Hillary's campaign was uniquely annoying. Lecturing Trump on his behavior was a YUGE turnoff. Why wouldn't she think Trump couldn't insult his way to the Presidency? No one really likes her, and Trump proved that slinging mud really works.
Hillary got down in the dirt with Trump. Bad move. She should have stuck to policy, tied Trump in knots, and hope that this would keep voters in the middle from giving into their dislike of her. Instead, she lectured Trump, and that turned lots of voters off, because they find her annoying to start with.
Then, too, there was all this emphasis on "our daughters", "women and girls", and "the example for our kids", etc. To that, I'd point out (A) that 1/2 of all kids are males, (B) which means that parents of sons felt left out in Hillary's diatribes, (C) and this reinforced the impression that Hillary was all for improving the lot of women and girls at the expense of men and boys. Lots of women who are parents of boys know that the condition of boys in America isn't that great, either, and they perceive Hillary as part of the "blame the boys" crowd. This is not to say that Trump's rhetoric was always commendable; it certainly wasn't. But Hillary's campaign strategy, her persona, and her pot-calling-the-kettle-black-tut-tutting were just stupid, stupid moves on the part of a candidate who, really, has made herself repulsive to half of America.
Eh I think your criticisms of her campaign are too nit picky. I can't think of people save for outright sexists who were turned off by her advocacy for women and children. It's her niche; that would be like people criticizing a Catholic church for being too focused on Catholic communities and not enough on non-Catholics.
I'm convinced too that annoyance at Clinton's persona is the height of sexist nit-picking. Oh, she's annoying? Nobody's ever been elected or not-elected President for being annoying, or shrill, or for their generic "persona."
Poll
