Pundit Fallacy

 Yglesias says that Democratic strategists that say that Democrats need to find a straight white guy to nominate in 2028 are being dumb. His argument is that women get elected to Congress just fine. In fact, what he runs into is a data problem. There are hundreds of legislative elections every two years, so you get a robust set of examples/

With the presidency, we have basically two examples. In 2016, the least qualified person to ever be a major party nominee took on arguably the most qualified candidate ever (who wasn't running for re-election). The reality TV star who mocked Gold Star families, bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women and clearly had no idea what to do about health care managed to beat a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. Eight years later - having botched Covid, launched an insurrection and been convicted of 34 felonies - he again beat a well qualified woman.

Maybe Trump's brand of toxic masculinity really does appeal in ways that JD Vance (I don't think he will be the nominee) can't pull off. Maybe whomever comes after Trump won't be able to motivate latent misogyny in the same way.

But this shit is typical of the Yglesias Fallacy. He once argued for the Pundit's Fallacy, that every pundit thinks that if a candidate just adopts the same positions the pundit holds, then they will win. The Yglesias Fallacy is that the median voter really understands policy at all. That they don't just vote the vibes, but sit there and ponder over white papers.

Partisans have ideological positions; that's why they are partisans. The voters that decide elections are feckless rubes without a complicated thought to pollute their beautiful spotless minds. When it comes to female candidates, "There's just something about her...:"