In survey after survey over the past year, more than half of Republicans surveyed say that they believe that Donald Trump actually won the 2020 election.

But questions can be raised about the interpretation of those responses. Saying “yes” to the question “Did Trump win the 2020 election?” might actually mean only that the respondent wished to make it clear that he or she was a loyal Trump supporter. Trump himself treats believing that he won the election as a test of loyalty. So, to show doubt that he did so by not answering “yes” in the survey, would be to put oneself squarely in the camp of the enemy. It follows that, however half-hearted or doubt-filled or even non-existent a Trump-follower’s belief in the reality of a Trump victory might be, that person would still answer “yes”.

I propose this analysis of why so many Republicans go on record as believing that Trump won in 2020, because I assume that they all have examined Trump’s claim of victory in much the same way that the rest of us have — the way that we all customarily evaluate someone’s claim that some rather unusual and unexpected event has taken place.

That process is, admittedly, somewhat complex. When confronted with such a claim, one asks oneself two clusters of questions. One cluster asks, in effect, how likely it is that such an event would actually occur, and what objective evidence for its occurrence exists. The other cluster asks how likely it is that the person who makes the claim can be trusted to have given an accurate report.

The intrinsic probability of some event occurring, may, for logical or scientific reasons, be close to zero. Someone who reports that “yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there,” has reported a logically impossible event. Someone who claims to have witnessed a miracle would have to face the critique of the philosopher David Hume. Hume pointed out that a miracle is, by definition, a violation of scientific laws, so someone claiming to have witnessed a miracle confronts the entire body of contrary evidence that led to the formulation of such laws. Believing that claim would be utterly irrational. And then there’s historical impossibility, such as a supposed eyewitness account of Julius Caesar pulling out a cellphone to call for help on that fateful Ides of March.

But most reported events fall into none of these categories; their probability is not zero, and an assessment of the reports of such events must involve a consideration of whatever evidence of their occurrence exists (apart from the report in question). We take into consideration such things as the reports of other witnesses, if they exist; and any observable effects of the event, plus evidence that the person reporting the event was, in fact, in a position to witness it, had adequately functioning senses, and so forth.

A judgment regarding the second factor, the trustworthiness of the person reporting the event, must take into consideration that person’s basic sanity and freedom from hallucinations, as well as whether or not he or she has a history of lying, and/or has possible motivations to lie about that specific event’s occurrence. Motivations may include a hunger for attention, a need to feel important, and the anticipation of more concrete benefits if others believe that the occurrence actually took place.

A Trump victory in the 2020 election certainly could have occurred, but the data generated by the election quite convincingly shows that it did not. Trump’s claim that it did occur does not rest upon his having witnessed it, for it would not have been the sort of event which one person could witness. The purported event would have involved widespread, covert sabotage of the voting process in a way that produced a great number of fraudulent votes for his opponent. The only relevant eyewitness testimony would be that of those who rigged the election or witnessed acts of rigging, and the only convincing physical evidence would be fraudulent ballots in sufficient numbers to have affected the vote tally. No such testimony or evidence has been produced, despite the best efforts of Trump supporters to produce it.

Therefore, if Trump’s claim that he actually won the election has no objective credibility, it is only his personal believability that supports it.

More than a score of psychiatrists who observed Trump closely when he was president concluded that he suffered from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). That was also the conclusion of his niece, psychologist Mary Trump, who encountered him often in informal circumstances. A prominent symptom of NPD is lying — not ordinary lying, but pathological lying, i.e., repeated lying that is purposeful in that it rewards the liar psychologically and/or materially.

During his presidential term, Trump lied daily; tens of thousands of lies were documented. He lied about his personal attributes and his accomplishments, clearly in order to bolster his self-esteem and reassure himself of his own worth. Particularly crucial for Trump has been his claim to always be a winner. Let’s not forget that Trump insists, to this day, that he didn’t lose the popular vote in his first presidential election.

Most of us, in light of the above considerations, have concluded that Trump’s claim to victory in 2020 is unbelievable. There’s no supporting evidence; he has compelling reasons to lie; and no compunction about doing so. It’s hard to believe that even Republicans would reach a different conclusion.

Leonard Hitchcock of Pocatello is an alumnus of the University of Iowa and did graduate work at Claremont Graduate University and the University of California, San Diego. He taught philosophy in California and Arizona for 15 years. In 1985, after earning a library degree, he was hired by Idaho State University. He retired from ISU’s Oboler Library in 2006.