Post from Truth Social

Karl Rove is so bad for the Republican Party, and completely wrong so often. He suffers from a major case of Trump Derangement Syndrome primarily because, for almost 10 years, I beat back and won against so many of the people and things that he wanted and espoused. Why does FoxNews and the WSJ keep his RINO Voice alive. The guy is a stone cold loser!

0:00 0:00
Visualize
12.6K 3.2K 956

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-09-16. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level
None
Narcissistic State
Grandiose
Authorship
Self-Written
Intensity
50%
Authorship Analysis
Self-Written
Indicators:
  • Subject-verb agreement error: "Why does FoxNews and the WSJ keep"
  • Question ends with a period instead of a question mark
  • Run-together "FoxNews" and random capitalization of "RINO Voice"
  • Doubled, loose verb phrase: "beat back and won against so many of the people and things"
  • Signature insult "stone cold loser"
Psychological Profile
Traits
Big Five:
Extraversion
75%
Agreeableness
8%
Conscientiousness
35%
Neuroticism
65%
Openness
20%

Strongest facet: Low agreeableness (antagonism) with angry hostility

Agency
85%
Communion
10%

Primary drive: status

Narrative
Role: Unbeaten winner who defeated the establishment · Arc: neutral · Contrasting: Karl Rove as an establishment RINO and loser
I beat back and won for almost 10 yearsCritics are motivated by my victories over them
State
Grandiose State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Criticism (Probable recent criticism from Karl Rove in the WSJ or on Fox News (inferred; not in the historian record))

Rage: Intensity 45% targeting Karl Rove; secondarily Fox News and the Wall Street Journal

Proportionality
35%
Sentiment
-0.80
Mildly Hypomanic
Rapid topic switch from repeated AI-hoax posts to a personal feud on the same dayHigh same-day posting volume
Clinical
Malignant Narcissism:
Narcissistic
70%
Antisocial
15%
Paranoid
35%
Sadism
25%
Defense Mechanisms:
devaluationprojectionrationalizationsplitting
Cognitive Complexity:
Complexity
40%
Parasocial Techniques:
Invites followers to share contempt for a named insider criticSignals to loyalists that Fox and the WSJ are complicit in platforming a "RINO"
Danger Assessment

None

Gaslighting Detected:
  • Recasting a critic's view as a mental condition ("Trump Derangement Syndrome") so readers discount his perception
  • A winner narrative over "almost 10 years" that leaves out the 2020 loss
Reality Distortions:
  • Implies an unbroken winning streak over nearly a decade, leaving out the 2020 election loss
Fact Checks (3)
"Karl Rove has a platform at Fox News and the Wall Street Journal"
True

Rove has long written a weekly Wall Street Journal op-ed column and appeared on Fox News as a contributor and analyst.

"For almost 10 years Trump beat back and won against the people and policies Rove favored"
Half True

Trump beat Rove-aligned establishment candidates in the 2016 primary, won the 2016 and 2024 general elections, and reshaped the party away from Bush-era positions. He lost the 2020 election, and several candidates he backed lost in 2022, so an unbroken winning record is overstated.

"Karl Rove is completely wrong so often and is bad for the Republican Party"
Half True

What set off the post: The post is real. Trump put it on Truth Social on Monday, September 14, 2026, at 7:43 pm EDT (trumpstruth.org). Hours earlier, at a private lunch at Austin's Headliners Club, Rove said he would vote for Democrat Jon Rosenthal over Republican Bo French for the Texas Railroad Commission. He called French a "bigot" for a post calling South Asian University of Texas students "foreigners." The Texas Tribune reports that Republicans and Democrats alike criticized French's post. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick had earlier called for French to resign as Tarrant County GOP chair over a poll asking whether Jews or Muslims were the bigger threat. Rove said the only Democrat he had voted for before was Bob Bullock in 1994. Days earlier he had also written a Wall Street Journal column titled "Trump Sticks With a Losing Midterm Plan" (Sept. 3).

The claim has two parts. Whether Rove is "bad for the Republican Party" is an opinion. Whether he is "wrong so often" can be checked against his record.

Big misses on record:

  • 2000: He predicted about 320 electoral votes for Bush. Bush got 271 and lost the popular vote. He also said "We're going to win New Hampshire," and McCain beat Bush there by 18 points (Salon, ThinkProgress).
  • 2006: On NPR on Oct. 24, 2006, he predicted a Republican House and Senate, telling Robert Siegel "you're entitled to your math, I'm entitled to the math." Democrats won both chambers.
  • 2012: His Wall Street Journal column predicted Romney would win 51-48 "with at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more." Obama won 332 to 206, and Rove argued on air against Fox News's call of Ohio. The Sunlight Foundation found that only 1.29% of the $104.7 million his super PAC American Crossroads spent in the general election went to races that ended the way it wanted.
  • 2015-16: He said Trump would get "creamed" by Clinton (Dec. 2015). In October 2016 he said he did not see Trump winning. Trump won.
  • 2022: On election eve he predicted Republicans would hold 51 or 52 Senate seats and "the 230s" in the House. They ended with 49 and 222.
  • 2024: On Election Day he and David Axelrod agreed the House was likely to go Democratic. Republicans kept it.
  • 2025: On Nov. 3 he said New Jersey "could be an upset" and that Republicans would "hold on to" Virginia's attorney general seat. Sherrill won New Jersey by about 14 points, Jay Jones beat Jason Miyares 53% to 46%, and Democrats gained 13 seats in Virginia's House of Delegates.

Calls he got right:

  • His Nov. 2020 column "This Election Result Won't Be Overturned" proved correct, against Trump's own position.
  • In 2024 he correctly forecast a Republican Senate takeover.
  • In 2025 he said New York's next mayor would win with "low 50s." Mamdani got 50.78%.
  • Salon's 2012 review counted his 2008 and 2010 calls as right in direction.
  • In 2014, Crossroads GPS got better than an 85% return among the top outside groups (CBS).

His own yearly scorecards:

  • 2022: 23 right, 8 wrong (74.2%)
  • 2023: 20 right, 12 wrong (62.5%)
  • 2024: "a bit over 70%" right
  • 2025: about 56% right, 42% wrong, 2% still to be decided

Rove grades these himself, and they mix political, economic and foreign-policy calls.

What this adds up to: "Wrong so often" has a real basis. Rove has several famous misses, and by his own count one in four to two in five of his yearly predictions fail. But "completely wrong" overstates it, since he is right more often than wrong. His current warnings about the 2026 midterms can't be graded until Nov. 3.

"Bad for the Republican Party" can't be measured, and his record cuts both ways. He ran strategy for Bush's 2000 and 2004 wins and his groups did well in 2014. But Republicans lost Congress in 2006 while he was a top White House adviser, and his super PAC failed badly in 2012. Trump has made the same attack for years, for example tweeting in 2015 that Rove "wasted $430 million on political campaigns and lost 100%." The 2012 part of that had some basis, but "100%" was false: Deb Fischer won. Crossing party lines in one down-ballot race to oppose a nominee many Republicans had condemned is a break with the party, but whether it hurts the party is a matter of opinion.

Overall, the claim mixes a partly supported point about Rove's mistakes with exaggeration and an opinion that can't be proven, so it rates half true.

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Daily Digest Trump, "the Hoax Buster," spends Monday filing AI danger alongside Russia and climate change

Trump spent Monday insisting that fears about artificial intelligence are a hoax, coming back to it from morning to evening and lumping AI worries in with climate change, the Russia investigation and his two impeachments. His harshest post came first, naming the head of Anthropic and reminding AI co...

Analyzed
19
Rage Level
30%
Max Danger
Elevated
View full day analysis →