Clinton was by far the more logical choice for anti-establishment voters. The actual impact of elections is policy changes. But candidates with less-popular policy platforms try to make them personal. It's not like poor Rust Belt types were dying for tax cuts for millionaire investors. They were led to believe Clinton was the candidate who would do all the stuff that Trump is actually trying to do.
Oh, that's absolutely true. Note that by far the biggest issue in the eyes of the MSM was Clinton not following State Department IT protocols. That was presented by the media as not only equivalent to Trump's history of money laundering, running various scams, history of constant lies, etc., but as actually a far *bigger* ethical (?) issue. CNN had people on its shows as "experts" whose only credential was a willingness to shamelessly lie on behalf of Trump. They had someone who legally couldn't say anything bad about Trump on. They aired raw, live footage of his rallies. I think people who don't really know much about the media don't appreciate how unusual the Lewandowski hiring and the rally airing were. Obviously the big media companies are businesses and weren't doing that stuff out of a deliberate attempt to influence the election (that is not the slightest concern of the MSM), but it's equally obvious that the impact was very slanted coverage.
I think i am just going to agree to disagree on the idea that there was incidental bias favouring trump from the MSM.
From my PoV, their loud, obnoxious and sometimes wildly CT-sounding bias against him helped him, but not because they presented anything resembling positivity toward trump.
As far as Clinton being the logical anti-establishment choice..
She pandered to establishment interests, had the sitting president, the vice president and a former president campaigning on her behalf, and she ran on populist social issues that had already been rammed down not just America's, but the world's throat for 8 years already. She looked like nothing if not a sequal to the Obama administration. On foreign policy, she sold herself as an establishment warmonger with her vitriol toward russia and her persistent desire to create a no-fly zone over syria and upend the assad regime.
It did not help her that when she ran against obama in the previous primaries he was the anti-establishment candidate. An image that he failed at rubbing off on her because, of course, 8 years into an administration tends to wear through the anti-estsblishment image.
Even if we accept that she was the more anti-estsblishment candidate (which you make a fair case for) that only makes her the "logical" choice if one assumed that she was honestly presenting herself. A tough job for any politician, doubly so for one that:
A) has been in the public eye for as long as she has;
B) has been wracked with as many scandals as she has;
C) makes as little effort to speak to the anti-establishment voter as she did (pretty sure she was insulting and belittling to the voters you claim she was the logical choice for); and
D) shits all over the actual anti-establishment candidate she ran agsinst in the primaries.
She didn't really do much to communicate anything other than a handful of empty slogans and her bitchings about trump.
You can only really claim her to be the logical anti-establishment choice if she had lucidly presented herself as such to her potential voters.
Her comparative disinterest in campaigning, lack of a cohesive message, and all around strategic incompetence kind of disqualified her as a logical choice for anything other than "first female president" - a pretty weak position.