Maybe they vote for (what they perceive to be) a lesser evil. Like, they know that it's not okay. But they think the alternative is even less okay.
I am not agreeing with them here. Just pointing out that when we talk about our support for groups containing bad people, we excuse it like "a few bad apples". But when we see other people supporting groups containing bad people, we are likely to see it as unambiguous support for those bad people.
Our party's glass is half-full and we keep hoping it gets even fuller; their party's glass is half-empty, how could they vote for it?
Only if your definition of "trump's republican party" is excessively reductionist. Which speaks to my point - your point of view lacks nuance, likely because the guardian (and any of the outlets unilaterally labeled as "reliable/authoritative", enforced by tech censorship) is not an unbiased source on the matter. Particularly when they are still referring to jan 6th as some coordinated "attack" (sans guns?) rather than a riot.
When all right leaning sources have been preemptively defined as unreliable then naturally the only possibility is that anyone right of center is misinformed; but this is a toxic manufactured consensus which is at odds with the views and values of about half the country. Indeed you would think that this half is merely some crazed racist minority if your views on the US are informed by a steady stream of blatantly agendad left leaning sources. The logic is effectively circular, and left leaning journalistic interpretations are being paraded as objective facts. Jan 6th is an excellent example.
It's obviously difficult to be certain of which information is reliable and which information is not. In my view, the discourse has shifted rightwards such that there aren't any longer any genuinely left-leaning sources in the mainstream media. The Guardian, the NYT, CNN and suchlike all look solidly centrist to me.
The Guardian piece I linked is by an academic, so I have a bit more faith than usual that it will be an intelligent and independent viewpoint. But that Guardian piece is not the only thing I'm relying on, and the events of 6 January are not the only thing I'm relying on either.
In particular, there appears to be gerrymandering, voter suppression, and worse on the Republican side [1]. I'm not aware of Democratic attempts to undermine the democratic system to any similar degree, but perhaps you can point me to some?
[1] e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/podcasts/transcript-ezra-...
Certain Dem candidates also undermine the democratic process when they make false claims about voter suppression. For example "voter purges" are reported on as if they are voter suppression, but in fact they are routine list-maintenance carried out by state administrators to remove voters who have deceased or moved out of a jurisdiction. Stacy Abrams made unfounded claims that she lost due to some foul play / voter suppression, but this was not the case, she simply lost.
That said, undermining democracy is much more prevalent on the R side.
In fact I would challenge you to find a single topic that was reported on differently by any of those sources. The fact that our primary media outlets consistently report nearly identical information and spin on every story is a glaring indication of political bias. And apparently it is enough to convince millions of viewers that these issues are cut and dry; that republicans are obviously evil, are the only ones engaged in gerrymandering, that the left would never support authoritarian pursuits of power, etc.
I could link you dozens of articles, but I would be downvoted for posting "right wing propaganda". Meanwhile approximately 70MM people voted for Trump a second time, but the fact that none of our major outlets (even Fox was not friendly to trump) represent the views of these people is fine, because they're all ignorant, racist rednecks, right?
And why would they, when none of his speeches, actions, or policies ever accomplished anything positive for anyone other than his hardcore rightwing base? That's not bias, it's just calling a spade a spade.
Don't you understand that getting your news exclusively from biased sources would make it falsely seem as though they are giving you the whole picture so long as you simply do not seek out alternative perspectives?
Do you genuinely believe that right leaning sources can only report positively on Republicans if they print lies?
I would ask you the same question. Are you so arrogant to assume that the only reason I haven't come around to your way of thinking is because I merely haven't seen the same information that you have? That the only reason why someone wouldn't be a conservative is because they've been brainwashed by the big bad mainstream media?
Every time I have tried to dive into the Conservative-leaning mediasphere to make sure that there isn't some hidden truth I've been missing, I come away more certain than ever that that is not the case. And believe me, I've tried. Why do you assume that I haven't, simply because I still disagree with you?
You are not entitled to having your political beliefs validated by everyone you meet.
People can, of course, legitimately be found in all sorts of positions on the liberal/left leaning <—> conservative/right leaning spectrum (Jonathan Haidt has some interesting things to say on this [1]).
But from this side of the Atlantic it looks rather as if Trump's Republican party strongly prioritises getting and keeping power over basic democratic principles [2]. I find that very worrying, and I also find I can only really give two explanations for people supporting it: either "they're bad people" or "they're misinformed". I prefer to think that in most cases it's the latter.
[1] e.g. https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_...
[2] e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/06/republ...