NOTUS0%

Tucker Carlson Is Starting a Third Party. Those Who’ve Tried Say: Good Luck! 31%

By Torrie Herrington0%

7/2/2026, 3:53:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Status Quo Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26.3% saturation with 193 hits. Analysis detected 1,769 faulty-reasoning hits from 735 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.3% and a BS Rank of 31% (15,237 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.60% of the article peer group.

Tucker Carlson, the conservative commentator and former Fox News host who recently split with the Republican Party, said he wants to help create a third party. 
In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review published Wednesday, Carlson said the United States’ two main parties, Republicans and Democrats, are “in lockstep solidarity with each other.” 
“That’s not a democracy,” Carlson said. 
“That’s a one-party state posing as a democracy, and it needs to be broken, and there’s going to be a third party, and I’m going to do everything I can to bring that about.” 
Carlson said he left the GOP because of the administration’s fervent support of Israel and the trajectory of the Iran war. 
But he was vague about ideas for a third party’s platform, though he said he would not be a candidate himself. 
Building a third party is not a new idea  many have attempted to do it, and third-party candidates do successfully run on local and national ballots. 
It’s important work, proponents told NOTUS, but gaining power outside of the entrenched two-party system in the United States requires years of backbreaking and often thankless work. 
After Elon Musk split with President Donald Trump, he also pledged to start a political party. 
Soon after, he pumped the breaks on the effort. 
In 2021, Andrew Yang, who ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, cofounded the Forward Party. 
Despite several efforts, candidates affiliated with Yang and the organization have failed to break through. 
Forward Party CEO Lindsey Williams Drath said the organization struggled in its early days to navigate the byzantine campaign finance system in the United States, which is often governed at the state level. 
“What people don’t understand about creating a third party is really, you’re creating effectively 51 parties,” she said. 
“You’re launching the national infrastructure to support something, but then you’re navigating campaign finance and election law across 50 states, and that complicated web of systems is built by intention by the two parties to raise the barrier for entry higher than any new political party is able to achieve.” 
Williams Drath provided the Arizona No Labels Party as an example. 
Just this year, the independent party was challenged by the state’s Republican and Democratic parties when it wanted to change its name. 
Ultimately, a judge ruled No Labels could not change its name. 
“Those parties have actually sent lawyers out from Washington, D.C., to litigate and push that party off of the ballot and push off legitimate candidates,” Williams Drath said. 
Libertarian Party Chair Evan McMahon said in a statement to NOTUS that his party can “sympathize with Mr. 
Carlson’s frustration with the Republican party.” 
“What Mr. 
Carlson will quickly learn is that the Republicans and Democrats write the rules and control the elections,” McMahon said. 
“Forming a new political party will be an uphill battle filled with heartbreak and debt. 
We wish him the best of luck.” 
Williams Drath noted that it is extremely difficult for candidates running outside the two-party system to get on a ballot, raise money and have their voices heard. 
“Right now there’s a hunger for third parties or independent politics, but I doubt that that is going to be filled by a party created by Tucker Carlson,” said Ravi Mangla, spokesperson for the left-leaning Working Families Party, founded in 1988. 
He said that creating a third party is easier said than done, describing Carlson as someone who lacks the necessary experience in organizing voters. 
“The Working Families Party has been built up over three decades of slow and difficult work,” Mangla said. 
“It’s very easy for a charismatic figure to say that they want to create a party, but what it actually takes is building a broad base of support among members and voters, and that is not easy work.” 
Williams Drath was noncommittal when asked if Forward Party would consider working with Carlson in the future. 
But she had one piece of advice in particular for Carlson: Start from the ground up  not at the top of the ticket. 
“It is very hard to capture that lightning in a bottle from the top of the ticket,” she said. 
“You need to build something that is lasting and durable from the bottom up. 
It is hard and it is long, and you need lots of lawyers.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.5%Torrie Herrington: 1.1%NOTUS: 2.3%Confirmation Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Torrie Herrington: 1.3%NOTUS: 2.2%Availability Heuristic5.2%This article: 6.1%Torrie Herrington: 1.5%NOTUS: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 2.3%NOTUS: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Torrie Herrington: 3.4%NOTUS: 6.6%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 14.3%Torrie Herrington: 3.6%NOTUS: 0.9%Status Quo Bias14.3%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%Torrie Herrington: 1.2%NOTUS: 3.3%Optimism Bias4.6%This article: 24.4%Torrie Herrington: 8.4%NOTUS: 3.0%Pessimism Bias24.4%This article: 26.3%Torrie Herrington: 9.1%NOTUS: 10.5%Negativity Bias26.3%This article: 0.8%Torrie Herrington: 0.2%NOTUS: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.8%This article: 3.3%Torrie Herrington: 3.5%NOTUS: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.3%This article: 3.5%Torrie Herrington: 0.9%NOTUS: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias3.5%This article: 8.0%Torrie Herrington: 2.0%NOTUS: 2.1%In-Group Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 2.7%NOTUS: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Torrie Herrington: 4.7%NOTUS: 1.0%Ad Hominem7.1%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.6%Torrie Herrington: 2.1%NOTUS: 4.7%Appeal to Authority8.6%This article: 4.6%Torrie Herrington: 2.3%NOTUS: 1.0%False Dilemma4.6%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.8%Torrie Herrington: 1.7%NOTUS: 0.2%Circular Reasoning6.8%This article: 12.5%Torrie Herrington: 6.0%NOTUS: 4.9%Hasty Generalization12.5%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.0%Torrie Herrington: 3.7%NOTUS: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion11.0%This article: 4.6%Torrie Herrington: 1.2%NOTUS: 0.7%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 5.0%Torrie Herrington: 1.3%NOTUS: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.3%Torrie Herrington: 2.6%NOTUS: 1.5%Anecdotal10.3%This article: 5.2%Torrie Herrington: 1.3%NOTUS: 0.2%No True Scotsman5.2%This article: 3.3%Torrie Herrington: 0.8%NOTUS: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.3%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 5.6%Torrie Herrington: 1.4%NOTUS: 0.1%Personal Incredulity5.6%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Torrie Herrington: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.8%Torrie Herrington: 5.7%NOTUS: 2.2%Unattributed Quote3.8%This article: 0.8%Torrie Herrington: 0.2%NOTUS: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.8%This article: 18.0%Torrie Herrington: 4.7%NOTUS: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice18.0%This article: 6.9%Torrie Herrington: 1.7%NOTUS: 0.8%Indoctrination6.9%This article: 8.8%Torrie Herrington: 2.2%NOTUS: 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.8%This article: 6.4%Torrie Herrington: 1.6%NOTUS: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.4%This article: 3.7%Torrie Herrington: 0.9%NOTUS: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.7%

735 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers55%attributed speech332writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageTucker Carlson • 6 words • 100.0% coverageTucker Carlson • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageLindsey Williams Drath • 33 words • 100.0% coverageLindsey Williams Drath • 18 words • 0.0% coverageLindsey Williams Drath • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageLindsey Williams Drath • 28 words • 0.0% coverageEvan McMahon • 18 words • 0.0% coverageEvan McMahon • 6 words • 0.0% coverageEvan McMahon • 2 words • 0.0% coverageEvan McMahon • 19 words • 0.0% coverageEvan McMahon • 15 words • 0.0% coverageEvan McMahon • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageRavi Mangla • 41 words • 100.0% coverageRavi Mangla • 24 words • 100.0% coverageRavi Mangla • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRavi Mangla • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageLindsey Williams Drath • 19 words • 0.0% coverageLindsey Williams Drath • 14 words • 100.0% coverageLindsey Williams Drath • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tucker Carlson

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words9.9% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Biased Writer Voice+80.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Tucker Carlson: 85.0%85.0%Quote-first Misdirection+15.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tucker Carlson: 15.0%15.0%Politically Right Leaning -14.2 ptsWriter: 14.2%Tucker Carlson: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Tucker Carlson: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Tucker Carlson: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Tucker Carlson: 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.