....

If you want to fight Trump effectively, you have to learn to think like they do and give up the prospect that scandal will one day undo him.

....

Normal politicians collapse in the face of scandal because it shows them dozing on the job or falling short of their promises. To get elected, they offer a bargain: “Vote for me. I will make you richer/fight for your rights/assure your progress.” Scandals reveal that they can’t do that, and thus, they tumble. However, like all populists, Trump offered a much different deal: “Vote for me. I will destroy your enemies. They are the reason you are not rich/have fewer rights/America is not great anymore.” Scandal is the populist’s natural element for the same reason that demolishing buildings makes more noise than constructing them. His supporters didn’t vote for silence. They voted for a bang

.....

If dwelling on scandal too much can be counterproductive, then the focus must be elsewhere. I believe it should rest on understanding and empathizing with the grievances that brought Trump to power (wage stagnation, cultural isolation, a depleted countryside, the opioid crisis). Trump’s solutions may be imaginary, but the problems are very real. Populism is and has always been the daughter of political despair. Showing concern is the only way to break the rhetorical polarization.

This writer seems to share the asymmetrical view of Josh that maintains that the sexual abuse revelations would not have negative voter impact on Trump and on GOP electeds or candidates because their voters simply don't care about these issues.  [To what degree does an analysis of Alabama Senate race data support that view?] Or perhaps some do to some degree, but, to the above writer's point, to a greater degree they view Trump and GOP electeds as sharing enemies with themselves.

The Iron Triangle which right now plagues us consists of Trump, his voters, and his big donors and dark money supporters.  If, hypothetically, his favorability ratings were to descend further--not at all clear this will happen--in the coming months, could this impact the behavior of enough key Republicans in Congress to change the basic stonewalling/ride it out dynamic?  Or is the behavior of Republican elected officials essentially dictated by their big donors' wishes, no matter how low his approval ratings go?  To what extent do the dark money donors view Trump's political survival as important for the continuation and extension of their policy agenda?  Optional?  Counter-productive at a certain point?  If the latter, at what point?

At what point does a Republican elected official in Congress conclude that holding on to the donor money and other support just will not be enough to survive politically in the next election in the face of the unpopularity of the agenda being pursued by the GOP Congress and the President going along for that ride (so long as there is enough in it for him personally)? 

And if reaching such conclusion, what then?  Stick with the donors' policy agenda wishes in implicit or explicit exchange for the post-election defeat sinecure, if dark money proves unable to buy re-election?  Fully break with Trump with the hope/belief it's not too late?  Try to have it both ways by verbally putting some distance between themselves and Trump while not coming close to breaking with him or with the big donors' agenda?  

Is there any development or event, short of abandoning the substantive policy agenda reflected in the tax legislation, which might impact continued big donor support, through marching orders to the GOP Congress and attempts at media narrative influence which have been flailing badly this past year, for Trump prior to 2020?

Lots of questions.  Answers TBD.