Most theoretical and empirical approaches to nationalism not only distinguish between ethnic and civic notions of national belonging, but also differentiate national identity from national hubris, pride, and attachment. In this article, we examine recently published research on nationalist sentiments in the United States that takes a different approach. The study in question has already become quite influential in the field and has the potential to change how we conceptualize and operationalize attitudes about the nation. In this research note, we revisit its analytical strategy and exploratory methods. We ask two questions. First, does this study allow us to draw conclusions about American nationalism? To answer this, we replicate the original model and then execute additional postestimation analyses, whose results undermine the study's main conclusions. Second, we investigate whether judicious revisions to the study's model generate results that would lead us to the article's same conclusions. 385 additional models lend no support. Based on this evidence, we argue that the original study's conclusions stem from a misinterpretation of its LCA analysis, as our own analyses demonstrate that there is no empirical basis for its claims.