As the Colorado Supreme Court wrote, January 6 meets the bar for insurrection “under any viable definition” of the term. The legal scholar Mark Graber, who has closely studied the Fourteenth Amendment’s history, argues that “insurrection” should be understood broadly—an act of organized resistance to government authority motivated by a “public purpose.” That certainly describes the Capitol riot, in which a violent mob attacked law enforcement and threatened members of Congress and the vice president in order to block the rightful counting of the electoral vote and illegally secure the victory of the losing candidate. The historical record also suggests that the amendment’s requirement that a prospective officeholder must have “engaged in insurrection” should also be understood broadly—meaning that Trump’s speech on the Ellipse that morning and his encouragement of the rioters while they smashed their way through the Capitol more than fit the bill.
I believe you’re falling into the trap of believing that the only the most vocal people on the Internet are the only opinions that exist. There are tons of people who switch who they vote for every election, or chose to vote or not, which is usually what swings elections one way or another.
You won’t convince the trump cultists who have abandoned reality in favor of their cult leader, but there are people who are on the fringe or fence who can be convinced and this is for them.