What I see is yet another example of a complex problem pinned into one (reprehensible) person to make it simple.
As ever, the data may be accurate, but it is presented in a manner tailored for you (general) to reach that specific conclusion. to use
@narf 's options, it's
Does "something else" imply a higher likelihood for both?
Those something elses can include: The education system's lack of provisions to teach people to look for sources or examine contrasting points of view, the social media echo chamber that these people may find themselves. False balancing as defined by that lovely image
@eizbaer posted and that I need to find an English version to keep for future reference, their friend's circle, their attitudes towards large cities (yes, even that,
if it came from the city I don't want it)
. How familiar they are with health advances, if they have a passing interest in politics beyond "It's a big boat, why try to rock it?"
et cetera.
But no, it clearly can't be any of that, there has to be a direct link to Trump. The editorial staff demands it. Trump sells. And by still using him as the leading keyword in whatever argument anyone want to do they keep giving him the spotlight, guaranteeing his particular brand of "I can do anything" does not go away, ensuring the continued radicalization of everything into a political position. Great for outrage clicks, analytics and engagement metrics, a continued blight for anyone who wishes for stability and sensible discourse. I agree with
@ninjacoco, I shall quite her directly,
"None of the obvious solutions at this point (getting the vaccine, wearing masks, keeping some distance) should be political." But they are, and shit journalism like that, where the blame is placed on a joke politician that, if left alone and uncovered beyond what's necessary would be left treading water; and where you can't sneeze without it being a statement venerating a cult leader or, conversely, meaning that you want to nuke red states from orbit is most assuredly not helping matters.