Missouri Democrats field biggest slate of candidates in decades to target GOP supermajority 14%

By Grace Hills30%

8/7/2026, 12:21:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Hasty Generalization, and Optimism Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 10.1% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 366 faulty-reasoning hits from 494 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.8% and a BS Rank of 14% (26,541 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.80% of the article peer group.

Missouri Democrats have set a record for this century: they put up a candidate in 158 of the state’s 163 House districts, and in every statewide and State Senate election. 
Democrats are on the ballot in nearly 97% of this year’s races. 
The same party let more than 30% of Missouri House seats go to Republicans uncontested in 2020. 
This year, this trend reversed  Democrats are giving Republicans 3%, and Republicans are giving Democrats 15%. 
Some of these seats, like the House seat Democrat Jon Pennell is running for in Cass County, haven’t seen a Democrat on the ballot for a decade. 
Pennell said that is why he decided to run. 
“I wanted to give people of our district an opportunity to have a choice,” Pennell said. 
“In 2022, I looked to see who was running and it was unopposed. 
I was really hoping that somebody would stand up and challenge him.” 
At the time, Pennell worked in federal citizenship and immigration. 
After the Department of Government Efficiency cut his job, Pennell decided to run. 
“A lot of people that are in the district are conservative Republicans, I used to be one,” Pennell said. 
“People are ready for a change.” 
Incumbent Republican Rep. 
Bill Irwin did not provide comment for this story. 
Both chambers in the Missouri Statehouse have been under a Republican supermajority  a two-thirds majority that can overturn a governor’s veto  for 14 years. 
The Democrats have tried, and failed, to overturn it. 
The nonprofit political research site Ballotpedia called Missouri, and Kansas, “highly exposed to breaking” its supermajority. 
Missouri Democrats would need to flip two seats in the Senate or three in the House. 
A handful of Republican-held House districts in the Kansas City area saw a larger turnout for Democrats in Tuesday’s primaries. 
Republican Bill Allen represents House District 17 in Clay County. 
Democrats made up 57% of the votes on Tuesday’s primary. 
Republican Rep. 
Mike Steinmeyer in Jackson County won his 2024 bid by 673 votes. 
Democratic votes outnumbered Republicans by 481 this primary. 
Republican Speaker of the House Jonathan Patterson’s district in Lee’s Summit saw 1,500 more Democratic votes than Republican. 
Patterson is running for state senator this year in a Republican-held district that saw 4,300 more Democratic votes. 
Tristin Amezcua-Hogan, communications director for the Missouri Democratic Party, said he feels like the Democrats are close to breaking the supermajority. 
In general, the opposite party of the president tends to show up in larger numbers in the midterms. 
But Missouri Democrats tried and failed to overturn the Republican supermajority last time President Donald Trump was in office, too. 
Why would this year be different? 
“I think Missourians are pushing back,” Amezcua-Hogan said. 
“You look at the rising costs, the number of people who have increased medical charges, you look at rural hospitals being underfunded, you look at farm bankruptcies rising in Missouri." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Grace Hills: 3.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.5%Availability Heuristic2.6%This article: 7.7%Grace Hills: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.7%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Grace Hills: 3.3%Columbia Missourian: 5.1%Framing Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Grace Hills: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 4.3%Optimism Bias6.7%This article: 1.6%Grace Hills: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.5%Pessimism Bias1.6%This article: 6.1%Grace Hills: 7.0%Columbia Missourian: 5.0%Negativity Bias6.1%This article: 3.8%Grace Hills: 4.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Grace Hills: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.5%In-Group Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Grace Hills: 2.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 2.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.2%Grace Hills: 3.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Appeal to Authority3.2%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.1%Grace Hills: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 3.5%Hasty Generalization7.1%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.8%Grace Hills: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 10.1%Grace Hills: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.1%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 2.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.4%Grace Hills: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 2.5%Anecdotal2.4%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 3.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.3%Grace Hills: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice5.3%This article: 6.1%Grace Hills: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination6.1%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Grace Hills: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

494 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers30%attributed speech344writer words
Selected voice

Tristin Amezcua-Hogan

100%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words39% of attributed speech29% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Indoctrination+50.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tristin Amezcua-Hogan: 50.8%50.8%Biased Writer Voice-7.6 ptsWriter: 7.6%Tristin Amezcua-Hogan: 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.