BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Politically Left Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 28.5% saturation with 272 hits. Analysis detected 2,399 faulty-reasoning hits from 954 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.8% and a BS Rank of 56% (12,338 of 27,733 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the article peer group.

“Who here is ready for their early state anvassing assignments?” 
NYC- 
DSA Co-Chair Gustavo Gordillo asks from the stage. 
Hundreds of New York City DSA members have gathered at an outdoor night- club ten L train stops into Brooklyn to celebrate the group’s historic “Red Tuesday” sweep in this year’s Democratic primaries. 
One year after the establishment wrote off Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral victory as an anomaly, NYC-DSA has proved its mettle again. 
Gordillo is only teasing. 
Earlier in the day, the Democratic National Committee announced its line- up of six early voting states  first South Carolina, then Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia  that will have an outsized impact on the 2028 presidential nominating process. 
That is surely on his mind. 
Still, there is no presidential can- didate to canvas for, yet. 
But everyone knows who Gordillo has in mind. 
Rep. 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joined DSA in 2017 and received a large boost from its ground game in her improbable 2018 primary victory over a 10- term incumbent. 
She remains the organization’s most famous card-carrying member (Bernie Sanders has long identified as a “democratic socialist” but never joined DSA) even as she has been careful to never be too closely tied to the organization. 
AOC’s wavering on arms sales to Israel  she opposed sending offensive weapons to Israel but supported the “Iron Dome” missile defense system  has dismayed many DSA members who believe giving defensive weapons to Israel makes no more sense than giving a bulletproof vest to a school shooter. 
In 2024, DSA’s National Political Committee (NPC)  the organization’s highest elected body  made a show of refusing to endorse AOC while the New York City chapter continued to support her re-election campaign. 
When AOC sought NYC-DSA’s endorsement earlier this year for her 2026 re-election run, she announced that she no longer supported any weapons sales to Israel, offensive or defensive. 
While some of her most vocal DSA critics were not appeased, the New York City chapter backed her by 85-15%. 
Looking Ahead to 2028 
After watching a bumbling Democratic establishment lose twice to Donald Trump, the Democratic Party base is fast moving to the left. 
Socialists and economic populists are winning primaries across the country. 
After years of laboring in obscurity, DSA has bro- ken into the national political discourse. 
The organization’s leaders now regularly appear on cable news shows. 
NYC-DSA’s victory party was covered not only by The Indypendent but by the New York Times , USA Today and Fortune magazine. 
Boomer comedian Bill Maher recently used his platform on HBO to read from the platform of the Marxist Unity Group, one of the further-left factions within DSA. 
Moments like this don’t come along very often. 
Looking to 2028, no other potential left presidential candidate has the charisma, the name recognition and the massive small-donor network that AOC does. 
If she enters the presidential race  for which she has been laying the groundwork for years  she will be a top-tier candidate from Day One. 
DSA will likely remain divided. 
AOC’s critics are leery of any association with the Democratic Party, see her as ideologically inconsistent and wonder how a socialist would govern the most powerful capitalist nation in history. 
AOC’s DSA supporters see an unprecedented opportunity. 
They envision using the energy and the saturation coverage of a presidential campaign to further popularize democratic socialism, grow DSA’s membership far beyond its current 130,000 members  which already makes it the largest socialist organization in U.S. history  and boost all of its 2028 down-ballot candidates. 
In 2019, DSA was similarly divided over whether to go all in on Bernie’s second presidential run. 
It held a non-binding all-member referendum. 
The result was a whopping 76% vote in favor of a Bernie endorse- ment. 
Soon after, the NPC officially endorsed and the organization went all in for Bernie 2.0. 
Their candi- date didn’t win, but the organization gained an influx of new volunteers. 
One of those new volunteers was Claire Valdez, who won her congressional primary in June and will be heading to Capitol Hill next January to represent her Brooklyn-Queens district. 
The current NPC recently voted not to hold an all-member referendum. 
They may endorse AOC at some point next year. 
Or more likely, they won’t. 
And it may not matter. 
DSA remains a decentralized organization whose 250 local chapters often take their own initiative. 
Los Angeles DSA, the second largest chapter with 6,000 members, recently voted at its annual convention to endorse an AOC presidential run and to begin pre- paring for it. 
New York City and some of the other larger, more robust DSA chapters will likely follow suit at some point. 
So much of the U.S. political system  the Senate, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the role of big money and the presidency itself  is designed to thwart popular democracy. 
So the naysayers are not lacking in arguments. 
But they may be misreading the room. 
With the socialist left surging amid the societal wreckage of Trump 2.0 and the collapse of the Democratic Party establish- ment, trying to seize the moment with an AOC presidential candidacy will likely prove to be irresistible, contradictions and all. 
So, don’t be surprised if by next summer NYC-DSA is sending waves of volunteer canvassers for AOC to early states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and Virginia. 
If you believe the old leftist axiom that it’s either “socialism or barbarism”  which has never seemed more prescient  there’s really no choice but to try and then trust that the movement can handle everything  good, bad or somewhere in between  that might flow out of AOC 2028. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.8%Elsie Carson: 3.9%The Indypendent: 3.9%Confirmation Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Elsie Carson: 2.1%The Indypendent: 1.9%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 4.5%Elsie Carson: 0.5%The Indypendent: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 2.1%Elsie Carson: 0.3%The Indypendent: 0.2%Hindsight Bias2.1%This article: 13.1%Elsie Carson: 1.6%The Indypendent: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias13.1%This article: 6.0%Elsie Carson: 3.1%The Indypendent: 3.2%Framing Effect6.0%This article: 5.5%Elsie Carson: 0.5%The Indypendent: 0.4%Loss Aversion5.5%This article: 2.0%Elsie Carson: 0.6%The Indypendent: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.0%This article: 1.5%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.5%This article: 20.0%Elsie Carson: 4.1%The Indypendent: 3.6%Optimism Bias20.0%This article: 4.7%Elsie Carson: 1.4%The Indypendent: 1.1%Pessimism Bias4.7%This article: 5.7%Elsie Carson: 4.0%The Indypendent: 3.6%Negativity Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.7%The Indypendent: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%Elsie Carson: 1.2%The Indypendent: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.6%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Elsie Carson: 3.2%The Indypendent: 3.8%In-Group Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.6%The Indypendent: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Elsie Carson: 1.7%The Indypendent: 1.4%Halo Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Elsie Carson: 0.7%The Indypendent: 0.7%Recency Bias5.0%This article: 3.2%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Primacy Effect3.2%This article: 0.7%Elsie Carson: 0.0%The Indypendent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.7%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.7%The Indypendent: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 5.1%Elsie Carson: 0.5%The Indypendent: 0.4%Straw Man5.1%This article: 8.9%Elsie Carson: 1.6%The Indypendent: 1.3%Appeal to Authority8.9%This article: 8.6%Elsie Carson: 2.2%The Indypendent: 2.1%False Dilemma8.6%This article: 4.2%Elsie Carson: 0.9%The Indypendent: 0.9%Slippery Slope4.2%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.6%Elsie Carson: 6.0%The Indypendent: 5.7%Hasty Generalization15.6%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.0%The Indypendent: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.5%Elsie Carson: 1.0%The Indypendent: 0.8%Bandwagon8.5%This article: 5.5%Elsie Carson: 2.7%The Indypendent: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion5.5%This article: 0.5%Elsie Carson: 0.4%The Indypendent: 0.6%Begging the Question0.5%This article: 7.3%Elsie Carson: 1.3%The Indypendent: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.3%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.0%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.1%Composition/Division3.0%This article: 9.6%Elsie Carson: 3.3%The Indypendent: 2.7%Anecdotal9.6%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.1%Elsie Carson: 0.5%The Indypendent: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.1%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.0%The Indypendent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.0%The Indypendent: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.0%Elsie Carson: 0.6%The Indypendent: 0.8%Unattributed Quote1.0%This article: 1.0%Elsie Carson: 0.2%The Indypendent: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection1.0%This article: 25.3%Elsie Carson: 5.8%The Indypendent: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice25.3%This article: 12.9%Elsie Carson: 2.2%The Indypendent: 2.1%Indoctrination12.9%This article: 28.5%Elsie Carson: 4.1%The Indypendent: 4.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias28.5%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.0%The Indypendent: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elsie Carson: 0.1%The Indypendent: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

954 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers17%attributed speech789writer words
Selected voice

Bill Maher

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words16% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Politically Left Leaning B-34.5 ptsWriter: 34.5%Bill Maher: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-30.5 ptsWriter: 30.5%Bill Maher: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.6 ptsWriter: 15.6%Bill Maher: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.3 ptsWriter: 1.3%Bill Maher: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.3 ptsWriter: 1.3%Bill Maher: 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.