They abandoned a huge swath of their normal voting bloc who were upset by the social changes pushed by Dems

I'm sorry, maybe I don't understand you fully but that is an extremely lazy analysis. HRC's solid "lead" in the polls, or whatever you want to call it, wasn't far enough ahead of Trump's to matter in crucial EC districts. That polling lead makes more and more sense the farther past 2M voter lead we get. She simply ran a lackluster campaign, hoping she could maintain enough momentum while watching Donald burn out from the sidelines (she seems to hide from the limelight whenever public scrutiny reaches fever pitch).
But that wasn't enough for swing state voters in the MW and coal states, who have so obviously been concerned with missing jobs and feeling left behind by sterile, third-way Democrats. Cue Oscar the Grouch with a toupe.

Secondly, whether she deserved the mistrust or not, Clinton had too much political baggage; she represents the detached establishment through and through. So it wasn't boutique social issues that turned off the crucial swing-state votership away from the Dems. That's not even the second-in-line reason.

We can pull analysis and polls all we like, but at the end of the day it wasn't some "huge swath" of normal Dem voting bloc who felt alienated and panicked due to gay rights, abortion or transgender identity exposure. This is 2016, not 2004. I'm sorry, but the only "huge swath" of any voters enraged by social change were already on the red side of the fence coming into election season.