Townhall⁠92%

Why Can't You Be Normal?! The Dems Are Nominating Total Freaks for Office. ⁠89%

By Matt Vespa⁠89%

7/31/2026, 11:55:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 64.5% saturation with 243 hits. Analysis detected 1,418 faulty-reasoning hits from 377 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠89% (2,962 of 26,447 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.80% of the article peer group.

In Maine, Nazi Graham Platner was booted after a rape allegation was lobbed against him. 
He was replaced by Troy Jackson, a Democrat with reported anger issues and someone who married his second cousin. 
Is it illegal or election-killing? 
No, but it does feed into the disturbing trend among Democrats: they can’t find normal people to run for office. 
It’s a true parade of horribles. 
James Talarico, the Democrats’ Lone Star hopeful for the U.S. 
Senate, has an unusual fascination with trans kids, believing that God is nonbinary, and has raised millions in campaign donations from Reid Hoffman, a Jeffry Epstein associate. 
Joanna Mendoza, Democrat running in AZ-06, had a weird 16-day marriage to a Syrian national. 
Randy Villegas, running in CA-22, rehired a known pedophile when he served on the board for the Visalia Unified School District. 
Manny Rutinel, CO-08, has a slew of weird social media posts, but also killed a bill providing mandatory jail sentences for child sex predators. 
Sarah Trone Garriot, running in Iowa Three, officiated a satanist wedding. 
Adam Hamaway, NJ-12, has ties to the World Trade Center bombing and al-Qaeda. 
Gabe Vazquez, New Mexico-02, had a fake wedding and an intra-office romance. 
Rep. 
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA), running for reelection in Washington’s 3rd Congressional District, reportedly beheaded a chicken in college. 
Yet, for now, she couldn’t handle a simple NPR interview about her socialist ties within the Democratic Party. 
Satanist weddings, beheading chickens, fake weddings, passing bills that protect child sex predators, hanging out with terrorists, hiring pedophiles—what is going on with the Democratic Party? 
"Democrats are openly embracing the freaky fringe of their party and showing voters just how detached they are from reality," said Natalie Baldassarre, RNC National Press Secretary. 
"These degenerates have no business running for elected office, let alone influencing actual policy decisions. 
The American people are waking up to their lunacy and will reject these sick freaks in November." 
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? 
Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.8%Matt Vespa: 6.1%Townhall: 4.9%Confirmation Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.8%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.6%Matt Vespa: 2.7%Townhall: 2.6%Availability Heuristic19.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.9%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.2%Townhall: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.9%Townhall: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 7.2%Townhall: 9.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Matt Vespa: 0.9%Townhall: 1.3%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 14.6%Matt Vespa: 2.1%Townhall: 1.7%Pessimism Bias14.6%This article: 45.9%Matt Vespa: 15.6%Townhall: 12.9%Negativity Bias45.9%This article: 3.4%Matt Vespa: 1.0%Townhall: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 4.8%Matt Vespa: 1.9%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error4.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 4.6%Townhall: 4.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Matt Vespa: 3.9%Townhall: 3.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.3%Townhall: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.9%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.9%Townhall: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.7%Townhall: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 42.2%Matt Vespa: 7.0%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem42.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 1.1%Townhall: 1.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.4%Matt Vespa: 3.6%Townhall: 3.9%Appeal to Authority3.4%This article: 1.3%Matt Vespa: 2.0%Townhall: 1.8%False Dilemma1.3%This article: 6.9%Matt Vespa: 1.8%Townhall: 1.5%Slippery Slope6.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 26.3%Matt Vespa: 11.2%Townhall: 9.0%Hasty Generalization26.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.5%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Matt Vespa: 1.4%Townhall: 1.2%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 24.9%Matt Vespa: 9.1%Townhall: 10.3%Appeal to Emotion24.9%This article: 5.3%Matt Vespa: 2.1%Townhall: 2.0%Begging the Question5.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 2.1%Townhall: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.4%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.3%Matt Vespa: 2.0%Townhall: 1.4%Burden of Proof5.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.2%Matt Vespa: 3.2%Townhall: 1.5%Anecdotal17.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.4%Matt Vespa: 1.5%Townhall: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.4%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.2%Matt Vespa: 3.3%Townhall: 3.0%Unattributed Quote7.2%This article: 6.9%Matt Vespa: 2.3%Townhall: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection6.9%This article: 64.5%Matt Vespa: 18.8%Townhall: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice64.5%This article: 5.3%Matt Vespa: 3.8%Townhall: 5.0%Indoctrination5.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Vespa: 0.5%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Matt Vespa: 13.6%Townhall: 13.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.9%This article: 11.7%Matt Vespa: 5.3%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.7%

377 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech318writer words
Selected voice

Natalie Baldassarre

100%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice-76.4 ptsWriter: 76.4%Natalie Baldassarre: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+45.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Natalie Baldassarre: 45.8%45.8%Politically Right Leaning +20.0 ptsWriter: 8.8%Natalie Baldassarre: 28.8%28.8%Indoctrination+23.9 ptsWriter: 1.6%Natalie Baldassarre: 25.4%25.4%Attempt to Sell a Product -13.8 ptsWriter: 13.8%Natalie Baldassarre: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Natalie Baldassarre: 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.