Raw Story⁠97%

Susan Collins' re-election strategy collapses: report - Raw Story ⁠74%

By María Teresita Armstrong-Matta⁠93%

7/9/2026, 5:40:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 39.3% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 866 faulty-reasoning hits from 252 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (8,186 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.20% of the article peer group.

FILE PHOTO: Democratic U.S. 
Senate candidate Graham Platner speaks at a campaign town hall meeting in Ogunquit, Maine, U.S., October 22, 2025. 
REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo 
Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins' carefully constructed re-election strategy collapsed following Democrat Graham Platner's abrupt exit from the Senate race due to multiple credible allegations of sexual misconduct and assault, according to a new report. 
In its report, Politico argues Collins' campaign spent months stockpiling opposition research on Platner, betting his personal scandals would dominate coverage and allow her to reposition herself as the more trustworthy choice. 
Now that Platner is no longer in the running, that calculation is worthless, as the focus shifts back to Trump's unpopularity, writes Politico. 
"She can certainly win, but they didn't want to change candidates," a GOP operative told Politico. 
"The stuff we already knew about Platner was going to propel Collins to overcome the Trump anchor. 
Now it's going to be a Democrat with a cleaner record, presumably." 
Internal polling showed Platner trailed Collins in her own campaign's flash poll, Politico's Sophia Cai wrote, but three alternative Democratic candidates who lost the gubernatorial primary either led or ran neck-and-neck with her. 
GOP operatives acknowledged Collins faces a significantly weakened position, noting, "The stuff we already knew about Platner was going to propel Collins to overcome the Trump anchor. 
Now it's going to be a Democrat with a cleaner record." 
Watch the video below. 
Your browser does not support the video tag. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.4%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 8.5%Rawstory: 7.9%Confirmation Bias19.4%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.8%Rawstory: 4.1%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 9.1%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic9.1%This article: 9.1%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Hindsight Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 5.0%Rawstory: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 39.3%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 13.4%Rawstory: 12.4%Framing Effect39.3%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.3%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.8%Optimism Bias6.3%This article: 13.9%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias13.9%This article: 28.2%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 17.7%Rawstory: 20.4%Negativity Bias28.2%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 6.0%Rawstory: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error13.9%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 1.4%Rawstory: 2.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.1%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.6%Recency Bias13.1%This article: 3.6%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 9.3%Rawstory: 5.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 2.9%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.3%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.7%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning6.7%This article: 15.5%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 6.6%Rawstory: 10.7%Hasty Generalization15.5%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 5.7%Rawstory: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 9.1%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 2.4%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question9.1%This article: 23.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.7%Rawstory: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.1%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 1.0%Rawstory: 3.4%Anecdotal13.1%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.8%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 2.7%Rawstory: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.8%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 32.9%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.9%Unattributed Quote32.9%This article: 17.1%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 3.9%Rawstory: 3.8%Quote-first Misdirection17.1%This article: 16.3%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 7.8%Rawstory: 14.1%Biased Writer Voice16.3%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 2.8%Rawstory: 3.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 17.5%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 5.3%Rawstory: 7.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%María Teresita Armstrong-Matta: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.6%

252 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers36%attributed speech161writer words
Selected voice

Politico

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words60% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice+52.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Politico: 58.2%58.2%Unattributed Quote-51.6 ptsWriter: 51.6%Politico: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-27.3 ptsWriter: 27.3%Politico: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-26.7 ptsWriter: 26.7%Politico: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Politico: 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.