Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

38
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
65% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Dr. Cole on X

Oh, Steve, you old Derry devil, you've nailed it again—Trump flailing down there in the muck, bubbles popping like bad ideas in a fever dream. 37%? That's not an approval rating; that's the last gasp before the bends set in, the kind that twists a man into something you wouldn't…

Posted by Dr. Cole
View original →

Perspectives

Red Team emphasizes manipulative patterns like hyperbolic dehumanization, lack of context, and tribal appeals in the partisan snark, while Blue Team highlights authenticity via verifiable poll data, stylistic consistency with Stephen King's voice, and absence of coercive tactics. Blue evidence (e.g., specific poll verification and literary references) outweighs Red's interpretive critiques, suggesting organic opinion rather than orchestrated manipulation.

Key Points

  • Both sides agree on hyperbolic metaphors and partisan framing, but Blue provides stronger corroboration of factual grounding and authorial style.
  • Lack of poll context/sources is a valid Red critique but typical for casual social media, not proving manipulation.
  • Tribal camaraderie ('Steve, Derry devil') leans authentic per Blue due to King's IT reference, outweighing Red's bandwagon concern.
  • No evidence of astroturfing or urgency tactics supports lower manipulation assessment.
  • Content aligns with routine partisan discourse on platforms like X, with Blue's verifiable elements dominating.

Further Investigation

  • Verify exact poll (YouGov/CNN timing, methodology, partisan breakdowns) and Trump's historical approvals for context on 'catastrophic' framing.
  • Confirm authors/threads: Full X conversation, poster identities, and King's tweet history for pattern consistency.
  • Cross-check engagement metrics (organic vs. boosted) and surrounding discourse for astroturfing signs.
  • Author's full oeuvre for hyperbole frequency in non-political vs. political posts.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
No binary choices presented; focuses on mocking low rating.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
Pits anti-Trump 'us' (Steve and author) against degraded Trump via 'Derry devil' camaraderie and dehumanizing imagery.
Simplistic Narratives 4/5
'Trump flailing down there in the muck' casts him as purely failing villain without nuance on poll contexts.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Polls confirming ~37% approval released recently (e.g., YouGov, CNN Jan 2026), coinciding with Trump poll complaints; no suspicious links to major events like storms or hearings, appearing organic commentary.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda tactics like Russian IRA ops or corporate astroturfing; searches show unrelated Trump misinfo history.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
Viral anti-Trump post akin to Stephen King's style benefits general Democratic messaging pre-2026 midterms; no specific companies, politicians, or funding identified.
Bandwagon Effect 2/5
Implies agreement via 'you've nailed it again' to Steve, but no broad 'everyone agrees' claims.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 2/5
Taps recent low-poll buzz without urgency for opinion change; no astroturfing or bot evidence found.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Verbatim phrase shared across X users, but stems from viral single source; poll coverage varied across mainstream outlets without identical talking points.
Logical Fallacies 4/5
Equivocation fallacy in redefining '37%? That's not an approval rating' as 'last gasp'; ad hominem via grotesque imagery.
Authority Overload 2/5
Relies on unnamed 'Steve' endorsement without credentials; no experts cited.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
Isolates '37%' without full averages (e.g., recent polls ~36-40%) or historical comparisons.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Biased metaphors like 'fever dream,' 'bubbles popping like bad ideas,' 'twists a man into something you wouldn't' poison framing of Trump.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No critics mentioned or labeled; purely affirmative echo.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits poll sources, methodology, trends, or counter-polls showing partisan splits; truncates for dramatic effect.
Novelty Overuse 3/5
'37%? That's not an approval rating; that's the last gasp before the bends' frames the poll as unprecedentedly dire, exaggerating novelty despite ongoing low ratings.
Emotional Repetition 2/5
Limited text with single emotional burst; no repeated triggers like multiple outrage phrases.
Manufactured Outrage 4/5
Outrage over 'Trump flailing... twists a man into something you wouldn't' disconnected from poll facts, relying on hyperbolic metaphors rather than substantive issues.
Urgent Action Demands 2/5
No demands for immediate action or sharing; content is casual mockery without pressure.
Emotional Triggers 4/5
Vivid imagery like 'Trump flailing down there in the muck, bubbles popping like bad ideas in a fever dream' and 'the last gasp before the bends set in' evokes disgust and ridicule to manipulate emotions against Trump.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Doubt Reductio ad hitlerum Bandwagon

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows some manipulation indicators. Consider the source and verify key claims.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else