The fact that these people seem to believe that pursuing the opposite of a successful formula is the path to having a successful formula is something that always leaves me scratching my head. Whether they like him or not, Trump's strategy and personality won him the electorate and his opposite lost the electorate by a substantial margin. Why the fuck are you so eager to recycle a failed formula, and why are you surprised when it inevitably fails?
Good points, but their operating theory is that the guy who succeeded didn't succeed. They're all still butthurt about Clinton winning the popular vote by 3 million.
But that breaks down to Clinton winning California by 4.3 million, while Trump won the rest of the country by 1.4 million. Over the last decade, politically motivated people tend to group with like-minded people, especially on social media like Twitter. Combine the two, and you get a warped perspective where they don't think Trump won. No one they talk to, and no one they get news from, can explain why Trump was appealing enough to win.
In short, everyone they personally know hates Trump. So if they wanted someone to vote for a candidate, it would have to be the opposite of Trump.
It's dumb, but not entirely irrational, if you started from terrible assumptions. And if you assume the biggest groupthink bubble in the history of mass media is creating a feedback loop.