Scott Jennings: Democrats Already Vetted Graham Platner, Why Bail On Him Now? ⁠78%

By Tim Hains⁠0%

7/7/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Hasty Generalization, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 34.9% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 1,426 faulty-reasoning hits from 410 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (4,835 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.90% of the article peer group.

CNN's Scott Jennings wonders why the latest accusation against Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner seems to have broken the camel's back. 
Platner "was vetted," Jennings said. 
"People knew all these things and a whole bunch of Democrats in Maine showed up and voted for him anyway. 
And a bunch of from around the country sent him money anyway." 
"What changed? 
Why are you bailing on Graham Platner now?" 
he said. 
"You already signed off on Nazi tattoo, self-described communist, rape fantasies... and on, and on, and on, and on and on." 
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN: Well, that's great question, because something that Alyssa said, I agree, by the way, with everything Alyssa said, she raised all the correct issues and said this is what they had signed on to. 
The only thing I disagree with is when she said that he hadn't been vetted. 
No, he had been vetted. 
All of the things that have been stated, it was all out in the public and people like Ro Khanna, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Walz, "The Bulwark," "Pod Save America," all of these people came together to overlook it all, to explain it all, to rationalize it all. 
He was vetted. 
People knew all these things and a whole bunch of Democrats in Maine showed up and voted for him anyway. 
And a bunch of from around the country sent him money anyway. 
I agree with Alyssa's question. 
What changed? 
Why are you bailing on Graham Platner now? 
You already signed off on Nazi tattoo, a self-described communist somebody who's had rape fantasies, somebody who has been on a social media platform known as a playground for predators, and on, and on, and on, and on and on. 
And the difference between this accuser and the previous one is simply this, she's a liberal. 
It's okay, I guess, for Democrats that their candidates assault conservatives. 
But he broke into someone's house. 
And apparently, according to her, raped her. 
And because her politics are correct, they can now believe it. 
All of this whole thing is disgusting but to say that they hadn't vetted him, or that they didn't know about all this is totally false. 
They knew it and they signed up for it and I don't know why they're backing away from this scumbag today when they had already signed off on all that other crazy behavior. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.3%Tim Hains: 4.3%RealClearPolitics: 4.9%Confirmation Bias16.3%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.4%RealClearPolitics: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%Tim Hains: 2.5%RealClearPolitics: 2.3%Availability Heuristic16.8%This article: 6.6%Tim Hains: 0.5%RealClearPolitics: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic6.6%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 2.2%RealClearPolitics: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Tim Hains: 4.2%RealClearPolitics: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias2.0%This article: 2.9%Tim Hains: 6.2%RealClearPolitics: 6.8%Framing Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.4%RealClearPolitics: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.5%RealClearPolitics: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Tim Hains: 0.7%RealClearPolitics: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 4.1%RealClearPolitics: 4.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Tim Hains: 1.5%RealClearPolitics: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.7%This article: 33.2%Tim Hains: 8.8%RealClearPolitics: 8.4%Negativity Bias33.2%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 1.9%RealClearPolitics: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Tim Hains: 1.4%RealClearPolitics: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error1.7%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.0%RealClearPolitics: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Tim Hains: 5.7%RealClearPolitics: 4.4%In-Group Bias15.9%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 4.5%RealClearPolitics: 3.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 1.4%RealClearPolitics: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.7%RealClearPolitics: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.3%RealClearPolitics: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Tim Hains: 0.5%RealClearPolitics: 0.9%Recency Bias5.4%This article: 9.0%Tim Hains: 0.9%RealClearPolitics: 0.9%Primacy Effect9.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.0%RealClearPolitics: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 34.9%Tim Hains: 2.1%RealClearPolitics: 1.6%Ad Hominem34.9%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 2.4%RealClearPolitics: 3.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.0%Tim Hains: 4.0%RealClearPolitics: 4.4%Appeal to Authority21.0%This article: 2.0%Tim Hains: 1.9%RealClearPolitics: 3.2%False Dilemma2.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.0%RealClearPolitics: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.2%Tim Hains: 0.0%RealClearPolitics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning1.2%This article: 26.3%Tim Hains: 14.5%RealClearPolitics: 13.1%Hasty Generalization26.3%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.1%RealClearPolitics: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.7%RealClearPolitics: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.9%Tim Hains: 10.8%RealClearPolitics: 8.4%Appeal to Emotion23.9%This article: 14.4%Tim Hains: 2.4%RealClearPolitics: 2.5%Begging the Question14.4%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 2.2%RealClearPolitics: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.0%RealClearPolitics: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Tim Hains: 0.5%RealClearPolitics: 0.3%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.0%RealClearPolitics: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.7%RealClearPolitics: 0.8%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.5%Tim Hains: 3.2%RealClearPolitics: 1.8%Anecdotal8.5%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.6%RealClearPolitics: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.7%Tim Hains: 1.6%RealClearPolitics: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.0%RealClearPolitics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.0%RealClearPolitics: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.0%RealClearPolitics: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.0%RealClearPolitics: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 6.6%Tim Hains: 0.3%RealClearPolitics: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy6.6%This article: 4.9%Tim Hains: 0.5%RealClearPolitics: 1.2%Unattributed Quote4.9%This article: 14.9%Tim Hains: 1.3%RealClearPolitics: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection14.9%This article: 32.0%Tim Hains: 1.8%RealClearPolitics: 4.9%Biased Writer Voice32.0%This article: 11.5%Tim Hains: 2.2%RealClearPolitics: 5.2%Indoctrination11.5%This article: 12.0%Tim Hains: 2.6%RealClearPolitics: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias12.0%This article: 6.6%Tim Hains: 3.2%RealClearPolitics: 4.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Tim Hains: 0.6%RealClearPolitics: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

410 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker32%attributed speech279writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Scott Jennings • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageScott Jennings • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageScott Jennings • 37 words • 100.0% coverageScott Jennings • 15 words • 0.0% coverageScott Jennings • 5 words • 0.0% coverageScott Jennings • 49 words • 100.0% coverageScott Jennings • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageScott Jennings • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Jennings

100%flagged-word coverage
131 attributed words100% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice+63.0 ptsWriter: 11.8%Scott Jennings: 74.8%74.8%Politically Left Leaning B+37.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Scott Jennings: 37.4%37.4%Quote-first Misdirection-21.9 ptsWriter: 21.9%Scott Jennings: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-16.8 ptsWriter: 16.8%Scott Jennings: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Scott Jennings: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Scott Jennings: 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.