I'm still waiting for the article(s) that incorporate these ideas successfully.
I'd like to believe that, because if it's not true, something weirder is afoot.
My thinking is really that the organic Trump voter wasn't hacked, and that, to them, the upset is only such that Pepsi won the election, and not Coca-cola. That if they weren't supposed to vote Trump, he wouldn't have been an official party candidate. That having a TV show made him as qualified as being a movie star qualified Reagan. That being a TV star, and a billionaire qualified him in ways that simply being married to a former president would not qualify his opponent. That his opponent would be less historic for having been a first lady (a presidency in her husband's shadow), and that, shockingly, the perceived charisma of one opponent represented the mirror reflection of how the other was perceived by their rival.
If Trump won organically, it means so many people really are "like that" and that many at-large voters are simple-minded, easily lead astray, and thus all democratic votes are suspect, and that putting the levers of control, and vesting democracy in them is a complete mistake.
That it's okay to override their choice, because their choice is dumb.
If you accept that narrative, other consequences become rational.
But, if it was a cheat, a hack, a derailment, sabotage. If removal is legal and based on rational facts. That the people you meet, who openly admit to voting for Trump are discredited for other reasons, then an override of this outcome is just a speed bump, a pot hole, an ordinary defect, a SNAFU and a tire change.