Townhall⁠92%

The Wisconsin Governor's Race Is Now a Dead Heat ⁠87%

By Amy Curtis⁠96%

8/3/2026, 11:30:45 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Negativity Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 80.2% saturation with 231 hits. Analysis detected 1,439 faulty-reasoning hits from 288 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (3,767 of 27,270 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.20% of the article peer group.

Things keep looking good for Wisconsin Republican Tom Tiffany, who is running to replace the retiring Democrat Gov. 
Tony Evers in this year's election. 
Polymarket now just said the race is a dead heat, with odds of Tiffany winning skyrocketing and odds of the Democrat sinking like a stone. 
While the Wisconsin primary isn't until next Tuesday, Francesca Hong has all but locked up the Democrat nomination, far outpacing Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who dropped out of and reentered the race in the hopes of thwarting Hong. 
That's proof Democrats themselves don't believe Hong can win, and who can blame them? 
Hong is trying to moderate her positions now that the general election is on the horizon, but she's made it clear she's a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and has been for the better part of a decade. 
The DSA wants to abolish prisons, abolish ICE, end the Senate and presidency, and turn us into a full-blown communist state. 
Hong herself even said she wanted to abolish the Senate, then her campaign argued—with a straight face—that she never said such a thing. 
That tracks, considering Hong admitted in an interview to being diagnosed as bipolar herself. 
That mental health history is pertinent to the race, because Wisconsin voters cannot trust a governor who may not be able to govern on a good day, let alone when there's a crisis. 
The Democrats let their Trump Derangement Syndrome cede the party to lunatics, and they're going to pay dearly for it. 
She will not resign. 
She just campaigned in South Milwaukee with Ilhan Omar and Hasan Piker. 
Hope the "big tent" was worth it. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.9%Amy Curtis: 7.7%Townhall: 5.0%Confirmation Bias29.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.1%Amy Curtis: 3.2%Townhall: 2.6%Availability Heuristic20.1%This article: 4.2%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Amy Curtis: 1.8%Townhall: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias1.4%This article: 3.1%Amy Curtis: 10.0%Townhall: 10.0%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.3%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%Amy Curtis: 1.0%Townhall: 1.3%Optimism Bias6.3%This article: 35.1%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.7%Pessimism Bias35.1%This article: 40.6%Amy Curtis: 14.8%Townhall: 12.9%Negativity Bias40.6%This article: 6.9%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias6.9%This article: 9.7%Amy Curtis: 3.5%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error9.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Amy Curtis: 4.3%Townhall: 4.3%In-Group Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 5.3%Townhall: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.7%Amy Curtis: 1.0%Townhall: 1.2%Recency Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 23.3%Amy Curtis: 7.8%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem23.3%This article: 14.9%Amy Curtis: 4.2%Townhall: 1.9%Straw Man14.9%This article: 16.0%Amy Curtis: 3.5%Townhall: 3.9%Appeal to Authority16.0%This article: 11.5%Amy Curtis: 2.4%Townhall: 1.8%False Dilemma11.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.0%Amy Curtis: 15.7%Townhall: 9.0%Hasty Generalization25.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.7%Amy Curtis: 1.4%Townhall: 1.2%Bandwagon8.7%This article: 32.3%Amy Curtis: 9.0%Townhall: 10.3%Appeal to Emotion32.3%This article: 4.9%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 2.0%Begging the Question4.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.4%Townhall: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.4%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.1%Townhall: 1.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.3%Townhall: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 4.9%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman4.9%This article: 8.0%Amy Curtis: 1.9%Townhall: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.3%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 3.6%Townhall: 3.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 8.7%Amy Curtis: 2.1%Townhall: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection8.7%This article: 80.2%Amy Curtis: 22.9%Townhall: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice80.2%This article: 19.8%Amy Curtis: 7.2%Townhall: 4.9%Indoctrination19.8%This article: 14.9%Amy Curtis: 0.3%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias14.9%This article: 46.9%Amy Curtis: 21.7%Townhall: 13.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias46.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 5.8%Townhall: 5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

288 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers24%attributed speech219writer words
Selected voice

Polymarket

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words36% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Polymarket: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-85.4 ptsWriter: 85.4%Polymarket: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -52.1 ptsWriter: 52.1%Polymarket: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-26.0 ptsWriter: 26.0%Polymarket: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-19.6 ptsWriter: 19.6%Polymarket: 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.