You clearly don't understand what you're trying to say. It's a problem with this style of communication. Your putting to much value on your idea of what anecdotal evidence is. I'm not making presumptions about anything beyond my personal experiences. There's no facts I can use outside of voting records and the words people use and the actions they take. You can call it antidotal evidence but that's a poor direction because it's like everything is anecdotal if someone wants to be argumentive. Everything is anecdotal at some point https://listen-hard.com/psychological-research-and-methodology/anecdotal-evidence-psychology/

I live in a conservative part of Washington, surrounded by even more conservative communities on the other side of the state boarder with Idaho. My city is an island of moderate voting but leaning right. It's not very hard to get a sense of what the local politics are.

Do you know what that is like?

Let me give you an example. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Shea

Matt Shea was a local government official. He's made world news doing questionable shit. He's made a religious manifesto. He is a local conservative leader where I live. He was on stage with the previous mayor of Spokane. The election results are clearly factual. That mayor didn't lose in a landslide. Matt Shea was rejected by the Republican Elites but I think his endorsement of Trump has a stronger appeal to the Republicans in Eastern Washington than Dick Cheney.

Shea acknowledged that he had distributed a four-page manifesto which called for the killing of non-Christian males if a war were to occur and they do not agree to follow fundamentalist biblical law

This is reality.

It's hard to NOT see all the parts and make a conclusion that local conservative voters don't care what the National Republican Party thinks.

Psychology isn't a good science especially if you're trying to apply it to politics.