MAGA candidate Paxton defeats Senate stalwart Cornyn in Texas primary ⁠85%

By Matthew Choi⁠0%

5/26/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 69.6% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 345 faulty-reasoning hits from 79 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (4,551 of 28,846 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.20% of the article peer group.

Four-term Sen. 
John Cornyn (R-Texas), who once came close to becoming majority leader in the Senate, lost a primary challenge to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday, ending a bitter race driven by a MAGA insurgency that ballooned into the most expensive Senate primary in history. 
Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton speaks to supporters at a campaign stop on May 15 in Little Elm, Texas. 
(Ron Jenkins/Getty Images) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 3.3%The Washington Post: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 5.2%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 57.0%Matthew Choi: 9.4%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic57.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 2.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 2.2%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.9%The Washington Post: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 69.6%Matthew Choi: 29.4%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect69.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 1.6%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 3.5%The Washington Post: 3.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 69.6%Matthew Choi: 18.8%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias69.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 1.5%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 3.7%The Washington Post: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 4.7%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 2.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 2.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 1.6%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 7.3%The Washington Post: 5.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 57.0%Matthew Choi: 6.1%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion57.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 1.2%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 57.0%Matthew Choi: 3.0%The Washington Post: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)57.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 69.6%Matthew Choi: 18.1%The Washington Post: 15.1%Biased Writer Voice69.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 57.0%Matthew Choi: 6.8%The Washington Post: 1.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias57.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Choi: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

79 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker24%attributed speech60writer words
Selected voice

Ken Paxton

0%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%47.5%95.0%Biased Writer Voice-91.7 ptsWriter: 91.7%Ken Paxton: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -75.0 ptsWriter: 75.0%Ken Paxton: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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