I'm still baffled by Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The conservatives I know hate him, the old school Democrats I know hate him, women who are not even interested in politics hate him, basically everyone in my circle of associations that I talk to has a visceral dislike for the man out of proportion to his actions.  I find their primitive emotions disturbing.
There doesn't seem to be any link to intelligence in how people feel other than a  slight tendency for people with an above average  I.Q. to dislike Trump.  It is well understood that the people with advanced degrees in general benefited from the Obama policies as opposed to working people who were crushed. That may explain why they  may favor Democrats but it doesn't explain the feelings.
There is also evidence that party affiliation has flopped where the well off have moved towards the Democratic party and the less fortunate towards the Repuclican party.  In other words the class structure and their values have shifted in recent decades.

I would characterize the Democratic party as being grossly incompetent and not to be trusted with any major social policy.  Regardless of how you feel about issues such as global warming, how to handle the pandemic, global trade, education or other issue where a higher education may help you discern the seriousness of the issue a look at the statistics show that Democratic ran states have fared no better in these areas than Republican states.  A look at California illustrates this point.

One of the things that hurt Trump in the election was the migration of educated people out of state like California to urban areas in places such as Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Virginia.  On almost every measure California is a failing state.  It's educational performance, crime, homelessness, transportation system, energy reliability, percent of poverty, have all dramatically gotten worse over the last decades.  Considerable cognitive dissonance is required to not see a connection between Democratic incompetence and the decline in California.

My assessment is that Trump was a fairly competent president.  He accomplished much of what he promised despite strong opposition from his own party.  By that measure Obama was grossly incompetent despite having a very long honeymoon because of racial bigotry related to white quilt.  He was never held accountable for any failure.  Trump was held accountable for things that clearly were not his fault and not given credit for any accomplishments.  Again it requires a lot of cognitive dissonance to not see this obvious fact.

Scott Adams explains the phenomenon by noting that people do not assign their opinions to themselves their opinions are assigned to them.  I find his explanation of this phenomenon simplistic.  He has bought into the dominant intellectual position on freewill which I find absurd.  Over time a more comprehensive theory will come to the forefront but that is a topic for another day.  The short explanation is that group think is what we are evolved for.  In the natural environment empathy, which isn't what you think it is, is critical in any animal.  We evolved for an easy but unstable environment where there is no productivity.  In that environment sensuality and networking are critical to survival.  In a civilized environment everything is flipped around where productivity is the central controlling survival mechanism.  What is called a harsh but stable environment is critical. 

Intelligence has very little effect on instinct outside of self control.  Intelligent people use self control to satisfy their instincts, the instincts themselves are no different than in less intelligent people.  In a harsh but stable environment intelligence is a major advantage.  For example Einstein used his intelligence to get the mate he wanted.  Einstein used his Nobel prize money to facilitate a divorce from his first wife and marry his cousin.  A less intelligent person may have the same emotions but with less ability to satisfy them in a somewhat socially acceptable way. 

There is a new concept that is of some interest called intelligent naivety.  While the concept itself, like most psychobabble, is questionable the underlying correlations may not be too absurd.

"Both vocabulary and question comprehension were positively correlated with generalized trust. Those with the highest vocab scores were 34 percent more likely to trust others than those with the lowest scores, and someone who had a good perceived understanding of the survey questions was 11 percent more likely to trust others than someone with a perceived poor understanding. The correlation stayed strong even when researchers controlled for socio-economic class." [theatlantic.com]

The social benefits of trust are more likely evident to the intelligent and the cost lower due to socioeconomic status and associations.  The ability to ignore cognitive dissonance likely higher.  Naivety it seems comes with both advantages and disadvantages.  College educated people are more likely to trust the people they should not and distrust those they should.  Instincts are very poor guides in a civilized environment.