So much to unpack…

"Trump will spend the next four years, starting now, bitterly asserting he was robbed". Perhaps you forgot about Felonious von Pantsuit who blamed Jim Comey, misogynism, sexism, Russians, little green men, and a host of others for losing the most winnable Presidential race in our history. It had nothing to do with her bad ideas, laughable campaign strategy, insulting half the electorate that they were "deplorable" and unredeemable, and the fact she epitomized "elites" getting away with violating the law when any "normal" citizen would be and was prosecuted for arguably much less egregious actions (see: unsecured, nongovernmental email server and the classified information that transited it).

Can you point to any Medium articles where you chastised Hillary for "bitterly asserting she [sic] was robbed"?

Leftists often accuse President Trump of "busting norms". You up that ante to claim his is "by default".

Can you name one function of government which is substantially different than it was in January 2017? Had he, say, advocated for adding Supreme Court Justices to the number on the High Court? Had he proposed to limit the choices of Americans in terms of the kind of cars they could drive, the light bulbs they could use, etc.? Has he pushed states with Constitutionally challenged legislators and/or voters to adopt the National Popular Vote Compact thereby surrendering control over their presidential electors to the big population centers on the coasts? Has he elevated government-approved political speech at the expense of other viewpoints (see Black Lives Matters graffiti spread across US streets and then search for Judicial Watch's lawsuits seeking the same opportunity to paint their political viewpoint on similar public streets)?

Those are all things done or advocated for by Democrats, not President Trump.

Going back a short 10 years, Obama "broke the norm" of the head of one co-equal branch of government (the Executive Branch) insulting the heads of another co-equal branch of government (The Supreme Court) during a State of the Union address with demonstrably false information regarding, in this instance, the Citizens United case. Further, Democrats in Congress cheered when Obama said he was going to negate the role of the Legislative Branch through the use of his "pen and phone". Imagine how that would have played out if uttered by President Trump.

I know, I play a lot of "what-aboutism", probably because it's so illustrative of the way President Trump's immediate predecessor and his administration was treated by the public and the press compared to President Trump and his administration.

Besides trying to deny the fact their fellow citizens elected Donald Trump President in 2016, they should have been angrier at how Obama's DOJ ignored the rule-of-law to exonerate Hillary for her crimes and how the DNC put their fingers on the scale to ensure Hillary's nomination to be the Democrat Party Presidential Nominee at the expense of Bernie Sanders.

Had Holder, Lynch, Comey, and, yes, Obama, simply followed the law and indicted Hillary (or at least sanctioned her and her minions), she most likely would have been eliminated from consideration for the nomination and, it's at least conceivable, that the 45th President would have been named Bernie Sanders and not Donald Trump.

Put that under your thinking cap and ponder it for a while.

Is President Trump controversial and unique? Definitely. Are there many of his supporters that wish he would consider his language before speaking or Tweet more "effectively"? Again, definitely.

Technology let President Trump take his arguments directly to the people unfiltered by the press which abdicated their responsibility during the Obama years to be a curious and diligent defender of the people from government. That abdication of their duties from 2008 – January 2017 created Trump. Their disinterest in investigating or criticizing anything Obama-related got turned on its head with the election of President Trump due, in large part, to the free publicity they gave him in their fervent belief he provided the most beatable opponent standing in the way of the coronation of Hillary 99.9% of the media thought she deserved.

With apparently no sense of irony you type "The salient talking point shaping up is that Biden will be illegitimate, an explosive accusation likely to KEEP THE COUNTRY DIVIDED [emphasis mine] and possibly Congress paralyzed"?

Do you have any sense that those "salient talking points", that a duly elected President named Trump was "illegitimate" were corrosive and MAYBE THAT IS the reason the country BECAME so divided and Congress paralyzed, as much as we have been, in the first place?

This is rich "he could have seized on the moment as an opportunity for another strongman show of power, “Had he handled Covid in a way as an autocrat, like mobilize the military to get everyone tested, that could have saved his bacon,” said Margaret O’Mara, a history professor at the University of Washington.

Any parent paying for their son or daughter to take Professor Mara's history class at the University of Washington might better ask for a refund. Yes, President Trump acting like an "autocrat", as Democrats have claimed he wanted to be since before the inauguration, would have united the country.

Pelosi probably pre-drafted Articles of Impeachment hoping he would do exactly that. Instead, President

Trump recognized the Constitutional NORM of Federalism and the Constitutional limits on his Executive Power which PREVENT him from acting like an autocrat. Those "checks" on his Executive Power don't simply go away because of a pandemic. Federalism left many decisions to the state legislators and governors while the federal government worked to provide guidance (CDC/NIH), coordinate the whole-of-government response (Coronavirus Task Force), provide economic relief and assistance (CARES Act and two additional bills), carry out legislatively delegated powers to assist (Defense Production Act), and implement

Executive Power where applicable (multiple travel bans (for which he was called a "racist" and a "xenophobe" by Democrats and their media sycophants), deploying US Navy medical ships, erecting deployable military hospitals, etc.).

President Trump readily deserves some blame for the terrible affect the pandemic has had on our fellow citizens.

But the idea that President Trump, or any other Chief Executive of our diverse population, protected from the autocratic suggestions included in this article by our Constitution, could have prevented every death due to COVIDE-19 (or even MOST deaths) is, IMHO, ridiculous.

He is derided for "not following the science" or the scientists. But, the pandemic has not been a static event.

When would it have been okay NOT to follow the science or the scientists?

Maybe when Saint Fauci signed off on the WHO talking points praising China for their "transparency" and efforts to combat the novel coronavirus?

Should it have been when Saint Fauci said we didn't need to wear masks?

Should it have been when the CDC, as the New York Times reported, "the agency … struggled at times to provide clear and timely guidance, leading many to say NOT to follow CDC guidance but to look for information from universities, mailing lists or online research articles for detailed recommendations about how to safely care for infected patients"?

Where is the "magic coin" President Trump could have flipped to determine when and when not he should have "listened to the scientists"?

There also appears to be little reflection of the Democrat's and their supporters "busting norms" in the comment "Plenty of Americans, encouraged and goaded by Trump, will resist and not be shy about showing Biden that, in their view, he is not their president." Had you even heard the term prior to November 2016? I hadn't. Do Pelosi, Waters, Schiff, Schumer, etc bear any responsibility for bringing that phrase into the political lexicon? Is this one of those liberal situations where it's "okay for me, but not for thee"?

You wrote "During President Obama’s two terms, McConnell established a record of gleefully stymying Democratic priorities and waiting for a chance to maximize his own agenda."

Here, as they say, "I fixed it for you": "During President Obama’s two terms, McConnell established a record of [ensuring the U.S. Senate did not advance the policies and priorities for which Republican voters gave them the majority] and waited [sic] for a chance to maximize his own agenda."

Our form of a Constitutional Republic doesn't mandate that a branch of the Legislature controlled by the Party opposite the President is obligated to support and enact the policy priorities of that President.

In fact, I would argue the exact opposite. Our Constitutional Republic demands that representative government officials represent the policy priorities of those citizens who elected them. I can verify that many of us voted for Senators for that very reason – we disagreed with Obama's vision to "fundamentally transform" the United States and the policies/laws which would enable it.

Notice there was no reference to the race of #44 in that sentence.

The statement that the "Republican base wants more than anything to 'own the libs'" would seem to indicate that you know few if any members of the "Republican base".

"More than anything" the Republican base wants:

Smaller government

A government we can afford, not the one we wish we had

Lower taxes

The dignity of a job and advancement we get, not because of the color of our skin, or our "gender identity", etc., but because of our ability to do the job well and add value for our employers

Equal opportunity (within reason), not equal outcomes

The Rule of Law and not of men

Adherence to Constitutional Principles

A Fourth Estate that holds the government/politicians to the rule of law and investigates with the same skepticism, inquisitiveness, and fervor whether that government or official has an "R" after their name or a "D"

Regulations which protect the individual from government overreach rather than implement that overreach

Regulations and laws which serve to do the above without overly hindering freedom (e.g. the freedom to start a business)

The elimination of "political correctness" from government institutions or those which receive money from the federal government

The choice to not send our children to failing public schools and to take our tax dollars with us to schools which offer a better chance at an education

A strong celebrated National Defense

A foreign and domestic policy which celebrates and advances "America (and by extension "Americans) First"

Police Forces all across the country held to applicable standards, but NOT defunded

Legislation should be limited to less than 29 pages (or however many pages it takes to print out the Constitution, as amended).

Legislation should deal with ONE specific issue, no bloat, no additions.

The era of 1000+ page bills which no Congress Critter has time to read before voting must come to an end. Legislature should be written in a manner understandable by anyone educated in a failing public school. Congress must LEGISLATE and not leave how statutes are implemented to government bureaucrats unaccountable to voters.

We would prefer Constitutional Amendments to enact term limits for the two Chambers of Congress (two terms for a Senator and three terms for a Representative) and one which returns the determination of Senators to the state legislatures NOT a popular vote within a state (i.e. Repeal of the 17th Amendment)

I don't mean to imply I speak for the entire "Republican Base". Despite claims to the contrary by the usual cast of miscreants, we have a large tent and lots of opinions.

There's more, but, I think you get the point. "Owning the libs" is not something the Republican base wants "more than anything". But, it is a nice bonus when it happens (as it often does) :-)