While tuning into MSNBC last night, political commentator Joy Reid articulated a thought that resonated deeply with me and likely many others.

Recalling my sleep-deprived and over-caffeinated state, Reid remarked, “This election isn’t delivering the catharsis many anticipated. We were hoping for a clear repudiation of the past four years, but that’s not what appears to be unfolding.”

At that moment during election night, the electoral map mirrored that of 2016. A few key states were closely contested, and Biden did perform better than Clinton in several counties, yet only Arizona switched sides late in the evening.

As I pen this, we are hopeful that Michigan and Wisconsin will lean towards Biden, providing him with the 270 electoral votes necessary to oust Trump. Pennsylvania may also turn blue once all mail-in votes are counted.

However, many other states remained uncompetitive, and the GOP is poised to maintain its hold on the Senate.

How is it possible that only four states have shifted from red to blue between 2016 and 2020? How did Trump’s Senate allies manage to secure their positions so easily?

Over the past four years, we have witnessed:

• Endless scandals, chaos, and ineffective policy execution;
• A barrage of falsehoods, concealment of facts, obstruction of justice, and misuse of the Justice Department;
• A continual decline in standards of civility, behavior, and misuse of authority;
• Inhumane and poorly executed policies, such as the ill-conceived Muslim travel ban, a crumbling border wall, and the separation of 545 children from their parents in detention;
• Racist and incendiary rhetoric, including the endorsement of white supremacists in Charlottesville, labeling journalists as enemies, exacerbating social unrest, legitimizing QAnon, and instructing the Proud Boys to “stand by;”
• A tax reform that, while benefiting corporations, increased taxes for middle-class Americans, including myself;
• Attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and eliminate protections for preexisting conditions while falsely claiming these protections would remain intact;
• Promises of a comprehensive healthcare plan to replace the ACA — which would safeguard preexisting conditions — left unfulfilled for years;
• A disastrous response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including hastily confirming a Supreme Court nominee while delaying COVID relief measures;
• Recorded admissions from Trump acknowledging the severity of COVID, contrary to his public statements;
• A lack of any substantial policy vision for the future (and there’s more to mention).

The last point deserves further contemplation. Do we have any idea how a Trump administration alongside a Republican Senate would aim to advance America in the next four years? I certainly do not. Do you know what issues they prioritize, aside from federal judges and the stock market? I don’t.

If effective governance is a priority for you, how could you support another four years of what we have experienced?

Even many who were closest to Trump’s administration could not justify another term. Numerous career military leaders and civil servants who served under Trump urged voters to back Biden.

Many within Trump’s own party felt similarly. Groups like Republicans Against Trump, the Lincoln Project, and various other conservatives actively encouraged voters to consider alternatives.

So what explains this? Why does the 2020 electoral map resemble that of 2016? How could 70 million individuals cast their votes for Trump?

The answer seems to be that most people simply do not care about the events of the past four years. In fact, many individuals are indifferent to what occurs during any presidential term.

Most voters align with either the Republican or Democratic party “just because.”

When pressed, they may articulate reasons for their choices, but these justifications often emerge after the fact. People typically view their party affiliation as a core aspect of their identity, leading them to vote based on loyalty to their party, social identity, and habit rather than on policies or issues.

Research indicates that personal beliefs, qualifications for office, or current events play little to no role in the voting decisions of millions.

In their book, Democracy for Realists, political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels present extensive data suggesting an unsettling reality: Election outcomes often appear random when viewed through the lens of democratic principles.

The prevailing narrative in America suggests that voters thoughtfully consider policies and issues, reach logical conclusions about governmental actions, and subsequently support leaders who champion those beliefs. In reality, the process operates in reverse: voters tend to choose a leader they favor and then adjust their perspectives on policies and proposed actions to align with that leader's stance.

For instance, during the 2000 election, both George W. Bush and Al Gore presented differing plans for Social Security reform to attract voters. Research revealed that voters often shifted their views on Social Security to match their preferred candidate’s opinions. As Achen and Bartels note, “The apparent electoral impact of views about Social Security privatization was almost entirely illusory.”

After Trump failed to denounce white supremacy during the first debate, JD Grear, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, tweeted that Christians should condemn racism whenever possible. Many responses interpreted this as a veiled critique of Trump and argued he had previously denounced it, conveniently disregarding the video evidence that suggested it was a complicated question for him at that moment.

You might recall numerous similar instances from 2020.

It appears that most individuals use their political party affiliation and its representative as a shortcut for determining their policy inclinations, political beliefs, and voting habits. They seem unwilling to engage in independent thought, particularly regarding politics.

Notably, recent studies by political scientist Yanna Krupnikov have shown that many Americans would be disturbed if their children married someone from the opposing political party—not out of animosity towards that party, but merely to avoid frequent political disputes within the family.

On one hand, it is understandable to prefer to evade contentious family gatherings. However, it is hard to overstate the general apathy many Americans have toward politics. Outside the Beltway, political Twitter, journalism, and other niche bubbles, most people are largely indifferent to political affairs.

You might argue, “People simply need to be better informed.” Yet, the more informed an individual is, the more data they gather to validate their existing beliefs. For example, highly informed Republicans were found to be more likely to mistakenly assert that the budget deficit increased under Bill Clinton.

While the politically active may represent a small fraction of the population, their engagement fuels a fervor that can create the illusion of rampant partisanship (as noted by Krupnikov). This, in turn, fosters further disinterest in political engagement among the majority who prefer to focus on their daily lives.

In his review of Democracy for Realists, Matthew Yglesias from Vox Media succinctly expresses the predicament: It is exceedingly unlikely that voters, in their wisdom, will prevent glaringly unqualified candidates or individuals with detrimental ideas from attaining high office.

So, if voters are not relying on policy positions, what criteria do they use? Summarizing Democracy for Realists, Yglesias concludes: Partisan loyalties are primarily shaped by fundamental group identities rather than deep ideological convictions, and swing voters often change their votes for no compelling reason—perhaps due to an economic downturn or fluctuations in oil prices.

In essence, most individuals do not genuinely consider policies, qualifications, or current events when casting their votes.

Nor do they reflect on Trump’s actions over the past four years.

Or how inadequately his administration has dealt with COVID.

Or what Joe Biden proposes (or fails to propose).

Many voters will choose Republican or Democrat essentially “just ‘cuz.” They support the Republican or the Democrat simply because they identify with that party. Their partisanship is habitual yet dependable.

This dynamic is how a mere 3% of the electorate employs “confrontational politics” to undermine our democracy and public discourse. But that is a topic for another discussion.

Catharsis: Lost and Rediscovered

Here I find myself, astonished that nearly 70 million people have endorsed the chaos of the Trump era, while experiencing the profound absence of the catharsis I didn’t realize I longed for until it failed to materialize.

Yet, I choose to seek solace in the understanding that many Trump supporters likely did not thoroughly evaluate the past four years of his administration and decide, “Yes, I want more of that!”

Certainly, there is a notable number of QAnon adherents and “Run the Biden Bus Off the Road” enthusiasts, not to mention countless staunch MAGA supporters who are quick to chant “Lock her up” against innocent individuals.

However, if political science research holds true, a significantly larger segment of Trump voters paid little attention to politics or current events before arriving at the polls. Most of their perspectives have been shaped by conservative media outlets like Fox News.

The majority of Trump voters are akin to a roommate who ignores the pile of dirty laundry you’ve left on the living room floor for months, waiting to see how long it takes for you to deal with it.

When you finally reach your breaking point and exclaim, “Aren’t you going to clean up your mess?” the roommate looks bewildered and asks, “What mess?”

You gesture towards the heap of clothes and shout, “That mess!”

They respond, “What are you talking about? That’s not a mess; it’s just my clothes. Why are you overreacting?”

These roommates literally do not perceive the pile of clothes as a mess. They continue to sidestep it, living without those items, simply because they are indifferent—that's just their way of life.

I remain uncertain about what it would take for Trump supporters to recognize the mess and alter their political views. Honestly, I expected COVID to sway many voters, similar to how an economic downturn or changes in oil prices could disillusion the electorate with the ruling party.

The fact that it didn’t happen speaks volumes about the current strength of partisanship and Trump’s capacity to transform every issue into a test of political loyalty. Clearly, individuals manage to adjust their perceptions of Trump’s ineffective and deceptive handling of the pandemic to fit their allegiance to Trumpism.

Nonetheless, I find some comfort in viewing those who supported Trump as messy roommates who remain oblivious to the clutter, navigating their lives in willful ignorance.

Perhaps this is merely wishful thinking, but it’s certainly more reassuring than believing that 48% of voters thoughtfully and objectively assessed their options and opted to continue riding the Trump train.

Compassionate, actionable help with your journey in education, politics, relationships, or religion. Sign-up for more direct to your inbox.