Smiley edges Morales in first public poll of Providence mayoral race 49%

By Patrick Anderson68%

8/7/2026, 2:51:03 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Loss Aversion, with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 29% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 702 faulty-reasoning hits from 317 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.8% and a BS Rank of 49% (15,749 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.50% of the article peer group.

The first public polling in the Providence mayoral race finds incumbent Brett Smiley leading challenger David Morales by 4 percentage points, within the margin of error. 
The Concord poll's margin of error was 5.65%. 
It is the first third-party poll of the mayoral primary. 
The Smiley campaign has polled the race through Normington Petts & Associates, according to campaign finance reports, but has not released or discussed the results. 
The Concord poll showed 54% of voters have a favorable view of Smiley and 50% have a favorable view of Morales. 
Elorza, who was mayor from 2015 to 2023, endorsed Morales on Aug. 
3. 
Smiley was Elorza's chief operating officer before leaving for a job in state government and then running to succeed the term-limited Elorza in 2024. 
The poll shows the race, which Smiley may have hoped would be a blowout last winter, is close and possibly up for grabs given the margin of error. 
"After spending more than half a million dollars on attack ads and mailers, Brett Smiley still hasn’t convinced a majority of voters he deserves a second term," Morales senior adviser Ben Shanahan wrote about the poll. 
"Neighbors are tired of big money trying to buy elections, and hundreds of volunteers have knocked more than 60,000 doors to share David’s vision of a Providence everyone can afford and feel safe calling home." 
But the poll doesn't show Morales winning, despite coming from a Morales ally. 
"We're not focused on poll numbers from a special interest group supporting David Morales' campaign," Smiley campaign spokesman Josh Block wrote. 
"We're focused on working hard across Providence to make sure voters understand what's at stake in this election and how a Morales victory would make Providence less safe and unravel the progress of the past four years." 
This story has been updated to correct an inaccuracy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.1%Patrick Anderson: 0.6%The Providence Journal: 1.7%Confirmation Bias4.1%This article: 8.2%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.2%Anchoring Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 1.7%The Providence Journal: 1.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Patrick Anderson: 6.8%The Providence Journal: 3.4%Framing Effect3.5%This article: 11.7%Patrick Anderson: 0.5%The Providence Journal: 0.1%Loss Aversion11.7%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.5%The Providence Journal: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.5%The Providence Journal: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.6%Pessimism Bias8.8%This article: 11.4%Patrick Anderson: 9.1%The Providence Journal: 4.4%Negativity Bias11.4%This article: 29.0%Patrick Anderson: 5.4%The Providence Journal: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias29.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 4.2%The Providence Journal: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 1.0%Halo Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.4%The Providence Journal: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 1.9%The Providence Journal: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 1.1%The Providence Journal: 1.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 11.4%Patrick Anderson: 3.5%The Providence Journal: 0.6%False Dilemma11.4%This article: 11.7%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.2%Slippery Slope11.7%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.4%Patrick Anderson: 3.6%The Providence Journal: 1.4%Hasty Generalization11.4%This article: 6.6%Patrick Anderson: 2.7%The Providence Journal: 0.4%Red Herring6.6%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 2.1%The Providence Journal: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.7%Patrick Anderson: 7.5%The Providence Journal: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion22.7%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.6%The Providence Journal: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.7%The Providence Journal: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.6%The Providence Journal: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.7%Patrick Anderson: 1.9%The Providence Journal: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.7%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.5%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.4%Patrick Anderson: 3.4%The Providence Journal: 1.2%Unattributed Quote11.4%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 2.2%The Providence Journal: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.4%Patrick Anderson: 1.7%The Providence Journal: 1.0%Biased Writer Voice11.4%This article: 11.7%Patrick Anderson: 0.6%The Providence Journal: 0.1%Indoctrination11.7%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Patrick Anderson: 0.0%The Providence Journal: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 22.7%Patrick Anderson: 0.5%The Providence Journal: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…22.7%

317 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers41%attributed speech188writer words
Selected voice

Josh Block

100%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words45% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Indoctrination+63.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Josh Block: 63.8%63.8%Attempt to Sell a Product +63.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Josh Block: 63.8%63.8%

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.