That Trump won in large part due to disproportionate support from voters without a college degree is a plain fact worth being reported. Reading insult into it is discretionary.
For a lot of innocent people outside the US, ironically for a lot of Muslims, HRC's status quo was literally lethal. As someone outside the US, who finds Trump's views unacceptable, and is in Europe, and in no direct danger of US induced violence, I can tell you this: he was not the candidate who enjoyed practically unanimous support of the US industry of death (the so called defense industry), and the whole state military and political neocon apparatus, all the while announcing to try real hard to get in an open confrontation with the other nuclear superpower. In that regard, I am somewhat relieved, and despite what the media might be telling you, a lot of other people are.
I live in Nevada - a "battleground state" - and I saw almost no pro-Hillary commercials or campaign flyers. Rather, she ran almost entirely on an anti-Trump platform. She didn't think anyone wanted to know her stances on the issues. Running that kind of campaign is dangerous when your own likability is a serious issue.
I've seen both shows, and it seems to me like he's saying this election was more about rural/middle America that it was about urban/coastal America, just based on the typical viewers of the shows.
To me, being from a rural area doesn't mean you're racist, or uneducated - even if you don't have a degree, there are plenty of other ways to learn, and also plenty of useful things to learn that aren't taught in any college.
But - I'm Canada, not the U.S., so although I get a ton of exposure to U.S. media up here, it's definitely possible I'm lacking some important bits of context that would help me understand better.
The DNC has no one to blame but themselves.