias8.1%This article: 5.7%Matt Vespa: 1.3%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.3%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 4.9%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.9%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.0%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.7%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.0%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Matt Vespa: 6.2%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem5.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.3%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Matt Vespa: 3.7%Townhall: 4.4%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.0%Townhall: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.2%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 5.0%Matt Vespa: 0.3%Townhall: 0.2%Circular Reasoning5.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 9.4%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 4.0%Matt Vespa: 0.5%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring4.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.4%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.6%Matt Vespa: 8.6%Townhall: 11.1%Appeal to Emotion0.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.4%Townhall: 2.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.7%Matt Vespa: 1.9%Townhall: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.5%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.7%Matt Vespa: 2.0%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof7.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.3%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.9%Matt Vespa: 1.8%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Matt Vespa: 3.0%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 5.7%Matt Vespa: 2.6%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection5.7%This article: 6.1%Matt Vespa: 18.5%Townhall: 16.1%Biased Writer Voice6.1%This article: 5.7%Matt Vespa: 4.3%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination5.7%This article: 5.7%Matt Vespa: 0.7%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 13.0%Townhall: 13.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 4.9%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

545 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers51%attributed speech265writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMaine Democratic Party • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 42 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJames White • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

James White

45%flagged-word coverage
262 attributed words94% of attributed speech49% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.5 ptsWriter: 12.5%James White: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%James White: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%James White: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%James White: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.3 ptsWriter: 8.3%James White: 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.