So, do Democrats possibly take the "win" here? Women's reproductive freedom is their signature public health issue - and they've got a nominee who is on their side on that point. Do you maybe kind of let him alone a bit, rather than aim your resources at him too?

LOL. The democrats don't have any notion of merely taking a win. They have to destroy, at all times, and for all things. The key to understanding the democrats' behavior is to know that they don't really believe 90% of what they say about the other side in public. Trump has always been more on the pro-choice side. There was never a possibility of a "national abortion ban" (especially in light of Dobbs). Still, the truth of that didn't matter...what mattered was rallying the base in support of an ultimately doomed Presidential campaign.

But, as you point out, they only have so many resources in the form of television cameras to deploy so as take down a nominee - [Mr. or Ms. X] is a Trump pick. Trump is the OrangePutinHitlerMao. Therefore, [Mr. or Ms. X] will be destroyed. You can almost write a universal logical tautology based on that.

But which one? They won't be able to get them all, so they must pick 1 or 2. So far they've been focusing on Gaetz, Hegseth and Gabbard. They really screwed up by going nuts on Gaetz too early: from the dems' point of view, a true reformer sitting on top of the DOJ does them the most harm. They should have waited until Gaetz's Senate hearing to blow him but instead...they got a near-bulletproof pick in Bondi instead. That was a big-time screw-up on their part.

Hegseth is the next most logical one.

For the sake of argument let's say they decide it's RFK they want to take out. In that case they're going to paint him as somebody who
1. Wants women to have coat hanger abortions in back alleys
2. Wants teenagers to kill themselves rather than receive "Gender affirming care"
3. Believes that all vaccines are harmful and that no one should be vaccinated for measles, mumps, rubella, etc.

...and go from there.