First, the statement "it is practically impossible that the claims made by the Church about Jesus would have been invented, and virtually certain that they would have gained no traction" is self-refuting, since attaching those teachings to a historical man would not make all this any more probable (in fact, arguably less so), so this cannot be an argument for historicity.
Second, all his arguments hinge on the identifier "Most Jews" but Christianity was not successful among "most Jews" (in fact, barely any, and those mostly the Hellenized diaspora Jews, not Palestinian orthodox Jews this author is speaking about) and was not originated by any majority Jewish group, but a fringe radical group who by definition were despised by "most Jews" and actively preached against "most Jews." Therefore all his premises do not apply to the historicity of Jesus. What "most Jews" thought or did is irrelevant to the origins of Christianity.
For example, the claim that on Jesus-myth theory Jesus "was fabricated to fulfill popular Jewish expectations" is simply false. It was "fabricated" to fulfill the expectations of a radical fringe group that mainly positioned itself in opposition to popular Jewish expectations.
The word "fabricated" is a bit misleading as well, since arguably the first apostles didn't consciously fabricate anything but convinced themselves of what they believed the way many religious innovators do (although the alternative, a Mormon-style model of deliberate fabrication, is also possible; though again notice how a "most Americans" argument for the historicity of the angel Moroni would seem absurd, since Mormonism was not contrived to satisfy what "most Americans" thought or expected and at any rate there was no Moroni). The Gospels, however, were certainly consciously fabricated, but that's different from the origin of the religion (the Gospels came half a century later).
Finally, his closing argument that if the Jews were to invent a messiah they would invent a triumphant one is impossible and thus not a logical thing to say. See my remarks on this weird argument here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794#7
...except, of course, insofar as this messiah is only "triumphant" invisibly--as in, in heaven. Notice that that is in fact just what the Christians invented: “A godlike being has taken his place in the coun[cil of God;] in the midst of the divine beings he holds judgment” is true of the first Christian teaching of Jesus even on the Jesus myth theory (since on that theory, Jesus only acts and triumphs in heaven, precisely where no one else but apostles could see him, which is precisely the only kind of messiah one could invent, obviously).
What we have instead is a Jewish radical cult that took Daniel 9 seriously as a prophecy of the last messiah before the end times, and attached this prophecy to a Philonic celestial being:
http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1440
By contrast, the theory this author proposes for historicity is, however, still the second most likely, i.e. if no Jesus myth theory is correct, then the theory he articulates is indeed what is probably the case. But this theory, and his argument for it here, simply does not interact with the case for any Jesus myth theory, much less the most plausible of them (which is, IMO, a minimalized Doherty theory).