Davis: Dems Can't Smear Kavanaugh But Ignore Platner Allegations ⁠98%

By The Federalist Staff⁠0%

6/9/2026, 6:12:33 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 79.3% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 602 faulty-reasoning hits from 87 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 96.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠98% (547 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 97.50% of the article peer group.

“You cannot have politics … where one side gets to make these insane allegations, and you have to listen to them,” but “when the same thing happens to that side, you have to dismiss [the allegations] because they’re not credible,” Sean Davis said during an interview with Megyn Kelly. 
“Under the standard that Senate Democrats created for Brett Kavanaugh, we are required to say that [Maine U.S. 
Senate candidate Graham] Platner is guilty and cannot be a candidate.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 56.3%The Federalist Staff: 30.5%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias56.3%This article: 20.7%The Federalist Staff: 3.5%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias20.7%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 6.9%The Federalist: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 2.7%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 4.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 66.7%The Federalist Staff: 24.1%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect66.7%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 2.2%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 20.7%The Federalist Staff: 2.3%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias20.7%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%The Federalist Staff: 12.6%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias12.6%This article: 23.0%The Federalist Staff: 39.3%The Federalist: 12.4%Negativity Bias23.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 8.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 56.3%The Federalist Staff: 26.1%The Federalist: 3.9%In-Group Bias56.3%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 21.6%The Federalist: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.7%The Federalist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%The Federalist Staff: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect10.3%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 13.0%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 8.0%The Federalist: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 1.8%The Federalist: 5.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 10.3%The Federalist Staff: 27.1%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma10.3%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 8.3%The Federalist: 2.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 20.7%The Federalist Staff: 0.9%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning20.7%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 43.1%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 56.3%The Federalist Staff: 34.2%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion56.3%This article: 12.6%The Federalist Staff: 8.5%The Federalist: 3.1%Begging the Question12.6%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 56.3%The Federalist Staff: 11.7%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque56.3%This article: 33.3%The Federalist Staff: 6.8%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof33.3%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 1.1%The Federalist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 12.6%The Federalist Staff: 5.5%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman12.6%This article: 56.3%The Federalist Staff: 5.2%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)56.3%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 7.3%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 10.3%The Federalist Staff: 19.8%The Federalist: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection10.3%This article: 79.3%The Federalist Staff: 15.4%The Federalist: 19.7%Biased Writer Voice79.3%This article: 77.0%The Federalist Staff: 13.1%The Federalist: 5.2%Indoctrination77.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 42.2%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Federalist Staff: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

87 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker90%attributed speech9writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageSean Davis • 49 words • 100.0% coverageSean Davis • 18 words • 100.0% coverageSean Davis • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sean Davis

100%flagged-word coverage
78 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-100.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Sean Davis: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.1 ptsWriter: 100.0%Sean Davis: 76.9%76.9%Indoctrination+85.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sean Davis: 85.9%85.9%

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.