When this happened to Nixon, he was out. With Turmp – assuming the story checks out – I don't think anyone really believes there's more than a 1 in 4 chance that he'll even be investigated. Nixon wasn't worse or less popular than Turmp. So what's the difference?
I think: with Nixon it came as a shock, or at least people could pretend to be shocked. But with Turmp, if the story becomes "he wasn't fit to be President," then it would follow directly that the people who elected him weren't fit to elect a president. Because no one can claim to be surprised. Turmp instinctively knows that by openly incriminating himself, he makes those loyal to him into accomplices, exactly like an organised crime boss.
It's way easier for me to say this than for Republican voters to hear it, but argh: can we just rip off the band-aid, agree that voting for Turmp was a colossal, eyes-open mistake, and move forward?