Previously you said the Democrats presented "subpar" candidates. That implies you are referencing their qualifications, not the strength and cohesiveness of their party's support (as you now are suggesting). I don't know what your vote has to do with your prior comment. We were talking about why rural undereducated buffoons voted for GOP candidates who are clearly worse than those "subpar" democrats because their policies run directly contrary to those voters' interests.
Also, a majority of the country didn't vote for Trump. Hell, even a majority of the voters didn't. (Hint--it was a plurality, and by one of the slimmest margins in history).
Well, when you suggest that the dotard is better qualified to be president than a former DA, senator, and vice-president, what do you expect?
We don't see your point because it shifted from one post to the next.