Daily Kos87%

‘Republicans are already cooked’: GOP adviser foresees messy midterms 71%

By Emily Singer91%

8/3/2026, 5:01:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 34.3% saturation with 197 hits. Analysis detected 1,594 faulty-reasoning hits from 575 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.7% and a BS Rank of 71% (8,057 of 27,232 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.40% of the article peer group.

It’s officially three months from Election Day and top Republican operatives are already declaring that their party is “cooked” in a number of key contests that will decide which party controls Congress next January. 
Republican strategist Liz Mair, who has worked for multiple GOP presidential candidates, sent a newsletter on Monday in which she said that based on rising grocery and gasoline prices, Republicans are on track to lose gubernatorial and Senate contests in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. 
She also said that even if Democrats nominate more liberal candidates like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, those candidates will still prevail, declaring, “I think it is going to be a pretty rough night on November 3.” 
“My sneaking suspicion is that Republicans are already cooked in the NC Senate, GA Senate, GA Governor, PA Governor, MI Governor, and AZ Governor's races,” Mair wrote, adding, “This year feels to me like it’s going to be very bad for the party. 
Some days, it’s giving off 2006 vibes. 
 Keep watching, but the bottom line is, by the grocery price metric, we simply are not seeing the shifts one would expect for Republicans to eke out victories in all or most of these races.” 
Mair's declaration came the same day that pollster G. 
Elliott Morris published his midterm forecast, which shows Democrats are the prohibitive favorites to win control of the House and also the slight favorites to win a Senate majority. 
“We give the Democrats an 85% chance to win the majority in the U.S. 
House of Representatives and a 55% chance to win control of the Senate,” Morris wrote in a post laying out the metrics that went into his modeling. 
Among the surprises Morris found are that his model shows Democrats have better odds to win the House than they did at the same point in the 2018 cycle, and that even with a Senate map taking place in territory Donald Trump won in 2024, Democrats are still the slight favorites to capture the majority thanks to polling that shows Democrats ahead in red states like Texas, Ohio, and Alaska. 
“Once Democrats cross a threshold of about 6-7 points in the [national popular vote], they are favored to win both chambers. 
Today’s forecast—a Democratic edge of about 7 points—sits right on that upper boundary, which is why full control is at a pure toss-up in our model,” Morris wrote. 
Related | Trump inflation: June grocery prices, Iran war 
Ultimately, as Democratic strategist James Carville declared in 1992 of what determines the outcome of an election: "It's the economy, stupid." 
And right now, the economy is on the downward swing, with inflation squeezing Americans due to Trump's idiotic tariffs and the boondoggle of a war he started in Iran. 
Polls show Americans are extremely unhappy with the state of the economy, with the latest Quinnipiac University national survey showing just 3% of Americans describe the economy as “excellent.” 
Meanwhile, a whopping 71% say the economy is either “not so good” or “poor.” 
Another 59% say the economy is getting worse. 
And the most recent CNN poll found that 65% of voters blame Trump’s policies for the bad economy, no matter how much Trump and his defenders try to lay the woes on former President Joe Biden. 
It’s numbers like these that are going to do the GOP in this fall. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 34.3%Emily Singer: 5.7%Daily Kos: 5.0%Confirmation Bias34.3%This article: 9.9%Emily Singer: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.6%Anchoring Bias9.9%This article: 13.2%Emily Singer: 3.9%Daily Kos: 2.7%Availability Heuristic13.2%This article: 13.4%Emily Singer: 1.6%Daily Kos: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic13.4%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.6%Daily Kos: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 17.0%Emily Singer: 3.3%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias17.0%This article: 5.2%Emily Singer: 8.2%Daily Kos: 7.6%Framing Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.7%Daily Kos: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.7%Emily Singer: 2.9%Daily Kos: 1.7%Pessimism Bias21.7%This article: 29.2%Emily Singer: 17.9%Daily Kos: 13.6%Negativity Bias29.2%This article: 6.3%Emily Singer: 0.9%Daily Kos: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias6.3%This article: 5.0%Emily Singer: 3.5%Daily Kos: 2.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.8%Daily Kos: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.0%Daily Kos: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.7%Daily Kos: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.0%Daily Kos: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Emily Singer: 2.1%Daily Kos: 1.3%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 7.2%Daily Kos: 4.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.7%Daily Kos: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.8%Emily Singer: 3.1%Daily Kos: 2.8%Appeal to Authority15.8%This article: 7.1%Emily Singer: 1.8%Daily Kos: 1.9%False Dilemma7.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.6%Daily Kos: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.5%Emily Singer: 8.8%Daily Kos: 8.1%Hasty Generalization20.5%This article: 1.6%Emily Singer: 1.0%Daily Kos: 0.4%Red Herring1.6%This article: 7.5%Emily Singer: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.6%Bandwagon7.5%This article: 11.3%Emily Singer: 6.6%Daily Kos: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion11.3%This article: 9.6%Emily Singer: 1.4%Daily Kos: 1.5%Begging the Question9.6%This article: 12.9%Emily Singer: 5.7%Daily Kos: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.3%Daily Kos: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.3%Emily Singer: 1.0%Daily Kos: 0.7%Burden of Proof6.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.2%Emily Singer: 1.2%Daily Kos: 1.8%Anecdotal1.2%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.4%Daily Kos: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.9%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground4.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.3%Daily Kos: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.6%Emily Singer: 1.9%Daily Kos: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection1.6%This article: 13.7%Emily Singer: 24.0%Daily Kos: 19.4%Biased Writer Voice13.7%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.2%Daily Kos: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 13.4%Daily Kos: 9.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Emily Singer: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.1%Daily Kos: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

575 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers62%attributed speech219writer words
Selected voice

Liz Mair

100%flagged-word coverage
167 attributed words47% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice+7.2 ptsWriter: 17.4%Liz Mair: 24.6%24.6%Politically Right Leaning -13.2 ptsWriter: 13.2%Liz Mair: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Liz Mair: 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.