FTR - and I've said this many times before - I think this whole idea of people voting for person X because person Y is the President.....as some sort of protest.....is one of the most overrated, overstated, naive ideas out there. If you'll look closer, you can find actual data that overturns that idea rather than the simplistic "the party out of power won X seats at the mid-terms."
Remember that colossal landslide in 1994, when the Republicans won 54 House seats and the Senate for the first time since Joe McCarthy was a household name (like toilet)? The media narrative is "Bill Clinton was so unpopular that his party got waxed in the midterms BECAUSE of him." Sounds good, right?
But that analysis ignores reality - they almost always do. The districts were redrawn by the Democrats according to the 1990 census but the political analysts failed to notice two important points: 1) the Democrats lost 9 seats in the House during the so-called 'mandate' election of Bill Clinton in 1992, which suggests he didn't have an actual 'mandate' anyway; 2) no Democrat won a CONTESTED House race in 1992 with more than 54% of the vote. Throw in the fact that over 50 incumbents retired - and since the Ds controlled the house by an 82-vote margin, it isn't hard to see that more Ds would retire.....then throw in the fact many of those were in the South and were known to be setting up to be Republican seats for the future......the only surprise is that it was any kind of surprise at all.
It wasn't the NRA, it wasn't unpopular Bill Clinton, it wasn't anything other than the normal evolution of politics. That's not to say that there aren't some races where folks are mad at X and an incumbent can lose in a close race - except incumbents in close races almost always have other issues that make the race close anyway.
The Rs didn't take the House in 2010 because of Obama - they took it because of ObamaCARE (mostly). The Ds didn't win the House in 2006 because of Bush - they won because of things like the Congressional page scandal (people tend to frown on pedophilia) and some closely contested districts that swung the other way (like Giffords winning in AZ). In fact, go look at MOST of the losses were in SWING districts, not in 'safe' zones.
My point is this: just as nobody sane should have actually expected Ossoff to win the GA House race, nobody should expect the Democrat to win the Senate race. Now, it COULD happen - but many things could happen.
My point? Banking on Trump's alleged unpopularity to determine the outcome of the race is a fool's venture. Roy Moore's trustworthy rating is a more accurate barometer than Trump's.