Adam Creighton has that typical problem of small government loving quasi libertarians: he believes in a magic formula of lower taxes and small, low regulation government, and that's all that matters.
Because, any twit reading this who would go along with his line "I know Trump is not very likeable, but he's better than if Clinton had won" - answer me this: what is the reason you think Clinton would have done anything dramatically different from the path Obama was following, and why was that path (with good overall employment figures, a budget coming under control, a good attempt at broadening affordable health care, environmental regulation that had a chance of modifying CO2 emissions, and a cautious approach to Syria and the Middle East) such a disaster if it had continued?
Sure, the country wasn't going perfect under Obama, but lower taxes and pointing to Right wing think tanks "freedom index" is not a magic cure all. Furthermore, as Trump has already shown, he is no foreign policy isolationist (a fact already made clear in his campaign, if you had paid attention) and he is a dumb BS artist who has no idea who to listen to on a whole range of issues. Sure, some better policy or other will happen while he is President - it is virtually impossible for government to do everything wrong under any President. And companies may be rubbing their hands together in anticipation of more money flowing in soon. But try thinking longer term and bigger picture, hey?
Update: the other Creighton perennial is the repetition of the way, way oversimplified matter of the number of taxpayers not paying net tax. It's like he has a permanent chip on his shoulder that his own tax rate is too high because not enough of the rest of you are paying tax at all.
He is, basically, one of the shallowest of economics analysts, and just because he occasionally ends up at a slightly different position from his free marketeer mates doesn't change that.