I'm not from the US. I am commenting on the GP's (your?) characterisation of people who voted for Trump as doing so for sexist reasons (and please understand I'm in no way claiming a better class of politician in Australia - they are much the same corrupt oligarchs as everywhere else).
There were many reasons to reject Clinton, and yes, there are many reasons to reject Trump. Given how close the final vote was, it looks like they were pretty hard to decide between. It's horrifying that this election seemed to be less about which was the better candidate, and who was the least-worst.
However, the original statement that I object to is that the people who voted for Trump and against Clinton did so because she was a woman. No doubt some did. The majority who voted against her did so because the value they attach to certain things is a little different to the same values you place on those same things. Maybe that's the result of the monkey-brain cutting members of the tribe some slack, and forgiving in our 'friends' the flaws we'll abhor in those outside the tribe. Maybe it's just that Person A has to reluctantly accept a lying, corrupt, narcissist who barely represents their views, because the other party is also a lying, corrupt narcissist but is even further from representing their views.
Just as with Brexit, there's a disjoint in analysis that is missing a significant disaffection in the voting public. We're seeing similar things, here, in voting behaviour although it's more diffuse as a result of our preferential voting and different party dynamic.
If you want to understand what is going on, to actually understand what is driving a large enough portion of the population that it's distorting polls then you need to stop with the mischaracterisation and easy name-calling.
Some Trump voters might well be sexist. That may even have influenced their voting choice. But far, far more voted that way for reasons the GP glosses over with a handwave and implied sexism.