The difference(s) between Hillary and Trump are sufficient and sufficiently significant for a notable part of the establishment and most of the corporate media to continue their delegitimizing campaign on Trump, including an attempted electoral college coup. This indicates that the clash here is politically and possibly even ideologically and philosophically significant. However, to appraise the deep and real nature of this conflict and what is at stake would require either more time or better inside information or rather both.
With Hillary, we would have a guaranteed continuation of the strategies of Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama the key ideological and strategic direction of whose was neo-liberalism as a whole with a neo-conservative, Straussian core. Its key method is changing and ruling the world by means of deliberate, diabolical chaos where forces like al Qaed and ISIS are used as the battering ram and an ingenious way of how to flip the rising revolutionary potential into its very opposite--into a stark, dark, reactionary counter-revolutionary force, one of those unleashed that is making again the world "safe" and ripe for fascism and Nazism. For Nazism 2.0.
At this moment, it seems that the establishment fears that Trump is philosophically opposed to their love affair with chaos and forces like ISIS. At least that's what Trump himself has been saying. So far it also appears that Trump does not see Russia as an existential threat or a new Rome's Carthage that must be destroyed. Possibly, for him, securing Russian oil, gas, resources might be more important and more sensible than G.W. Bush's or Hillary's crafty use and misuse of the Russian ruling mafia. Trump's handling of the mafia in construction business or in Las Vegas might serve as some indicators of how we would want to help transform Russia.
However, the inertia or moment of the system and what is already in the pipelines is significant. The ship of the Empire cannot turn immediately or quickly into any new direction at will. Even though there is no doubt that Trump does have his plans and ideas under his sleeves and that he is adamant to move or start moving rather fast. He cannot start soon enough.
The other evident difference between Trump on the one hand and Hillary or Obama or Bush on the other is that the latter did not really care about the welfare of the common Americans that much or rather quite little. They are globalists, and in this concern the ruling Russian oligarchs are perfectly at home with them, and, due to today's Russian specifics even more and more crudely so. In this regard, Trump does appear to be concerned about US internal stability and he would like to strengthen and reset the US internally.
There are contingencies. One of them is to wage a war against China with Russia on the side of Japan and the US. The other is a war with Iran with Russia standing aside at least. With Hillary Russia would have been the priority. One difference that seems to be there is that al Qaeda and ISIS would have been a big part of the strategy. Trump does not like ISIS (al Qaeda) that much. However, more immediately pressing is the question of the still ongoing war on Syria, which ought to have been (as planned) finished a while ago. In this respect, Syrian resistance turned out to be tougher than resistance of Libya, Iraq or Yugoslavia. The fall of Syria should have been the start of the war against Iran. Iranian involvement in Syria (as well as in Iraq) significantly altered the schedule and the effectiveness of the regime change plans. Thus, instead of finishing off Syria and then moving on Iran, the dilemma for the US is now either to move ahead with a conflict with Iran for Iran is one of the key pillars that is helping Syria to endure in the face of the massive alliance of the West, local Arab despots and al Qaedas. But a war without contained Syria amplifies difficulties.
In this respect, the current attempted rapprochement between Putin's Russia and Japan and Moscow's concessions over the Kurils (planned a long time ago) do have unmistakable anti-Chinese undertones. As a minimum, in trying to have a "peace treaty" with Japan, Putin's Russia is effectively breaking ranks with China who does not have any such treaty either. In other words, Russia tries to conclude its own separate peace in a way that would strengthen Japan's position in the region together with the US. In the meantime, China is very busy effectively arming as much of the South Chinese Sea she can--turning as many islands there into stationary aircraft carriers and thus extending the line of its first defense. Putin's Russia "matches" this with the dramatic social and economic deterioration and degradation of its security and the lives of the Russians in the Far East and much anywhere else outside of Moscow and Petersburg. The result of this process created by deliberate as well as incompetent (mis)management and plunder is making Russia not only into a weak and even dying developing country in the growing number of indicators, but also ready for collapse or defeat.
Provisionally, it may then be suggested that, while Hillary and her Company represent that part of the liberal and neo-liberal establishment which is in love with and in awe of dark chaos for humanity and thus in illicit (and still much illegal) relation with mainstreaming new fascism, Trump and his generals do understand better, much better, the nuts and bolts of running the world as a tough, construction (and constructive) business as opposed to the emphasis on deconstruction, destruction or Schumpeterian fascist "creative destruction." In addition, it does appear that Trump does also harbor certain "aesthetic" objections to Hillary's way. Possibly, in this regard, Trump has deep down a certain (almost old fashioned) striving for immortality by means of "architecture," understood both very concretely (as physical buildings) and as an enduring system as opposed to Hillary's mud pool where the ego tries at least to be united and assimilated with its Freudian Id.