Teh stupid, it burns!

[torquill]

The fact that an article suggesting that the Democrats might have an edge in the elections, simply because they have prettier candidates, made it onto the front page of the Washington Post is bad enough. But reading the article made it worse.

... [R]esearch has shown that voters who are easily swayed by social trends tend to favor more attractive candidates. Conversely, people who resist social trends prefer unattractive candidates.

Aaaugh.

Could someone with a more formal knowledge of logic please put a name to the fallacy in the second sentence? The sheer idiocy is making my eyes bleed.

The rest of the article is horrifically shallow. Read it at your own risk.

Comments

[foogod.livejournal.com]

I don't know, it seems entirely plausible to me that some people who actively resist social trends might actually prefer unattractive candidates, on the principle that "pretty people" make them uneasy.. Of course I'm assuming that they didn't bother to mention how many of those people there are out there in the world..

Then there's what's in my opinion the biggest question: What about people who neither follow nor resist social trends?