Polls Showed Abdul El-Sayed Would Crush Haley Stevens In Michigan Primary. They Were Dead Wrong 19%

By Nicole Silverio34%

8/5/2026, 8:13:29 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Hasty Generalization, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 14.1% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 448 faulty-reasoning hits from 361 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.5% and a BS Rank of 19% (24,897 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.40% of the article peer group.

Polls repeatedly indicated former Wayne County Health Director Abdul El-Sayed held a comfortable lead against Democratic Michigan Rep. 
Haley Stevens, though the election results proved them wrong. 
El-Sayed narrowly defeated Stevens in a 48.5% to 47.5% vote Wednesday after finishing neck-and-neck with his opponent in the Michigan primary race Tuesday, The Associated Press results showed. 
However, polls suggested that El-Sayed held a significant lead against Stevens prior to primary day. 
An Emerson College Polling/WLNS/WOODTV survey from July 30 showed El-Sayed led Stevens 54% to 39%. 
The survey suggested that voters under the age of 50 and independents supported El-Sayed by significant margins, prompting his sizable lead. 
A Mitchell Research & Communications poll from late July found El-Sayed held a 14-point lead against Stevens. 
A Tavern Research poll showed El-Sayed held a 10-point lead over Stevens, 46% to 36%. 
El-Sayed held a 16-point lead in a Tulchin Research poll and a 13-point lead in a Data for Progress survey. 
(RELATED: Abdul El-Sayed Ekes Out Victory In Closer Than Expected Michigan Primary) 
The results did not come in until the following morning as more votes were counted from Wayne County and Oakland County. 
El-Sayed held a 19,400-vote lead over Stevens as of 6:30 am EDT, though it narrowed to just 14,898 votes while more ballots were counted from Wayne County, CNN reported. 
More than 1.5 million ballots were counted, making it the highest number of ballots counted in a non-presidential Democratic primary in Michigan since at least 1998, according to CNN. 
Stevens earned endorsements from the Democratic establishment, including Michigan Gov. 
Gretchen Whitmer, and outside groups spent over $60 million to help her beat El-Sayed. 
The race was the most expensive Democratic Senate primary race in U.S. history, with total spending exceeding $80 million. 
Further-left Democrats and DSA candidates defeated longtime incumbents and establishment-backed candidates in the New York and Colorado races. 
DSA candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated five-term incumbent Democratic Rep. 
Adriano Espaillat in New York’s 13th district in June, while socialist Melat Kiros beat incumbent Democratic Colorado Rep. 
Diana DeGette, who served 29 years in Congress. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.9%Nicole Silverio: 1.9%The Daily Caller: 4.5%Confirmation Bias8.9%This article: 4.2%Nicole Silverio: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.2%This article: 9.4%Nicole Silverio: 1.4%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Availability Heuristic9.4%This article: 5.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 3.6%Nicole Silverio: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Hindsight Bias3.6%This article: 5.8%Nicole Silverio: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias5.8%This article: 14.1%Nicole Silverio: 4.1%The Daily Caller: 8.7%Framing Effect14.1%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Nicole Silverio: 6.2%The Daily Caller: 7.5%Negativity Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Nicole Silverio: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.3%Nicole Silverio: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 3.9%Appeal to Authority13.3%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.7%Nicole Silverio: 1.8%The Daily Caller: 5.5%Hasty Generalization9.7%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.9%Nicole Silverio: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion3.9%This article: 1.1%Nicole Silverio: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Begging the Question1.1%This article: 5.8%Nicole Silverio: 1.9%The Daily Caller: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.8%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.5%Nicole Silverio: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Composition/Division5.5%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 1.5%The Daily Caller: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.4%Nicole Silverio: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 6.8%Biased Writer Voice9.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 2.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 5.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Silverio: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

361 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.