The oppression will expand regardless of who is president. To the degree it matters, under these conditions the candidate that is hated the most by a large section of the masses is the best option (though it's far from a great victory). More impediments and harassment of such a person as president will occur than if we have a president that has a very vocal and enthusiastic following. That kind of person can really expand the oppression.
Thus, Hillary continues to be the best option in my view because she will be least effective at getting her agenda advanced. Make no mistake, she will be evil and it will be no fun living under her rule, but there will be strong political opposition. An opposition that libertarians can use to their advantage by offering the unthinking masses libertarian justifications for why Hillary is evil.
Robert Ringer, though not necessarily attempting to advance my point, does a good job of expressing the wonderful Hillary hate that does exist:
Bubba is a world class con man, to be sure, but Hilla the Hun is a rank amateur.What a great endorsement!
In fact, I would have to say that she has less credibility than any politician I can remember — and that’s saying a lot, considering the fact that most politicians hover near zero when it comes to that trait. Surely, Hillary’s handlers must wince every time she opens her mouth — especially when she talks about things like love, kindness, and the “war on women.”
That’s why it’s always puzzled me that so many people seem to believe Hillary is invincible. My take on her is that she is so inherently wicked, so corrupt, so vicious, such an outlandish liar, and such a transparent fraud that anyone short of Ronald McDonald, Mitt Romney, and Mush McCain could KO her with one verbal punch.