Ok I read the whole thing top to bottom.
I agree with a lot of his analysis but think he fails in his stance that Clinton was such a flawed candidate in communication and meeting the needs of prospective voters.
Saying the person who won the popular vote by 3 million votes, is a failed candidate, is a flawed premise don't you think?
The Republic (Electoral College) part of our Democratic Republic voted Trump into power. 304 Electoral elites voted Trump into power, 227 voted for Clinton.
The Democratic part of our Democratic Republic , 65,844,954 people voted Clinton to win for president. 48% Clinton 46% Trump.
Every Trump supporter will say Clinton is a flawed candidate, and every Clinton supporter will point out she won the popular vote by millions over Trump.
Saying Clinton couldn't relate is flawed, but every Trump supporter will agree
Just like every Clinton supporter will tell you Trump is flawed
His analysis of giving security to voters is interesting. Voters feeling of security with Clinton was damaged when Comey broke protocol and said they were re-opening an investigation on her. Even though he later said it was all about nothing, he already pierced that vale of voted security, and he knew what he was doing and he did it to save his ass with Republicans in congress because they were starting to investigate him and called emergency hearings , etc. where he had to testify.