He's the most appealing of all the candidates to the majority, and I think labour wanted that after years of partisan politics. The complete mishandling of the anti-semitism situation didn't help, and if anything gives him an easy target to tilt at in his first few weeks to build up his credibility.
Looking at his work and political record (there's a good brief summation
on the BBC, and catching up on a few discussions/speeches he's made, he seems a sensible and level-headed examiner of facts who puts forward policies/opinions based on the desires/problems of his constituents and what will fix the problem, without making grand promises or ignoring information because it suits him.
Someone using actual facts to formulate ideas about what we should be doing, and building a platform based on reasoning and accuracy?! How rare in the modern age!
If people get hung up on education when it comes to labour leaders let's not forget 'man of the people' Harold Wilson went to a grammar school and Oxford university. Being called a champagne socialist because you were lucky enough (through whatever reason- your parents working hard to improve your lot in life, being able to afford it through a grant etc., you personally working hard to afford it, you coming from a rich family but later realising your politics don't match that upbringing, etc. etc...) to get a decent education does perhaps take the piss somewhat. Do all Labour Politicians have to be miners with a pipe and flat cap to not be deemed as such?
What sway the unions and shadier parts of the labour party have over him will at the end of the day be the arbiter of his leadership. Corbyn always seemed to me to be an enabler of the shadier sects of the Labour party, hence how the party got into the situation it found itself in regarding the anti-semitism accusations.
