The Rights disdain of Hillary, where does it come from?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I could somewhat understand this during the election. However, it seems they are just downright afraid of this woman. And now that she has lost they insist on piling on her loss. For instance, I was listening to a Conservative talk show on my way to class the other morning. The host was amused that she had fallen down a flight of stairs while in India. He then stated how this was the reason she didn't win because she was somehow physically unfit. But Trump is totally an iron man, right?

I just would like to know where this hatred comes from. I don't consider myself a Hillary fan, in fact I think she's just another politician and lies. However, I don't think she's somehow Satan like many on the right feel.

Again, where does this come from? What did she do? I can see why people hate Trump, because he practically deserves the dislike he receives.

The right hates all kinds of people, why should she be different?

[Minimalist]

Trump campaigned on the things that Manchin and Lamb support in their States as well as the blue collar workers they represent.

Trump campaigned on a vision of the past where white men felt far more important and did not have to face the reality of the demographics of this country.  He campaigned on bringing factory jobs BACK that were outsourced because rich motherfuckers like him thought they could be performed more cheaply elsewhere.  He campaigned on supporting obsolescent technologies ( coal ) rather than tell people that "the times they are a changing."

Conservatards hate to hear that the times are changing.  That might mean that they would have to change too.

And now we are stuck with this fucktard and his tissue of lies.

[Anomalocaris]

I could somewhat understand this during the election. However, it seems they are just downright afraid of this woman. And now that she has lost they insist on piling on her loss. For instance, I was listening to a Conservative talk show on my way to class the other morning. The host was amused that she had fallen down a flight of stairs while in India. He then stated how this was the reason she didn't win because she was somehow physically unfit. But Trump is totally an iron man, right?

I just would like to know where this hatred comes from. I don't consider myself a Hillary fan, in fact I think she's just another politician and lies. However, I don't think she's somehow Satan like many on the right feel.

Again, where does this come from? What did she do? I can see why people hate Trump, because he practically deserves the dislike he receives.

The hatred comes from the right’s fervent and unmeasured desire for a dictatorship of the psychopathic wealthy in the name of “freedom” and “patriotism” and their reflexive hostility to anyone who might think any others in the society might have a right to anything that does not further the power and wealth of the psychopathic wealthy.

[henryp]

Must they have?  Do you have to think positively of someone to vote for them over Donald Trump in a 2 party system?  
Her policies were certainly a blend of the previous 3 presidents.  I don't think 'more of the same' served her well.  And her personality?  You are speaking the crazy.  Bill/W/Obama all were charming as hell.  They still are.  Bill seems to have done some raping, but he's so charming, people still like him.  W broke the country, but people still find him endearing.
She was a robot status quo.

The US isn't a two party system, at least not officially. There were other candidates, and they also got votes. We didn't vote for Clinton or Trump. Clinton still won our state handily.

Sure, it's not officially a two party system.  But other than Perot in '92, I can't think of anyone else who's threatened to be more than a spoiler, because all the people with some viability will pick one of the major parties.  Like Trump and Bernie did.  
And the trick of it is, primaries are so much about turnout, that barring some zeitgeist, the parties can usually pick who they want to win the primary.  The way the RNC got Romney the nomination instead of the morons he was running against was pretty masterful.  Same with Hillary beating Bernie.
So in the end, you have half the people aligned with each party.  Then 33% of those people show up to vote in the primary.  And you only need 40% or so to vote for your person.  You can get a nominee with 10% of the populations support.  It's not a great system.

[Minimalist]

The US isn't a two party system, at least not officially.

The difference between de facto and de jure.

[GrandizerII]

She won the popular vote (leading by around 3 million votes). You said she didn't have any redeeming qualities, and yet the majority of voters must have thought differently. I think what's happening here is simply that you don't like the woman (that's alright, it's not like I'm the biggest fan of her), and you rationalize this by arguing she had no redeeming qualities, when she wasn't worse in terms of policies or personality than her husband or the previous two POTUSes.

Hillary won the popular vote in 20 States.  She lost the popular vote in 30 States.  She could have gotten every single vote in the States she won and she would have lost the election.  

When will people understand how the Presidential election system works in America?

I understand that to win the popular vote is not enough to win the presidential election in America. But the fact remains that the majority of Americans who voted did vote for her. And, democratically speaking, that does say something.

[Amarok]

Hilary won the vote by sane democratic means . Anyone who considered for Trump is a deplorable . Someone can sweet nothings to the blue collar workers till their blue in the face . The rust belt is dead along with the age of that form of industrialization in the US. You can deregulate and give the rich tax blowjobs till the end of days. That horse is dead . A large swath of woman voted against their own interests and no pointing that out is not misogyny. Ill take a robot over a mental patient any day . And no how many times must investigate bill to clear  him of rape .

[A Theist]

Relevant CGP Grey:

https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=4m16s

More on the electoral college vs the popular vote...

Many people who are currently calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, however, don’t realize the chaos that would result. 

Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones. 
This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president. 

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president. 

There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples. 
We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...32499.html

[Angrboda]

More on the electoral college vs the popular vote...

Many people who are currently calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, however, don’t realize the chaos that would result. 

Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones. 
This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president. 

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president. 

There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples. 
We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...32499.html

[Amarok]

Oh yes just like all those other countries that don't maintain that shit system .