El-Sayed Looks Set to Trounce Stevens 47%

By Josh Marshall54%

8/3/2026, 4:58:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 19.1% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 1,013 faulty-reasoning hits from 670 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.4% and a BS Rank of 47% (14,385 of 26,743 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.80% of the article peer group.

Tomorrow is primary day in a number of states. 
Michigan is the state that will get the most attention. 
There are several big primaries but the Senate one on the Democratic side will get by far the most attention. 
It pits Abdul El-Sayed against Rep. 
Haley Stevens. 
Unless the polls are wildly far off the mark (not impossible in a primary election), El-Sayed will win handily. 
About a half dozen polls conducted over the last two weeks show El-Sayed winning by 10 points or more, many in the mid to high teens. 
Meanwhile the balance of general election polls show Stevens very narrowly beating former Rep. 
Mike Rogers while El-Sayed very narrowly loses to him. 
On the general election polls, if we look only at the four polls released in July, they’re sort of scattershot. 
(I’m going by the polls listed on the NYT website.) 
One is very bad for El-Sayed, showing him losing by 10 and Haley winning by one. 
Another shows El-Sayed tied with Rogers and Stevens losing by three. 
Two other polls show Stevens narrowly winning and El-Sayed narrowly losing. 
One of those is Republican sponsored. 
The other just came out today and is from EPIC-MRA, generally considered the marquee pollster in the state. 
That one shows Rogers beating El-Sayed by 3 points and losing to Stevens by 2 points. 
Michigan Democrats definitely have their work cut out for them. 
That’s not so much because the likely primary winner, El-Sayed, is currently behind by three points, according to EPIC-MRA, but because this has been an incredibly hard fought, personal and increasingly nasty battle. 
El-Sayed has a lot of work to do getting Stevens supporters coalesced behind him (the same if Stevens wins in an upset). 
I know Stevens supporters in Michigan who think El-Sayed is unelectable. 
Republicans will run a kind of campaign against El-Sayed a Democrat either cannot or will not, etc. 
Rogers’ campaign has already taken to referring to El-Sayed by his full name, “Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed,” as a taste of the kind of campaign they’ll run. 
This prediction may or may not be the case. 
Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. 
I’m not without anxiety that it might be. 
But I don’t think that’s set in stone. 
In any case, for Democrats who need that Senate seat, the question is moot. 
It’s El-Sayed or Rogers, a zero sum equation with power going to Trump or the opposition. 
El-Sayed will have to find a way to bring Stevens supporters over to him. 
That’s the responsibility you take on when you win, which it seems all but certain he’ll do tomorrow. 
I wanted to add a bit of a cautionary note to anyone who thinks that El-Sayed is toast, either because of these polls or because of El-Sayed’s politics generally. 
The first is that Mike Rogers lost to Elissa Slotkin in 2024, which turned out to be a pretty rough year for Democrats and in which Trump actually won the state. 
Just on the merits, Rogers is not a strong candidate or a particularly able one. 
That’s an important part of the equation. 
The other is that these general election polls come after a few months of relentlessly negative campaigns against both Democrats but especially against El-Sayed. 
Outside expenditures attacking El-Sayed dwarf those attacking Haley, with a lot of it coming from AIPAC. 
Meanwhile, Rogers is running basically uncontested in the GOP primary. 
He’s taking zero incoming fire. 
You would expect both Democrats to be softened up by that torrent of negative ads while Rogers has yet to face any. 
The nastiness of the Democratic primary meanwhile has likely pushed a number of each Democrats’ supporters at least into the undecided category in these polls. 
That’s why reconsolidating Democrats will be so critical for El-Sayed. 
What that all amounts to is that there’s at least a credible argument that El-Sayed’s numbers have room to grow while Rogers’ may not. 
Polls in Michigan close tomorrow night at 8 p.m. local time. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Josh Marshall: 2.4%Talking Points Memo: 4.4%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 2.7%Josh Marshall: 0.9%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%Anchoring Bias2.7%This article: 3.6%Josh Marshall: 1.5%Talking Points Memo: 2.1%Availability Heuristic3.6%This article: 6.6%Josh Marshall: 1.8%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic6.6%This article: 4.6%Josh Marshall: 1.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias4.6%This article: 2.1%Josh Marshall: 3.9%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 2.4%Josh Marshall: 4.7%Talking Points Memo: 9.3%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.3%Josh Marshall: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%Optimism Bias10.3%This article: 3.6%Josh Marshall: 1.1%Talking Points Memo: 2.2%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 15.8%Josh Marshall: 6.4%Talking Points Memo: 11.2%Negativity Bias15.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.3%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Josh Marshall: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error5.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 1.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.3%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Josh Marshall: 0.9%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Recency Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.3%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Josh Marshall: 1.8%Talking Points Memo: 3.0%Ad Hominem3.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.4%Josh Marshall: 2.1%Talking Points Memo: 2.6%Appeal to Authority6.4%This article: 3.3%Josh Marshall: 1.3%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.5%Josh Marshall: 4.7%Talking Points Memo: 4.3%Hasty Generalization4.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.0%Josh Marshall: 0.8%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Bandwagon3.0%This article: 2.2%Josh Marshall: 1.2%Talking Points Memo: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion2.2%This article: 2.7%Josh Marshall: 0.7%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Begging the Question2.7%This article: 19.1%Josh Marshall: 2.3%Talking Points Memo: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.1%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.1%Josh Marshall: 0.8%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Burden of Proof3.1%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.3%Josh Marshall: 0.7%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Composition/Division3.3%This article: 1.6%Josh Marshall: 0.8%Talking Points Memo: 1.7%Anecdotal1.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.5%Josh Marshall: 1.1%Talking Points Memo: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Josh Marshall: 0.7%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Middle Ground3.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.4%Talking Points Memo: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 18.5%Josh Marshall: 6.6%Talking Points Memo: 11.6%Biased Writer Voice18.5%This article: 4.3%Josh Marshall: 0.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Indoctrination4.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 2.9%Talking Points Memo: 7.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marshall: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

670 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.9%attributed speech644writer words
Selected voice

Rogers

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words100% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+84.8 ptsWriter: 15.2%Rogers: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Rogers: 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.