I'm not actually. It was a reference towards the belief of many but not most that most of the west is dominated by a special political class that strikes underhand and immoral deals which they justify through the claim that they were democratically elected despite not having been elected for anything resembling those actions (often completely ignoring things they were elected for) and despite the process through which they were elected not actually being 'completely' democratic.
For these people Hillary and her ilk represent a local minima, and votes for her a stagnation or move away from actual democracy. The harm Trump will cause is indefinite and the claims that have been made are hard to substantiate, whilst he is obviously not an ideal POTUS it is not obvious that Hillary would be better.
Not obvious that Clinton would be better? It is certainly obvious to economists that taxing the increased economic welfare from trade and using it to help workers whose industries move is better than restricting trade. It is obvious to scientists that speeding up the movement from fossil fuels is better for managing Earth's climate than trying to bring back coal. It is obvious to criminologists that community policing is better for managing crime than stop and frisk and adversarial policing. It is obvious to sociologists that allowing gays to marry as they please increases their well-being and allowing women to control their pregnancies decreases poverty and crime. I can't find a single reason why Clinton would be worse.
For these people Hillary and her ilk represent a local minima, and votes for her a stagnation or move away from actual democracy. The harm Trump will cause is indefinite and the claims that have been made are hard to substantiate, whilst he is obviously not an ideal POTUS it is not obvious that Hillary would be better.
reply