That's putting the rabbit in the hat. There is, of course, another reasonable position, the one that's been taken many independents. These folks don't like Trump, but don't view him as "an existential threat to the nation" either. Sorry, but what's at stake in New York City doesn't remind anyone of an existential threat to the nation, that is, unless you view the threat as the party in power abusing the criminal justice system to avoid the specter of a free and fair election.
The mistake you make is insisting that people view this as a binary choice, for or against the "existential threat" you perceive. You have blinders on if that's how you think most folks are viewing this election. This election will turn on the issues of the day - abortion rights, crime and cultural rot, the migrant crisis, Gaza and Ukraine, and of course the economy and jobs. Folks will make their choices as they've always have, on the basis of what each candidate has to say about these issues,
Most of these folks - I was one of them - voted for Biden in 2000, and whether they continue to do so in 2024 boils down to what they think about Biden's first term. You know, a referendum on the incumbent.
Folks like you and me who will base our actions primarily on our dislike of Trump are probably in the minority. My point in posting the Zakaria article is simply that the Dems shouldn't need Stormy Daniels to unite their side, but she and Alvin Bragg are doing a darn good job of uniting the other side.