I find the articles far more thoughtful, and the self satisfied smugness and arrogant idiocy is in far smaller supply.
Still, sometimes it returns to form, and the stupidity is epic, such as when Senior Editor Jeet Heer suggests that in 2020, the Democratic party should run a celebrity rather than an accomplished politician for President.
- That's what we did this year. Hillary Clinton's viability in politics has always been as a celebrity, wife of the Governor of Arkansas, and then wife of the President of the United States.*
- Hillary lost.
- Trump did not win through celebrity, but through selling the lie that he cares about the ordinary working folks. He did that by pointing out the truth that the the celebrity-political complex did now.
- It reinforces the idea that the Democratic Party is out of touch with the real world. It's why the hit musical is called La La Land, and not The Real World.†
- It serves to deflect from the real failure here, which was that the party establishment, in a stunning exhibition of solipsism, nominated one of the few political figures on the face of the earth‡ who could lose to Trump, because of this.
Gaaaahhhh! I hate pseudo-intellectual contrarians.
*This is not to say that she is not a capable person, it's just that if you look at political leaders, they don't get to be the Senator from the 3rd largest state in the US, and then Secretary of State, and the nominee of the party without being a governor, or a mayor, or a congressman, or a city councilman.
†Also, if they called it The Real World, MTV would sue their asses.
‡Other names that spring to mind as other potential losers, are Clayton Williams, Adlai Stevenson, Kathleen McGinty, Patrick Murphy, Evan Bayh, Ted Strickland , Kathleen Kennedy Townshend, Martha Coakley, Frank Murkowski (lost to Palin, for F%$#'s sake), and George P. Mahoney. (Had to spend some time on the Google machine to get a list even this short.)