Clinton won the overall vote by a huge margin. More people in the United States wanted her as president than Trump.

It was basically just a swing of 80,000 votes (a tiny amount) in three swing states that gave the electoral college to Trump.

If you want to blame "liberals" for that instead of people who either voted Trump or chose to stay home, go ahead, lol.

No one wins every election either. It's not like there was never ever going to be another Republican president, just as there will be another Democratic president at some point. 

Some people are stupid and basically just vote on a "I'm tired of this party, so this time I'll vote for the other party" logic and flip flop on that every 4-8 years. Basically they don't really vote on any general issue, they just change parties like they change socks. 

Conflict of logic.

Really, somebody thought Hillary was going to be any real change?

For more that Trump is a stupid guy, he had proposals, even if we can consider that bad, but they had them. He proposed a solution for the job crisis in USA, rust belt mainly. When left was too occupied saying white-cisgender-straight-man-christian were the root of evil in the world and just denied any chance of a conversation and refused to have any solutions for the economical crisis in favour of an identitary bulllshit based campaign that makes no sense at all.

I don`t want to be racist, homophobe, or etc... for saying identitary causes are causing more harm than good, but as a person that have some identification with marxist ideas and some knowledge, and some historical knowledge, this was going to happen and left didn`t do anything to change that.

We have an USA facing an horrendous crisis where many families are unsure about their surviving, and than comes a person claiming he will fix everything, that he will fight the common enemy of the nation and glory awaits and at the other side there were people saying you couldn`t complain about nothing because you are white, men, cisgender, straight, christian, or whatever and refusing to hear your demands altogether, and their project just doesn`t have any real economical project. I`m not saying having projects for the minorities isn`t important, but having a economical project is as or even more important, Marx says economical is always prevalent when making political choices, more than culture or anything, and the elections showed it. 

It was an easy choice. I sincerely think that it was time to propose change, Hillary was just a continuation of Obama, and it wasn`t good enough for most people. Bernie Sanders being more radical ( or real, if you ask me) of a left politician with real proposes for economics had a much better chance than Hillary. 

And again, Hillary also wasn`t any Holy Mary, she was pretty much a genocidal also.

Well the first point is not really logic, it's a fact, more people did vote for Clinton. 

The second part is sure yes ... every time you have a president in power for 8 years or so there's a group of people who will automatically just vote for the "other guy" just because they feel like changing it up. 

In the case of those 80,000 votes that swung the election result basically could that have been a factor? Sure I think so. That's a very small amount of the population, but when you're talking a tiny amount like this, every little bit can swing the result. 

This is a HUGE component; she was a terrible candidate, and only Trump was worse.

As any real leftist knows, the economy is the foundation of society, and if you're right on economic issues, you're right-wing. Doesn't matter how far your social policies go.

The problem is that these debates, with the rise of social media has been very polarized. Most liberals I know here think Trump voters are all just "dumb people". As a Marxist, I often have to defend the American electorate. Most people didn't vote for Trump for his racist or sexist talk, but for what he stood for economically and in some cases socially (I can't see conservative people in the US voting for Hillary anyway). That's why the Democrats needed Sanders. Someone who's really on the left and who runs on an economical platform. But they persisted in Hillary and they lost.

First, we are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Always have been.

Second, more votes does not equal the will of the people. The U.S. is huge. It is spread out. Yet the majority live in a FEW clustered cities. If we were a pure democracy and went vote majority wins, the presidential canidates woudl spend their entire time sitting in New York, LA, Houston and Chicago. They would "buy" their votes with campaign promises that woudl solely benefit the people who live in those cities.

US has one party on the right and another even more on the right. I think you're right to an extent. But before discussing it further, where would you put today's green/alt/regressive/multicultural left (or whatever you're used calling it) anarchists on a political scale?

The greens are a wild card, most of them are socially left, but some eco-modernist can be quite right-wing. But I think Jill stein is left. The only "alt" movement I hear of is the alt-right and I don't think I need to explain their position, regressive is a term that's frankly useless in a political debate, the "multiculturals" can be both socialist (as in trying to unite all people for collective betterment, irrespective of culture) and liberals (defend certain moral or decency standards concerning culture, unless these people attack them on economic terms, then they're the devil) and anarchists are left, always on the left.

I mean generally in Europe.

Multiculturalism is actually anarchism by itself, but I think your view on anachism is a little narrow. As a Marxist you're an internationalist, that's pretty much the other side of the the same coin that I am on (nationalist), but we both view equality as some sort of a goal. Anarchism, how it views itself in today's society is having different rules for different people, that would be the opposite to nationalism and internationalism.

Regressive is a good term because of the policies for example of fighting discrimination with more discrimination, and segregation with more segregation, etc.

The alt-left is there - maybe not in it's own group, but inside different groups.

The same (more or less) collective group is called by different names in different countries, hence the long list of names.