I see the points both ways on this. I'm honestly pretty torn. I have to admit, while I have said I'm probably voting Stein, I really don't think she's great. She's not exactly pro-science*, So essentially, my voting for her has always been essentially a protest vote. Hillary is...bad. Not many people can argue, progressives and left leaning people anyways, that she's good. She's going to be about as good as a Bush presidency. This is pretty much not disputed from anyone I know following politics. A lot of people forget, but Bush Jr was pretty okay for minorities, with his rhetoric. After 9/11 he did issue a call to not blame Muslims for it, blame the terrorists. He was fairly pro-immigrant. He was somewhat corrupt, but not hugely so. He was bad for foreign policy, bad for domestic policy, but not 100% destructively so. Hillary will be about like that. I can live through that pretty easily. Trump is a wild card, I don't know exactly what will happen. I know his positions, both the news version and the actual versions he has on his website, and they are....survivable if the system works. The SCOTUS is an issue for long term stuff, but again, if the system works, with checks and balances, that might not be a huge deal. Hillary has more long term implications. If she wins, and she probably will, it's not that her policies will cause massive problems in the country, it's that long term she will affect no positive change, and keep us in this sort of pseudo oligarchical structure, with special interests being able to buy elections and money ruling everything still with the disaffected being the foot stools for years to come. Her problem is that in the future, long term past 4 years, is that there will be a bigger backlash against people like her going forward.
This is all negated if in fact she actually means what she said later on in her campaign, after she tried to become Sanders. However, picking Tim Kaine, listening to Wall Street to avoid picking Warren, her friends outright saying she's going to flip on TPP, etc. all indicate that she's not being honest with those positions.
*She suffers from a worse position as Sanders on science, Sanders is anti-nuclear power, which environmentalists should absolutely be all about. She is more anti-nuclear than him, but also kind of an anti-vaxxer, but not really. She's not so anti-vax as to really color her positions too much, so it's not a huge deal. But it exists, so I know some third party voters who are reluctant because of that. But also, there's the stuff she's been pulling lately, she's essentially become Hillary of the progressives, saying that she's the anti-Hillary choice, not that she's the progressive choice. Over the past couple months she's been wearing thin on me because of it.