On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was named President of the United States, and parts of the country seemed to honestly go up in flames. Ever since, critics in the media have been rampant and insanely fastidious on what he does right and wrong. Overall, this coverage and the overall feeling about the President seem to be pretty negative. In reaction to this, political scientists and politicians have been monitoring and predicting a “blue wave.” So what exactly is blue wave? Is it even important or just a speculation?

In 2017, it became a real shock to many people that a Democratic Senator was elected to Congress—Doug Jones, whose opponent Roy Moore was accused of sexual assault with a minor and upon losing, took forever to officially concede. Now, in the eyes of the Senate, Alabama was no longer that reliably deep red state; it was split half-and-half.

In early 2018, about a week or so ago, it was considered a huge win for Democrat Linda Belcher in defeating opponent Rebecca Johnson in a special election in Bullitt County, Kentucky. Also, back home, there have recently been other elections recently in which Democrats did not win, but became narrowly close to winning. So what? So what: these counties in which Democrats have been making ground were runaways for President Trump in 2016.

In both of these states, Trump won by a large margin, as both states are considered safe red states. But now, there seems to be a little bit of uncertainty in each about political ground and where exactly the state stands. This is where the theory of a blue wave comes in. With lower polling numbers reflecting popularity of President Trump and other members in Congress of the Republican Party, the thought is that more and more moderates or people fed up with the Republican Party and President Trump are going to start voting for people of the Democratic Party. This theory sounds great in all, as do a lot of things on paper. But it is important to do further digging and examination of this, especially if it is going to be a pivoting line for Democrats to use in hopes of being voted in.

First of all, before even looking at specific cases of Alabama and Kentucky, think about the very theory behind such a phrase. Sure, political parties are pretty polarized as it is and seem to be doing nothing except continuing that process. But the very notion of a blue wave comes from people only needing to see the “-D” next to a name on a ballot. It requires no further education of a candidate and alienates the other side just because they are associated with that side. If you’re looking to really seek revenge on that side or you have the thought that every person in one party really is the same as the leading cronies of it, I suppose that makes sense. But a lot of times, members are different from their overall party and the representation at the top. Civic engagement is also incredibly important to keep up with; glancing at a name and their affiliation can lead to some serious problems. If all Republicans all thought and agreed on the same things, Independents would probably no longer be an exception but rather be seriously involved in the fight for office. Not to mention, if all Republicans are the same, then why are there so many inner-party conflicts between different branches of conservatism as well as with the President? Not all Democrats agree on the same things and preach the same things. Politicians are still people with different thoughts and ideas; alienating them to a simple phrase or one theory can prove to be really reckless.

Now, with personal examination towards the cases of Alabama and Kentucky: Let’s start with Alabama. When the news escaped that a potential sexual assailant was running for office, it became national news and caught the attention of millions of people. Even then, Moore still had a shot at winning the seat. When the final numbers came out, the amount of people who refused to vote Democrat but refused to vote for Moore was right around the magic number that would have given Moore the race. It was not the fury of citizens in Alabama from the Trump presidency or how fed up they were with Republicans that gave Dems this win—It was the fact that Doug Jones is not Roy Moore.

In Kentucky, it made news in other states as well that a Democrat won a district that Trump initially ran away with. It seems odd hearing that Democrats are being elected in good old Kentucky where the state has, historically, almost always leaned on the side of conservatism. However, Linda Belcher, winner of that district, previously had the seat and won it back. She was not a newcomer of which people did not already know her and did not have any groundbreaking methods or stances of getting into office.

Trust me: as a registered Democrat, I think it is wonderful that other Democrats are getting elected into office, especially since the majority represent values that I strongly agree with. However, I think that it may make more sense to say that this happens with incidence and time and place rather than with a sweeping movement. I may prove to be wrong in the future, but with these early results, it doesn’t appear like there is this huge anti-Trump movement in the country. Constituents are going to look at their personal representatives and decide based on their stances and what work they have done to help at home rather than if they are a certain party or not. Sure, some people do look for “-R” or other indicators of someone in a party and decide that way. However, for a good amount of people that do vote and care to get out the vote, many of them are at least willing to listen to what a candidate opposing their party has to say.