RedState⁠95%

Ro Khanna Admits Democrats Opened the Door to Socialist Takeover - And That They Shouldn't Close It ⁠79%

By Ben Smith⁠65%

8/2/2026, 12:46:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 38 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Appeal to Emotion, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26% saturation with 173 hits. Analysis detected 1,605 faulty-reasoning hits from 666 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (5,830 of 26,881 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.30% of the article peer group.

Democrat Rep. 
Ro Khanna (CA-17) has an explanation for why socialists keep knocking off Democrat incumbents: The party failed working-class voters and left an opening for the far left to exploit. 
During a full interview on the Fox News Sunday program, Khanna argued that economic frustration is driving the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)’s recent gains. 
He rejected some of the DSA’s most extreme positions, including abolishing borders and prisons, while describing its growing influence as part of a needed reform movement inside the Democrat Party. 
Host Shannon Bream pressed him on the socialist candidates who have defeated longtime Democrat incumbents and the broader battle over where the party is headed. 
Khanna said voters struggling with basic expenses are looking for an alternative to the party establishment. 
"People are upset at an unfair political and economic system. 
They can’t afford gas, they can’t afford food, young people can’t afford to buy a home or get a job." 
That is a convenient diagnosis for Democrats. 
The party’s problem, in this telling, comes from failing to deliver enough government intervention rather than from the policies that helped make food, housing, energy, and nearly everything else more expensive. 
Khanna did draw a line between his own views and some of the DSA’s stated goals. 
“Of course we need borders,” he told Bream. 
“A nation needs borders, a nation needs secure borders.” 
Read More: After Weeks of Socialist Gains, Trump Warns 'The Communists Are Finally Making Their Move' 
DSA Co-Chair Confirms Its Extreme Agenda in Stunning Admission on Live TV 
He also made clear that prisons are necessary, though he immediately pivoted to complaints about people serving time for marijuana offenses. 
Those should hardly count as courageous positions. 
One week earlier, DSA National Co-Chair Megan Romer confirmed on the same program that the organization’s long-term platform includes abolishing borders, ICE, and prisons. 
Romer also endorsed abolishing the Senate, replacing the presidency and Supreme Court, defunding the Pentagon, and placing large corporations under government or public ownership. 
Khanna, however, treated the socialist victories as a potentially useful correction for his party: 
"I’ll tell you why they’re winning. 
People are upset at an unfair political and economic system." 
"I’ve called it economic patriotism, that we need a future economy delivering prosperity for every American and every community, not just enriching billionaires in a few places. 
And America’s next New Deal, and that’s—I call myself an FDR Democrat, and I think that’s a big tent that can actually bring change in this country." 
"The Democratic Party needs reform. 
Look, this is a party that hasn’t delivered enough for working-class Americans," Khanna also stated. 
"What people are saying is we’ve got to get back toward FDR roots. 
We need to be a party that is for the working class." 
He blamed Democrats’ support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and China’s admission into the World Trade Organization (WTO) for helping the party lose its working-class foundation. 
His answer was a return to Franklin D. 
Roosevelt-style government programs, the same economic territory socialists are using to advance a much more radical agenda. 
Khanna eventually called the internal challenge healthy, provided it benefits “ordinary Americans who have been shafted in the current economy.” 
The socialists have already moved beyond policy debates and begun removing Democrat incumbents who stand in their way. 
Khanna’s answer amounts to an admission that they understand the party’s voters better than its current leadership does. 
His proposed response is to follow their economic message leftward while hoping the borders, prisons, and constitutional structure somehow survive the trip. 
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at RedState, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical Left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. 
Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.8%Ben Smith: 2.9%RedState: 6.3%Confirmation Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Ben Smith: 2.7%RedState: 3.3%Availability Heuristic6.8%This article: 6.3%Ben Smith: 0.6%RedState: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic6.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Ben Smith: 9.4%RedState: 8.5%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.2%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Ben Smith: 0.6%RedState: 1.6%Optimism Bias3.0%This article: 3.3%Ben Smith: 1.2%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias3.3%This article: 26.0%Ben Smith: 8.9%RedState: 13.0%Negativity Bias26.0%This article: 4.1%Ben Smith: 1.7%RedState: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias4.1%This article: 7.2%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error7.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Ben Smith: 1.3%RedState: 4.2%In-Group Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 1.9%Halo Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.1%Recency Bias5.1%This article: 4.1%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 6.2%Ad Hominem4.2%This article: 3.6%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 2.3%Straw Man3.6%This article: 6.6%Ben Smith: 2.2%RedState: 2.9%Appeal to Authority6.6%This article: 13.1%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 2.1%False Dilemma13.1%This article: 6.0%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.2%Slippery Slope6.0%This article: 4.1%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning4.1%This article: 9.3%Ben Smith: 5.0%RedState: 9.3%Hasty Generalization9.3%This article: 3.6%Ben Smith: 0.7%RedState: 0.6%Red Herring3.6%This article: 2.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.8%Bandwagon2.0%This article: 14.4%Ben Smith: 3.9%RedState: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion14.4%This article: 5.9%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.6%Begging the Question5.9%This article: 14.9%Ben Smith: 2.2%RedState: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.9%This article: 3.2%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.7%Tu Quoque3.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 1.4%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Appeal to Nature1.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.8%Ben Smith: 1.2%RedState: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.5%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground4.5%This article: 1.1%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity1.1%This article: 3.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading3.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.4%Ben Smith: 1.2%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote7.4%This article: 1.8%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection1.8%This article: 12.8%Ben Smith: 8.5%RedState: 19.7%Biased Writer Voice12.8%This article: 4.2%Ben Smith: 2.4%RedState: 4.3%Indoctrination4.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Ben Smith: 8.0%RedState: 14.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias14.1%This article: 6.3%Ben Smith: 2.9%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.3%

666 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers64%attributed speech239writer words
Selected voice

RedState

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words9.8% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+66.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%RedState: 66.7%66.7%Politically Right Leaning +39.1 ptsWriter: 27.6%RedState: 66.7%66.7%Biased Writer Voice-35.6 ptsWriter: 35.6%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%RedState: 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.