Except for the name and governor bit, this pretty much describes Trump.

Wow, that comparison broke down fast. Never mind, go on.
Aaaaand, we're back.
Yes! I once said that my ideal election outcome was to start seeing the major party candidate lose by the margin of a third party vote. I'd love to see the GOP candidate lose by the margin of the Constitution Party's gain, or the Libertarian Party's, or the Democrat lose by the margin of the Green Party (or Libertarian, depending on the flavor - one thing I would not like about the libertarians gaining parity with the other two parties is that they would start fracturing into right and left types, who are more interested in cutting taxes and regulations, vs liberalizing social mores). I have only ever voted for third party candidates in the general election.
I didn't bother parsing that stuff out. What I prefer about the Trump win has a lot to do with your assessment of a Clinton presidency, but also the malicious and mendacious way this campaign was conducted. There are plenty of valid and legitimate reasons to oppose Donald Trump or prefer other candidates. There was no need for the wave of deliberate media misrepresentation of his positions and comments. Had John McCain actually campaigned hard against Barack Obama, he'd have received similar treatment, and the one good thing Trump has done has been to force them to show their true colors. They are so tone deaf to anything outside their echo chamber, they didn't see how they only gained him support, because people aren't THAT stupid, and could see exactly what was going on. Their grasp of racism has a lot more to do with slavery, lynchings and unequal laws, and not much sympathy for double standards of treatment based on ancestral sufferings.
Give me a quote during the campaign impugning women, that doesn't rely on the worst possible and crudest interpretation of off-the-cuff remarks.

The only possible context I can think of in this is concerning his mockery of a reporter, Serge Kovaleski, who lied about his own story when Trump cited in reference to Muslims celebrating 9/11. Kovaleski's disability bears no resemblance to Trump's mockery, while Trump used similar mockery against Ted Cruz, who is not remotely disabled.
When Mohammed is the most common name in the world, you have to rethink the meaning of the concept of "religious minority." Not to mention, the sheer number of crimes committed by Muslims, in the name of their religion, just during the current administration alone, would have witch hunts in the USA if any other group had a similar track record. Under Barack Obama, Muslims have murdered more random people, than abortionists have been killed since Roe Vs Wade. Where are all the calls for tolerance and understanding for the pro-life people, for the Christians and other such groups? The knee jerk reaction of our last two presidents to violence committed by Muslims in the name of their religion has been to demand tolerance and forgiveness for Muslims at large. While the entire white race is demonized when a police officer defends himself against a criminal who happens to be black.

The complaints of racism have long passed the point of the boy who cried wolf, and absolutely nonsensical claims were made of Trump in that regard.

Next to which "possible ties" to Putin don't mean all that much.

We've had eight years of a president falling back on specious claims of racism upon encountering any opposition or resistance. We don't need another four or eight years of a president doing the same thing with sexism. And that is exactly the sort of implacable base of support, over and above partisan politics, that would interfere with Clinton's removal.

Hear, hear!
Nobody remembers or admits this, but it was also believed to be a possibility in 2000, where they thought Bush could win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. The editors of at least one conservative publication were preparing a defense of the electoral college for their presumably about-to-be-disappointed readership in the event of that outcome. So at least some people are not hypocrites about it.
And it flips around. Really, the hypocrisy here is worse on the part of the Democrats. They started with the whole sexual harassment thing, which they invented in ginned up into a crime because they couldn't credibly call Clarence Thomas racist (they have been doing that for over 20 years, but they knew no one would listen), according to their usual playbook. Then, early in his first term, Bill Clinton, as commander-in-chief of the US military, presided over the firings and courts-martial of a number of otherwise respected officers for actions of similar nature, or even nebulous connections to others committing such behavior. IIRC, at least one admiral was targeted merely because he made a brief appearance at the Tailhook convention, despite not having anything to do with the carrying-on. After all of that, Clinton got caught at the worst of that sort of behavior. The Democrats then insisted that such things didn't matter, they were personal, and had nothing to do with the conduct of his official duties. In point of fact, similar offenses had been the basis for numerous impeachments for "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the past. To any honest legal scholar or anyone familiar with the history of that charge, Clinton's behavior was precisely what the framers of the Constitution sought to make grounds for impeachment.

All Republicans are doing with Trump is accepting the Democrat's assertions in defense of Clinton. They are moving on, and accepting that times have changed. They dumped Mark Sanford, they bailed on Jack Ryan, for matters relating to marital sexual relations. The worst thing Jack Ryan was accused of, was asking his wife for sex, and accepting her refusal. But the GOP, sticking to their guns, disowned their candidate, which resulted in Barack Obama reaching the national stage. The hypocrisy is the Democrats having the temerity to attack Trump for behavior as a private citizen, that they defended taking place in the Oval Office, which was also the subject of one of Hillary Clinton's more infamous & knowing lies, that Bill was innocent and the victim of a vast conspiracy. What is the Democrats' justification? That we have moved on to MORE victorian behavior, that we have much higher standards of acceptable sexual conduct? Why do people who sneer that Clinton's affairs were acceptable because they were between consenting adults, get upset at a man's whose worst indiscretion was saying that women "will LET YOU...." engage in whatever Clintonian debauchery you wish?

The Republicans have simply become more tolerant, they have not walked back their claims of acceptable behavior.

Otherwise, very well said.