Assuming Hillary wouldn't have been beat in the EC by any other Republican nominee. Besides, nobody's a winner with partisan judges. The country would be better off with a moderate like Garland
Look, if you're saying would I have preferred another Republican over Trump, then there's no question. I'd have preferred another Democrat over Trump. But we got a choice between Hillary and Trump. You said "Trump promised them winning and isn't delivering". While I agree for the most part, having two SCOTUS elections is worth all the other "unwinning" or the miss promises and flip flops. As for no one being a winner with partisan judges, the whole SCOTUS is partisan, and has always been. I don't see that changing any time soon. So that means we're back to hoping we get to appoint judges who match our belief system.
They have always been partisan given the fact that the prevailing party prevails in the appointments. On the other hand, the confirmation process has not always been highly partisan, just somewhat partisan, until it went off a cliff as we entered the "progressive era." Think Kavanaugh. Doesn't get any more partisan than that. Then think Ruthie who was well known as a far, far, far leftie before being nominated. Well, Ruthie was nevertheless confirmed 95-5 give or take a vote. Man, those days are over.
Because Trump is a vulgarian, an unprofessional meathead that is mostly full of shit with empty promises, flip flopping and recklessness. And I'm sick to death of his big fucking mouth. But in Trump's defense, I didn't really know all of that when I cast a vote for him. Still, I'd do it again if it were against Hillary. But if there is even a half-sane opponent, I'll vote for them.
Unfortunately, this makes you a big part of the problem and not a help in the solution. I am a substance over style person, where you are style over substance. We finally have what Conservatives have been asking for and we get Rinos wanting to jump ship. This is one thing that Idiot Dems have going for them----they stick together.