I thought about this over the past couple of weeks. In particular, what you say about Goebbels because it never really made intuitive sense to me. Why is a lie more believable if it's outlandish? How do you make it plausible if you are also making it "big"?
Maybe there's a difference between telling a lie to a single person and having to lie to millions of people where any inconsistency, even a small and calculated one, will eventually be exposed. If you lie to the public, you need their complicity in the lie. They have to want to believe you, it has to be consistent with their biases, and by making it big you inflame the emotions that have overpowered their reason. Anyone who is willing to believe Barack Obama is a Communist would also believe he's a Stalinist and has built gulags. So why not say the latter? The people you're lying to want you to succeed in lying. They're only going to complain about being lied to when it leads them to doom or accountability.
One thing that the Trump era has shown is that there are very few things in our system that provide a clear scorecard to measure a politician's performance. Trump is like the guy who pretends to push the train as it leaves the station and it really did take a disaster to show he does nothing useful and is completely unfit for anything except reality tv. Sad!
On a serious note though, with the House, the Presidency, and 50 Democratic Senators the outcome has been excellent. If the Republicans are only bluffing about completely dismantling our Constitutional form of government this strategy would appear to be a failure. Their move.