Arguably "good people" don't support nor vote for an individual who openly brags about assaulting women...
...unless you have a different definition of what is considered "good".
/much like christians claim "everything god does is good" - you know, like genocide via a flood...
Indeed, if you were to assume that every vote for a candidate is de facto support of everything they do/are, I don't think I ever could have voted for anyone.
They really don't give a shit about anyone or anything but their investment holdings. Nothing but some numbers on an account.
If you take that stance, then your options are:
1. 45% of the voting people in USA support sexually assaulting women.
Are you OK with that understanding? Do you not find something unsettling about saying 45% people in USA are OK for sexually assaulting women? The same conservative family oriented people, the same law and order people, the same god and sins people are supportive of sexually assaulting women? Can we have survived as a nation so far if so many people supported sexually assaulting women?
2. Hillary still lost to such person. What does that say about Hillary?
If Trump's audio conservation had not leaked, he would have won by even larger margin. What does THAT say about Hillary? Why do you think that was the case?
Unless you can show some evidence for this, it's just an unprovable counterfactual and completely useless.
In other words, if you don't agree, you can safely ignore the comment, or take upon yourself to prove it wrong.