After stepping back for a minute I re-read the article and his previous articles on Trump, and actually, I think I understand a little better now.  It appears that he is either a Democrat advocating balance or a neutral party speaking to an anti-Trump audience based upon his writing. 

Initially, I didn't like the premise of the "Trump years" narrative (like it's some kind of objective fact that Trump is bad news for everyone).  I suspect that if Clinton had won he wouldn't use terminology like "don't let the Clinton years get you down."  So he is either biased or speaking to an irrational and immensely biased audience, but in either case, I think he does a pretty good job at advocating dispassionate analysis and rational discourse.

I retract my previous statement because that would be more appropriate for someone like Brett.  Neil is pretty objective in my opinion, not completely, but close enough.