Stephens puts forth a nuanced perspective on factors behind Trump's political resurgence, such as his defiance of "cultural gatekeepers," Biden's perceived missteps, and the view by some that legal pursuits are politically motivated. He makes an effort to analyze the dynamics behind Trump's rise from different angles, though the overall persuasiveness is diminished somewhat by occasional unsubstantiated claims and the use of dramatic language that strays into fear-mongering rhetoric toward the end.

• Although the author cites Andrew Cuomo as an authority regarding one of the legal cases against Trump, the context of this makes clear that it is not an appeal to authority fallacy.

Whatever the respective merits of the many cases against him, the bald effort to embarrass, paralyze and ultimately criminalize a political opponent smacked, to millions of Americans, as a much graver danger to democracy than, say, whether hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels constituted a campaign-finance violation.

"If his name was not Donald Trump, and if he wasn't running for president -- I'm the former A.G. in New York; I'm telling you that case would've never been brought," Andrew Cuomo told Bill Maher last month.

The author is not directly citing Cuomo's authority to conclude the cases against Trump were politically motivated. Rather, he is using Cuomo's statement to illustrate the perception among some that the cases have political motivations behind them, regardless of the actual merits. The author acknowledges there are legitimate concerns about Trump's conduct by saying "whatever the respective merits of the many cases against him." So in that context, citing Cuomo is not an outright appeal to authority fallacy to make the author's point, but more so highlighting a viewpoint held by some, and thus serving the purposes of the essay in providing possible reasons for Trump's recent resurgence.

1. appeal to fear • Stephens closes by suggesting that if Democrats do not change their approach, a "real disaster" will occur, thus evoking a sense of fear and anxiety without providing specific evidence.

So long as Democrats persist in seeing nothing of Trump but his lies and outrages, they'll miss what makes him strong. And so long as they fail to recognize their own mistakes, they may be unable to avoid the real disaster coming their way.

This closing line about Democrats being "unable to avoid the real disaster coming their way" could potentially be viewed as rhetorical hyperbole rather than an explicit appeal to fear fallacy. Journalists and writers sometimes employ hyperbolic language or dramatic phrasing at the beginning or end of articles/essays to create more impactful opening and closing statements.

So while the author does commit an appeal to fear fallacy with the closing line, it appears to be more of a rhetorical flourish rather than the core reasoning behind the author's arguments.

The bulk of the essay attempts to substantively analyze Trump's resurgence through examining factors like Biden's perceived missteps, Trump's defiance of "cultural gatekeepers", and the notion that legal pursuits are viewed as politically motivated by some. While unsubstantiated claims are employed at times, fear-mongering is not something that the author leans on throughout to make his case, until the very end.