If there is a guilt by association fallacy, is there also a praise by association fallacy as well?

Here is an example from a article headline I saw: 

P1: Florida has the lowest Covid-19 case rate in the country. 

p2: Ron DeSantis did this without vaccine mandates, without mask mandates in school and with no restrictions on businesses. Life simply went on. 

C: Therefore, the country needs a dose of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to battle Covid-19

Now, as you can see Ron DeSantis did nothing so how can he be responsible for lowering cases and deserving of the presidency? 

I think this would be covered under insignificant cause . However, I have not researched the details and I don't know if a reasonable argument could be made that DeSantis' policies are primarily to credit. This argument is looking at one point in time, not the total damage done, so that could be a problem as well (e.g., if all vulnerable people are already dead because of bad policy, nobody is left to die).

It might just be the case that p2 is an opinion and not supported by the data.

There's no real argument going on here between P1 and P2 as they are in agreement although P2 is factually wrong since De Santis has enacted egregious mask mandate restrictions by prohibiting them. for businesses, government organizations, and defiant school districts.

But, Dr. Bo offers some excellent alternatives on this type of propaganda:

Selective Attention:

Logical Form:

Information is presented.
Response addresses only some of the information, completely ignoring the rest.

Cherry Picking:

Logical Form:

Evidence A and evidence B is available.

Evidence A supports the claim of person 1.

Evidence B supports the counterclaim of person 2.

Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A.

Hypnotic Bait and Switch is another interesting propaganda technique.

This is the fourth pandemic I have lived through, but the first to be politicized. With that politicalization came deeply felt and expressed emotional outbursts. 

I find the emotional response to masks, etc., as incredible. For example in this thread, “De Santis has enacted egregious mask mandate restrictions by prohibiting them for businesses, government organizations, and defiant school districts.” For full disclosure, I come from the libertarian, not totalitarian, part of the political spectrum, but let’s accept the statement as given. I do not think my opinion of what to do should be forced on others. 

Florida has been without masks for a year and a half. If the statement had a basis, then after the 18 months Florida has been an “open” state, why isn’t everyone in Florida dead or in the hospital? 

Even though the state has millions of retired senior citizens, it still has fewer deaths and hospitalizations than, for example, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan or Illinois.

Instead, Florida’s economy is booming. People are happy. Quality of life is high. And very few are sick. In other words, what De Santis did worked. 

All of this is to argue the policy differences between the states, but not the personalities. But beyond efficacy concern is the issue of freedom versus totalitarianism, the Constitutional and other legal issues.

My parents were born during the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu pandemic. I lived through the Asian flu pandemic of 1957 (from China), the Hong Kong flu epidemic of 1968 (again from China), and the H1N1 Swine flu pandemic in 2009 (first identified as a threat to humans in Hong Kong in 1997). Like 99+% of other people, I’ll survive the Wuhan COVID-19 flu of 2020 — even though I am in the vulnerable age group. It is done by being responsible, not by being a sheep. Yes, I am vaccinated. 

So, did De Santis act in an egregious manner? I think not.