Christians and liberals hurting their brands in 2016's election (and the courts)

Received my first issue of The Atlantic this month: not too impressive, at least in their hysterical thrashings against Trump. 

But this piece got me thinking a bit about Christian support for Trump and "liberal" support for Clinton. Both sets of political supporters did damage to their (ideological) "brand", but calculated that the damage was worth it, given the lousy alternatives and what was at stake. 

Neither stance makes much sense (aside from the usual references to utterly-rational voter ignorance)-- except for perhaps what support/victory would give each group with respect to the courts. 

Can the election mostly be reduced to the courts-- big vs. smaller govt in general or pro-life vs. pro-abortion in particular? (Maybe this general "policy" stance comes alongside Trump's painful anti-immigration/trade stance as the key, specific policy position and Clinton's "basket of deplorables" as the key moment?)