I missed the people power part (which I agree with), but you did imply that voting for the person one sees as a less bad candidate in a swing state means "the behemoth stumbles on for another 20 years under slightly less incompetent management" doing "plenty more damage to humans & nonhumans" "in the long term". The logical inference is that either not voting or voting the other way means the behemoth will not stumble on for another 20 years and will do less "damage to humans and nonhumans". I don't see how, and as I suggested the case hasn't been made.
The idea of "bringing forward the apocalypse" by voting seems a bit crazy to me, but I can see why many opt for that out of legitimate rage and desperation. I don't even know that I wouldn't do that in their position.
ML's above analysis (albeit brief and not fleshed out) seems to go along with liberal 'orange man bad' tropes ignoring what social forces resulted in his victory and imagining that a dem alternative would be significantly different on climate or other policies that matter.
A one-line tweet isn't an analysis. The Daves are well aware that Trump is a symptom and what the "social forces resulted in his victory" are. My impression is that for them it's simply about who might have slightly better policies on AGW, an urgent and existential matter given the scale of US power...so just a pragmatic calculation about odds. Might be wrong, but it's not irrational whether or not it "seems to go along with liberal 'orange man bad' tropes". Maybe they should be more cautious about seeming to echo those on twitter, but that seems a kind of trivial matter.