Mediaite83%

Kamala Harris Reveals Her Master Plan for Democrats to Beat ‘Cheating’ Republicans: ‘This Is Going To Be Controversial…’ 48%

By Sean James84%

8/2/2026, 5:40:25 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Representativeness Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 27% saturation with 110 hits. Analysis detected 867 faulty-reasoning hits from 407 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.2% and a BS Rank of 48% (16,072 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.50% of the article peer group.

It might be time to ditch the the Electoral College, according to Kamala Harris . 
The ex-vice president floated the idea as one of her suggestions for her fellow Democrats, if they want to beat the “ruthless” Republicans in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election. 
Harris dished her three-pronged plan for Dems while speaking at the National Urban League Conference on July 31 in Nashville. 
She said Dems have no choice but to consider radical ideas as a way to counter “cheating” by the GOP. 
“I know this is going to be controversial coming from me in particular  we need to revisit the Electoral College,” Harris said. 
The idea drew a few claps from the crowd. 
“We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices like we have 13 district courts,” she continued. 
“We need to revisit, if they so want, statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C.” 
Harris , of course, was talking about adding four judges to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. 
Former President Joe Biden was the last commander-in-chief to pick a Supreme Court justice back in 2022, when Ketanji Brown Jackson was appointed. 
Her recommendation Dems need to “revisit” the Electoral College comes two years after she lost it 312-226 to President Donald Trump . 
The president received about 77.3 million votes in 2024  which was a shade less than 50% of the votes  on his way to winning 31 states, while Harris earned roughly 75 million votes. 
Harris on Friday ripped one of Trump’s ’24 slogans as a way to drive home her point about drastic changes. 
“In light of and in this environment where they are cheating, we will be too big to rig. 
Too big to rig,” she said. 
“It means being ruthless  they are ruthless! 
We need to be ruthless too.” 
Harris continued, “and by that, I do not mean cruel. 
That is not our nature. 
By that I do not mean breaking the law. 
That is not what we do. 
But I do mean we must be uncompromising, and we must allow for a real conversation about revisiting certain things.” 
Watch above via Fox Nashville on YouTube. 
The post Kamala Harris Reveals Her Master Plan for Democrats to Beat ‘Cheating’ Republicans: ‘This Is Going To Be Controversial…’ first appeared on Mediaite . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.8%Sean James: 4.3%Mediaite: 4.3%Confirmation Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 3.0%Mediaite: 3.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 13.8%Sean James: 1.3%Mediaite: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic13.8%This article: 5.4%Sean James: 1.4%Mediaite: 0.6%Hindsight Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 2.3%Mediaite: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 27.0%Sean James: 8.5%Mediaite: 8.0%Framing Effect27.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.7%Sean James: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.3%Status Quo Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 1.9%Mediaite: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.9%Mediaite: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Sean James: 12.3%Mediaite: 13.3%Negativity Bias11.3%This article: 1.2%Sean James: 2.2%Mediaite: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 1.4%Mediaite: 1.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Sean James: 2.0%Mediaite: 1.9%In-Group Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 2.5%Mediaite: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 1.7%Mediaite: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.3%Sean James: 2.9%Mediaite: 2.2%Recency Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 3.8%Mediaite: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.8%Mediaite: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.7%Sean James: 2.3%Mediaite: 3.1%Appeal to Authority5.7%This article: 10.1%Sean James: 2.6%Mediaite: 2.2%False Dilemma10.1%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.4%Mediaite: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 6.6%Mediaite: 6.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.5%Sean James: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.8%Bandwagon1.5%This article: 18.2%Sean James: 7.8%Mediaite: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion18.2%This article: 9.3%Sean James: 1.1%Mediaite: 1.4%Begging the Question9.3%This article: 5.4%Sean James: 2.4%Mediaite: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.4%This article: 2.0%Sean James: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.2%Tu Quoque2.0%This article: 4.4%Sean James: 1.4%Mediaite: 1.2%Burden of Proof4.4%This article: 1.2%Sean James: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Appeal to Nature1.2%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Sean James: 2.2%Mediaite: 2.6%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.9%Sean James: 2.1%Mediaite: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.9%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.9%Sean James: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.1%Middle Ground4.9%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.2%Sean James: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.1%Special Pleading2.2%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 0.6%Mediaite: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.4%Sean James: 3.2%Mediaite: 3.4%Unattributed Quote4.4%This article: 1.5%Sean James: 2.3%Mediaite: 2.9%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 4.9%Sean James: 8.4%Mediaite: 7.1%Biased Writer Voice4.9%This article: 10.6%Sean James: 1.9%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination10.6%This article: 4.4%Sean James: 1.1%Mediaite: 1.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Sean James: 1.7%Mediaite: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Sean James: 1.2%Mediaite: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.9%

407 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker36%attributed speech261writer words
Selected voice

Kamala Harris

100%flagged-word coverage
146 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination+29.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kamala Harris: 29.5%29.5%Unattributed Quote+12.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kamala Harris: 12.3%12.3%Attempt to Sell a Product -12.3 ptsWriter: 12.3%Kamala Harris: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Kamala Harris: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.9 ptsWriter: 6.9%Kamala Harris: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+4.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kamala Harris: 4.1%4.1%

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.