RedState95%

Wisconsin Socialist Francesca Hong’s CNN Cleanup Goes Off the Rails 23%

By Ben Smith66%

8/4/2026, 2:05:59 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Straw Man, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.6% saturation with 258 hits. Analysis detected 622 faulty-reasoning hits from 816 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.4% and a BS Rank of 23% (20,931 of 26,852 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.90% of the article peer group.

Democratic Socialist Wisconsin state Rep. 
Francesca Hong went on CNN Monday night with a chance to calm Democrats already nervous about their likely nominee for governor. 
She left them with a prison-free world still on the wish list, Thanksgiving still causing "considerable pain," and the continued existence of the Senate, Supreme Court and prisons endorsed with one important qualifier: "right now." 
Host Kaitlan Collins needed one follow-up question to move Hong from a flat denial to "aspirational." 
Hong leads the field ahead of Wisconsin's Aug. 11 primary. 
Former Lt. 
Gov. 
Mandela Barnes dropped out last week after acknowledging that polling had made the likely nominee clear. 
Democratic Gov. 
Tony Evers is backing Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who returned to the race after briefly dropping out. 
The campaign does not hide Hong's ideology. 
Its website describes her as a Democratic Socialist. 
Establishment Democrats have spent the closing weeks scrambling for an alternative. 
Collins gave Hong the national television version of an exit ramp. 
Hong kept driving. 
Collins started with prisons, playing a clip of Bill Maher responding to Hong's May statement that her "perfect world" would have no prisons because nobody would be disposable. 
Maher's answer was considerably shorter: "Murder victims are." 
Hong opted to ramble: 
"I think talking about what may be aspirational and then understanding the role of the governor, what they can and cannot do, and what is implementable right now. 
These are different conversations." 
Then came the detour. 
Hong moved through school funding, mental health and addiction treatment, housing, healthcare, repair cafes and bowling alleys. 
Collins eventually dragged the interview back to the question: Did Hong still believe a perfect world would have no prisons? 
Hong called the idea "aspirational" and said it belonged to a "different conversation" from what a governor could implement now. 
She criticized Wisconsin's incarceration rates and complained that opponents were focused on "labels or slogans" instead of solutions. 
So the prison-free world survives. 
It just is not in the first-term agenda. 
Read More: Francesca Hong Showboats (Again) With Hasan Piker As Democrat Panic in Wisconsin Intensifies 
Wisconsin Democrats in Panic Over Gov. 
Candidate's Collapse, Rising Socialist's Chances 
Collins next asked Hong which parts of the national Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) platform she opposed. 
The program calls for fully abolishing the police and prison system, abolishing the Senate, replacing the president and Supreme Court with bodies chosen by and subordinate to Congress, and placing the country's largest corporations under public ownership. 
A modest governing blueprint. 
Hong's objection to abolishing the Senate was tactical. 
Democrats might win a majority, she explained, so eliminating it was not practical. 
Asked whether she supported the existence of the Senate, Supreme Court and prisons, Hong said yes, "right now." 
She also volunteered that she wants to expand the Supreme Court. 
*Right now*. 
Wisconsin voters can decide how comforting that sounds. 
Then Collins asked about a deleted November 2020 post from Hong that had resurfaced. 
“Cancel Thanksgiving. 
Should have done this in 1621. 
If it takes a worldwide pandemic for us to realize we should stop celebrating colonialism and the original superspreader event that killed Indigenous folx and women so be it.” 
After reading the tweet on air, Collins asked whether she still believed Thanksgiving should be canceled. 
Hong answered by discussing her culinary resume. 
She is a chef. 
She cooked a Thanksgiving meal for her community at 16. 
She owned a restaurant, which collapsed, and believes in bringing people together around a table. 
The words "Thanksgiving should not be canceled" never arrived. 
It turns out Thanksgiving is not the only holiday Hong has complicated feelings about. 
One tweet noted that her deleted posts extend to the Fourth of July (fireworks not enjoyed) and Valentine's Day (capitalism telling you how to show love). 
Instead, Hong said the holiday is "incredibly painful" for many people, noted that multiple views exist, and added that views can evolve. 
She finished by arguing that her background as a chef would make her a better governor because she could bring more people to the table. 
Plenty of table talk. 
Still no answer. 
Hong had two easy opportunities to retire the statements now following her into the final week of the primary. 
She instead kept a world without prisons as an aspiration, defended the country's basic institutions for the moment, and treated a defense of Thanksgiving like a political trap. 
Rep. 
Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin (WI-07), the presumptive Republican nominee, hardly needs to cut the attack ads. 
Collins did the interview for him. 
Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. 
Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress. 
Help RedState continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.9%RedState: 6.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.6%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.7%RedState: 3.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.6%RedState: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.4%RedState: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Ben Smith: 9.4%RedState: 8.5%Framing Effect11.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.6%RedState: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.2%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.6%Ben Smith: 9.2%RedState: 13.0%Negativity Bias31.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.7%RedState: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Ben Smith: 1.3%RedState: 4.2%In-Group Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%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: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.7%RedState: 6.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 8.7%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 2.3%Straw Man8.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.0%RedState: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.3%RedState: 2.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.7%RedState: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.5%Ben Smith: 5.1%RedState: 9.3%Hasty Generalization4.5%This article: 2.9%Ben Smith: 0.7%RedState: 0.6%Red Herring2.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 3.9%RedState: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.3%RedState: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.7%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%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: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.2%RedState: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.2%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.0%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 8.5%Ben Smith: 8.6%RedState: 19.7%Biased Writer Voice8.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.3%RedState: 4.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Ben Smith: 8.1%RedState: 14.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.2%This article: 3.9%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.9%

816 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers9.4%attributed speech739writer words
Selected voice

Bill Maher

100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words10% of attributed speech54% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.3 ptsWriter: 9.3%Bill Maher: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Bill Maher: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Bill Maher: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -1.4 ptsWriter: 1.4%Bill Maher: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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