I was sent a lengthy analysis by Dan "Baseball Crank" McLaughlin on exactly what his vote will be and why. It is very evenhanded and though long, summarises the issues nicely. The way I counted it up as I read, he was going to reluctantly vote for Trump. That's not how it ended. Yet I think that even a little undercutting of his reasoning would reasonably turn the tide. I recommend the article.
I think he makes four errors. They are all small, partial errors but in aggregate are decisive.
1. He rightly deplores Trump's vulgar attitude toward women as disposable. However, I think it important that we have not seen anything of that over the last four years. Even if he is unchanged in thought, he is changed in behavior, and we can expect that going forward.
2. He makes as good a case as I've seen for tactical losing now, when SCOTUS retirees and other issues are in favor of Republicans, yet he still does not convince me. He states he doesn't like "winning by losing" but...maybe this time...Biden's not gonna last...so he winces and comes out in favor of it. I grant him I don't feel as badly about the prospect as I did before reading his essay. But I still don't like it. Losing is losing, with bad consequences.
3. McLaughlin looks only at the knowns, and what actually did happen. Real life isn't like this, and "what might have happened but didn't" can be as important as evaluating a leaders response to actual events. I will state that more strongly and state that it is as important, and deserves a look. If bad things did not happen, that may or may not be due to Trump's actions, but the base fact of possible bad things that did not happen should be at least provisionally to his credit. It's not visible in any of his analysis.
4. He believes the long-term associations of Republicans embracing Trump will haunt the party with younger voters for years. That very well may be so. Thirty years from now there still might be a taint, even if undeserved, that hampers the GOP. Yet I am not convinced by such projections of what we guess other people will think ten, twenty, thirty years from now. I don't think we know remotely well enough to bring it up as more than a passing reference.