Did MAGA Infiltrate the Green Party in Michigan? ⁠68%

By Brendan Hartnett⁠78% Sam Stein⁠97%

8/6/2026, 12:01:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 27.9% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 581 faulty-reasoning hits from 233 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (9,901 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.60% of the article peer group.

OF ALL THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS up for grabs this fall, Michigan’s 7th may be the most hotly contested. 
Smack in the middle of the state, the 7th went to Donald Trump by just one percentage point in 2024. 
Its current congressman, Republican Tom Barrett, won his seat that year despite Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, carrying the district in her Senate victory. 
This go-around, Barrett is facing off against William Lawrence, the 35-year-old cofounder of the hyperprogressive Sunrise Movement. 
Lawrence clinched the Democratic primary on Tuesday after a conservative group secretly boosted his candidacy and two moderate Democrats split the remaining vote. 
In a race that promises to be close, the presence of a third-party candidate could prove decisive. 
And this year, the Green Party of Michigan has fielded just such a candidate. 
His name is Shane Dedrick. 
You would be excused for having no clue who he is. 
Dedrick has almost no digital footprint. 
What is out there, however, doesn’t give any indication that he is the type of earthy environmentalist that typically runs under the Green Party banner. 
It might seem that, given Lawrence’s sterling progressive credentials, Dedrick’s candidacy is redundant. 
But don’t be surprised if he stays in the race. 
Because, if anything, the online breadcrumbs suggest a real possibility that Dedrick may be a Republican plant. 
Follow us down the rabbit hole. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.7%Brendan Hartnett: 14.9%The Bulwark: 4.8%Confirmation Bias19.7%This article: 7.7%Brendan Hartnett: 1.3%The Bulwark: 0.3%Anchoring Bias7.7%This article: 18.5%Brendan Hartnett: 6.2%The Bulwark: 2.3%Availability Heuristic18.5%This article: 16.3%Brendan Hartnett: 6.5%The Bulwark: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic16.3%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Brendan Hartnett: 10.5%The Bulwark: 5.8%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Brendan Hartnett: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.0%Optimism Bias7.3%This article: 7.7%Brendan Hartnett: 3.8%The Bulwark: 1.8%Pessimism Bias7.7%This article: 24.5%Brendan Hartnett: 15.9%The Bulwark: 9.5%Negativity Bias24.5%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 1.8%The Bulwark: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 6.7%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Brendan Hartnett: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.1%Recency Bias7.3%This article: 7.3%Brendan Hartnett: 1.8%The Bulwark: 0.4%Primacy Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 6.5%The Bulwark: 3.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 2.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.6%Brendan Hartnett: 3.4%The Bulwark: 1.6%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.7%Brendan Hartnett: 16.1%The Bulwark: 6.3%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.6%Brendan Hartnett: 6.4%The Bulwark: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion2.6%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.6%The Bulwark: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.9%Brendan Hartnett: 3.4%The Bulwark: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.9%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 17.2%Brendan Hartnett: 4.2%The Bulwark: 0.6%Burden of Proof17.2%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.9%Brendan Hartnett: 3.9%The Bulwark: 1.9%Anecdotal9.9%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%Brendan Hartnett: 0.6%The Bulwark: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 10.7%Brendan Hartnett: 1.8%The Bulwark: 0.1%Personal Incredulity10.7%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 7.3%Brendan Hartnett: 1.3%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy7.3%This article: 9.9%Brendan Hartnett: 1.7%The Bulwark: 1.5%Unattributed Quote9.9%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 27.9%Brendan Hartnett: 28.1%The Bulwark: 12.6%Biased Writer Voice27.9%This article: 7.3%Brendan Hartnett: 4.1%The Bulwark: 2.1%Indoctrination7.3%This article: 10.7%Brendan Hartnett: 14.9%The Bulwark: 4.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%Brendan Hartnett: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Brendan Hartnett: 0.4%The Bulwark: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.6%

233 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.