On Tuesday, the presidential election finally takes place. When it comes to what led to the outcome, a case can be made that political pundits on the left and right have got it all wrong. That’s because their expertise makes them uniquely unqualified to understand disengaged voters. Political pundits are like sportswriters trying to fathom why some people pay no attention to the Super Bowl. Yet disengaged voters will likely determine the winner. Why? Because these are the only voters still up for grabs.

Engaged voters have already decided who they’ll vote for. Some decided based on ideology (liberal or conservative). Others decided based on group interest (labor status, ethnicity, gender, religion). Some decided based on how they answered the question: Are you better or worse off than you were four years ago?

So who are the disengaged? These are undecided potential voters who just don’t care about politics. As a result, they process information about campaigns in ways that are unfathomable to those fully engaged.

In July, YouGov reported crunched polling numbers from a survey to identify characteristics of “disengaged” voters. The disengaged consume little political news; they are largely ignorant of political issues. They are less likely than others to actually vote. They tend to be “on average younger, more likely to be women, more likely to be Black or Hispanic, less educated, and have a lower household income than the average engaged American voter.”

Scientific models suggest that people take in information and make decisions using different mental processes. To varying degrees, engaged voters process information systematically. They connect issues together through mental links. Because of these intricate connections, the engaged decide early and are unlikely to change their minds. Changing their minds on one issue means changing their minds on others.

The disengaged take a different approach. They do what scientists call “heuristic” processing. They rely on peripheral cues that have very little to do with issues and candidate qualifications. For example, physical appearance of candidates can sway the disengaged. Research shows that people tend to like others who are physically attractive. If one doesn’t care much about politics, then appearance could serve as a basis for choosing. Using stereotypic notions of “good looks,” John F. Kennedy was better looking than Richard Nixon. Kamala Harris is better looking than Donald Trump.

Research dating from the 1940s shows that many disengaged voters depend on more engaged voters for advice (two-step flow). They also tend to take advice from people they admire, regardless of political expertise.

Arguably, this is why Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris could prove so impactful. After the Sept. 10 debate, the singer posted her endorsement on Instagram. According to Axios, Swift has 283 million Instagram followers. The Instagram post inspired 338,000 Swifties to visit Vote.gov, the federal voter registration website, during the 15 hours after her post.

One can only speculate how many Swifties are young women that YouGov identified as politically disengaged. Whether Swifties actually registered and will vote is also subject to speculation. Historically, celebrity endorsements don’t seem to improve a candidate’s chances. Ask Hillary Clinton. Normally, debates don’t have much impact either. But this is no normal campaign. Ask Joe Biden. In a close race, a percentage point boost from the disengaged in swing states could decide the election outcome.

Dozier, Ph.D., is professor emeritus in the School of Journalism and Media Studies at San Diego State University. He lives in Encinitas.

St. Columba Catholic Church in Serra Mesa was filled with parishioners attending mass on Sunday. Many of them were praying for peace while seriously considering the possibilities of this week’s Presidential Election.

“I think if people want the country to be a certain way, they have to help influence that rather than just complaining about how they want it to be,” said Leigh-Anne Clabby who is visiting San Diego with her husband, Abraham, and their children.

“Can we work with each other rather than just trying to win by a fraction of a percent only to overpower them?” he said.

Next door to the sanctuary is the church hall being used as one of the county’s vote centers.

Brian Scott and his wife Donabelle registered to vote on site and then cast their ballots. They are concerned about controversy and chaos that could come Tuesday and beyond.

Donabelle Scott said, “We’re trying to avoid the line and the possible riot or violence that might happen. We prefer to vote early.”

Her husband was transferred to San Diego from Maryland with the Navy. “Maybe this happened, maybe that happened. Then it can get into some kind of legal process and it drags out. I want to make sure everything is counted fairly and we have a decisive winner on election day,” Brian Scott said.

That just might not happen.

Political scientists say the uncertainty triggers a real thing called “voter anxiety” even after casting your ballot. Phil Saenz has been a professor of political science at Southwestern College for more than thirty years.

“Not only with respect to the election and who’s going to win, but also the aftermath or potential aftermath,” Saenz said. “If there is any disgruntled candidate. What might happen? So there’s some people worried about political violence and the escalation of that type of reaction and then there’s also concern about policy changes and the shifts that we might see,” he said.

Leigh-Anne Clabby said she hopes for the best, “(I’d like) people being able to get along regardless of which candidates they support.”

Former San Diego Padres pitcher Sean Manaea has reportedly opted out of his contract with the New York Mets, making him a free agent once again, via Jon Heyman. Manaea originally signed with the Mets in January 2024 on a two-year, $24 million deal which included an opt-out clause for the second year of his deal. He has not exercised that clause.

The Mets will have the chance to put out a qualifying offer to Manaea, but Manaea is reportedly seeking a multi-year contract.

Manaea recorded one of the best seasons of his career in 2024. He went 12-6 with a 3.47 ERA and 184 strikeouts. His 3.47 ERA was the lowest of his career, excluding the 2019 season with the Oakland Athletics when he started just five games. His 184 strikeouts is the second-most in a season over his career.

The 32-year-old played a pivotal role in helping the Mets turn their season around to surprisingly make the postseason, and even advance to the National League Championship Series. The Mets lost the NLCS to the Los Angeles Dodgers, and Manaea did give up seven earned runs in two NLCS starts, but his season was still an overall success.

Manaea previously played for the Padres in 2022. The Athletics traded Manaea to the Padres in April 2022, and he started 28 games for San Diego. Manaea finished the season with a 8-9 record, 4.96 ERA, and 156 strikeouts. He pitched in one NLCS game for the Padres that postseason, but was credited with a blown save after giving up five earned runs over 1.1 innings. Manaea became a free agent after the season and signed with the San Francisco Giants.

Manaea is not the only former Padre to opt out of their contract this week. Former Padres Cy Young award winner Blake Snell, who played alongside Manaea in 2022, signed a two-year, $62 million deal with the Giants in March, but is exercising his opt out ahead of the second year of the deal.

Will the Padres go after either Manaea or Snell in free agency? The Padres have yet to express any plans to pursue either pitcher, but there is familiarity with both players. The Padres could also be interested in another starter after Joe Musgrove underwent Tommy John surgery, but they could also go after another pitcher on the market.