The downright hatred from many on the right for Rodham Clinton (that's for Cannoli - he has a point on the first name thing, but of course it'd be rather ironic to call her by her husband's last name as a sign of 'enlightenment' ) is pathological, not explainable in any rational way that I've ever seen. But she does have obvious weaknesses as a candidate, and plenty of people dislike her for valid reasons.
Perhaps more importantly, there is a clear trend in American elections towards stronger party-based voting - you often see that in Senate elections where even Senators with a strong individual reputation are less and less able to buck national trends during a particular election in favour of one party or the other. They will both get a huge share of their votes from people who just hold their noses and vote the party ticket, and who would have done just the same if it had been Cruz versus Sanders.
i don't disagree that there is an awful lot of resentment that Trump has more than adequately spoken to -- even excluding the racism, misogyny, xenophobia and apocalyptical doom-and-gloom. and that there has been at a minimum a 25-year hatred of Hillary Clinton from the right wing of the US. but the map suggests that Hillary has to SEVERELY screw this one up somehow to lose. as it stands, she only needs to pick up a couple of swing states to win assuming all the traditionally "blue" states continue voting as their historical patterns suggest.
Trump, by contrast, would need to win a large swath of the country -- and not just win it, but flip it from "blue" to "red" in the process. given how many people are truly disgusted with him being their party's nominee, i don't think this is possible.
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
