In conclusion, this election is about which individual is best cut out to be President. It is not about policies and party platforms which become meaningless after the first couple of years.
I'm pretty sure I think an ex secretary of state (who most international relations pros view as having been a pretty good one, despite what people's Fox News eco chamber may tell them) and Senator is probably more "cut out" to be president than a casino magnate and reality TV host.
How can anyone argue that Trump is "cut out" to be president when he doesn't understand how the government works on a basic level (he thinks judges "sign bills") doesn't take the gravity of the kinds of decisions he'll have to make seriously (as evidenced by his flip comments about going nuclear) and is a gullible dolt who buys into every half baked conspiracy theory around (birtherism, vaccines, exc)? He makes Sarah Palin in 08 look like Bush 41 in 88 in terms of being qualified for the job.
Clinton clearly wins on experience, and Trump has even higher negatives than her so she's a little more likely to be unifying. Trump is certainly far more divisive along race/gender lines (Clinton's favorability ratings with whites and men are higher than his with minorities and women). Who cares about "fresh ideas" if all his new ideas are terrible?
I find it hard to believe that anyone could come with a reason why Clinton would be substantively different from Obama aside from her being a little to the right on economic issues.
What does that even mean? If she actually gets elected herself, didn't she become president "in her own right"? Someone's family shouldn't have an impact on your vote either way.
You may feel free to disagree with me, I will listen and respect your opinion.
He's not a right winger, he's an authoritarian who wants to expand the state in virtually every respect. If you're calling for protesters to be "taken out on stretchers" you're certainly a hard line
something
