{"id":4989,"date":"2016-12-28T13:23:07","date_gmt":"2016-12-28T18:23:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=4989"},"modified":"2016-12-28T13:23:07","modified_gmt":"2016-12-28T18:23:07","slug":"the-pundits-fallacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=4989","title":{"rendered":"The Pundit’s Fallacy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Internet denizen Matthew Yglesias coined the term “pundit’s fallacy” back in 2010<\/a>. It goes like this:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

The pundit\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s fallacy is that belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively. So progressive populists think that Barack Obama would have higher approval ratings if he acted more like Ed Schultz while establishmentarian centrists think his ratings would go up if he acted more like David Broder. The truth, of course, is that he really needs to hew more closely to my preferences politics doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t work this way.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n