Populism has been a rather marginalized notion in mainstream social sciences. In his ambitious work On Populist Reason, renowned theoretician Ernesto Laclau aimed to give the notion a more central role. However, the work is dominated by ungrounded theory. In this article I test the factors that the work identifies as conditions to explaining populism, against the backdrop of three historical cases the work analyzes. I add the case of Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. From the comparison I conclude that the work innovates less than it claims when explaining populism. I propose that a hypothetical way to build on its contribution is by shifting the focus from its central notion of heterogeneity to coalitions, and from there to types of populisms as a way towards the construction of grounded, middle-range generalizations.