Or easier. Hillary is a face of western corruption to much of the world. So long as Trump delegates the tech stuff properly and doesn't do anything too unusual the moral choice of the US should be easier.
The only people happy about Trump is ultra-right wing/neo nazi panopticon of odd figures - Wilders, Le Pen, Farage, Orban ... Really the "crème de la crème" of Europe. And, of course, Putin.
The rest is worried now - people are seriously questioning what happens, for example with NATO, after Trump's remarks on not unconditionally supporting the allies. Is Trump going to divide Europe between himself and Putin, e.g. in exchange for Syria? Is Putin going to have a free hand to invade Baltics now? What about Ukraine, Moldavia? Are we going to go back to the Iron Curtain era where Soviet "borders" were the ones with West Germany? These are serious issues which you don't feel on the other side of the Atlantic, but for us living there it is a big deal.
What about business? Trump made some remarks about erecting trade barriers to protect American markets. So, of course, this concerns us too.
On the other hand, the misogynist, racist, xenophobic BS he was producing during the last few months is mostly seen as disgusting, but finally mostly your internal problem. I am sure someone like Merkel is not going to be personally happy to have to sit next to him at some official function, but people do respect the result of the election and are professionals. GWB was not seen as the sharpest tool in the shed in Europe neither but everyone survived it.
Clinton was seen as a continuation of the US policies, so naturally people would have preferred her - nobody likes to rock the boat too much when it comes to foreign policy or business. Trump is seen as unpredictable, unreadable and incompetent in this regard, unfortunately.
In the EU. Lots of people in the middle east did not after he started a war there.
As a European, I'm quite scared of what wars Trump will start / cause.
Time will tell if I am right or wrong.
Then the vote for Brexit won a majority. They're not all scum at the extreme end of a political spectrum.
If France goes down the same naive, name-calling route Le Pen will surely be next to capitalise on it.
While individual publications might be exceptions to the rule generally the media are to the right of centre in Europe.
European media are on both sides of the aisle, you will find both left and right leaning ones, including crazy tabloids.
However, what you likely won't find is something like Fox News, with conspiracy theory pushing nutcases being regulars there.
BTW, this theory about a "media conspiracy" is not new, nor something that Trump or Putin invented. Lügenpresse ("lying press") is a term widely popularized by (not invented) and mostly associated with National Socialists in Germany - in Hitler's Mein Kampf, for example.
Most people parroting this unfortunately don't care - anyone having a different view has to be a part of some complot or aiding the "enemy" (whoever that happens to be).
They most definitely are.
Consider the media closely working with the White House now, Obama's "entourage". Not one of them is Republican.
Nigel Farage - former head of UKIP in UK, a party with extreme right wing history and some of the most vile and xenophobic rhetorics during the recent Brexit campaign.
Marine Le Pen - head of the French Front National, another extreme right party, with documented history of antisemitism, racism, xenophobia and outright neo-nazi tendencies. Their former leader (Le Pen the elder) famously said that holocaust was only "a detail of history", even going as far as joking about not enough Jews going up in smoke ...
Geert Wilders - the Dutch extreme right politician, well known for his anti-Europe and anti foreigner views
Victor Orban - the authoritarian prime minister of Hungary, known for his xenophobic policies, coalition government with the neo-nazi Jobbik party and negative views on liberal democracy - which he is successfully dismantling in Hungary.
With Le Pen I am afraid you could be right - here in France she has consistently around 30-40% of support already and a lot of people see her as a saviour against the "Arabs" (mostly people of North African descent - Moroccans and Algerians, both legaly and illegaly here and, by extension, all muslims), which are despised by many. The recent terrorist attacks and incompetent governments didn't help neither, but the animosity goes deeper and longer back than that.
However, the French system of presidential elections works differently than in the US, with two rounds where the 2 strongest candidates qualifying into the second round. She will likely lose there, because the racist, antisemitic past of her party is unpalatable to many. On the other hand, if the major parties don't put forward a sensible and popular candidate, anything could happen ...
Anyway, too many actors, too many variables too many things to come. Just wait and see!
Silencing people you don't agree with by calling them misogynist, racist, sexist, etc. and expecting them to convert to your side does not work.
Marginalizing them does not work.
Not in Europe. (Brexit)
Not in the US. (President)
This strategy is 0 for 2.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Not only that, but you are also wrong on facts. There is no unconditional support of NATO allies by the US. See article 5:
"It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in Europe or North America, to be an armed attack against them all."
Consideration of something is not unconditional support.
Wasn't it Trump who has the been the biggest opponent of the political correctness? That cuts both ways, you know.
If you thought American image around the world was at its lowest it could reach during GWB's presidency, oh boy you are in for a surprise.
People love Obama and they see Hillary as an extension of his presidency.
People are afraid of Trump. He reminds them of the corrupt, self interested, dictator types, which are rampant in this region.
That's not even slightly true here in the UK.
For these people Hillary and her ilk represent a local minima, and votes for her a stagnation or move away from actual democracy. The harm Trump will cause is indefinite and the claims that have been made are hard to substantiate, whilst he is obviously not an ideal POTUS it is not obvious that Hillary would be better.
Plus, it appears that Peter Thiel is going to be in some sort of advisory role. That's valuable insight
No, to 99% of the rest of the world she's just a former Secretary of State and the wife of a former president whose era is often viewed through a nostalgic lens compared to current turmoil.
Fox News doesn't broadcast outside USA, you know.