Let me argue a paradoxical thesis: Jason actually played the best social game and the best strategic game and he even was a comp beast when necessary - but he still deserved to lose since he made one critical false judgement.
Coming in Jason obviously had a huge advantage. He started with 100% of all votes, an existing fan base of 70k on Twitter and the support from popular alumns. He only had two tasks to win: make it 'til the end and lose less than 50 points of the viewing public along the way.
Coming in Jason also made one primary assumption: He was casted for his bad mouth in BB17 and people loved him for it the first time around, so he needs to double down and people watching BBOTT will love him even more. It's ironic that this assumption both helped him making it to the end, but also costed him the game.
Inside the house it actually turned out to be a brilliant strategy since it kept the house divided. He assembled a loyal group of people in week 1 and his endless tirades against the others gave him a grip on his group unseen since Boston Rob. It prohibited all others from cross-pollute or scheme against him (which all of them at some point should have done), he also won all competitions when he was in danger, so he made it till the end and deservedly so.
I'd also argue that even his social game was spot on and the best we have seen in a while. Social game is not only about being a likable, useful and 'social' person who creates as many lines of communication as possible to keep all options open. It's primarily about creating just enough ties which are strong enough to actually carry you to the end. (while his and D's fake alliance with M/S was idiotic from a strategic POV, it acutally might have strenghtened his social ties with Danielle to the point where she became happy to be voted out against him, etc.)
Which bring me to the false judgement: He was not able to see and/or appreciate his priviliged position in the game. This is what he (and Eric in this podcast) does not see. The efficiency of trash-talk depends on either context or likability. You either need to be the underdog who is trashing the hegemonic group, think Janelle vs. the friendship, or you need to be really really likable, think Dr. Will, who was able to say anything with a smirk.
But this does not apply if you are the top dog yourself. Rob mentioned the best description a couple of podcasts ago: the disconnect. Usually it's the misfits who are the likable underdogs everyone is rooting for, but this time the misfits turned out to be quite a nasty bunch and the plastics turned out to be quite enjoyable and funny on the feeds, which short circuited Jasons playbook. Hence Morgan deservedly won.