The difference between now and then is that voters didn't have a 4 year Trump presidency to make their decision way easier.

Maybe, but the truth is that most of Trump's plans were vague enough to get him elected but don't really give us enough to think they'll have much impact.  For instance, he said he would "replace Obamacare with something terrific" but what?  He's only mentioned small scale stuff.  He's going to force manufacturers to abandon billion dollar plants in other countries with tariffs?  Good luck with that.  If they come back, they'd just replace expensive American workers with robotics, anyway.

The truth is, most of the problems aren't going to be fixed because there really isn't a magic bullet that would please everyone.  The President will still be held responsible, however.  Hell, the best way to be regarded as a great President is to use short term solutions where those that come after have to deal with the fallout.  The results from Regan's policies all crashed into Bush I.  When people talk about Obama's debt numbers, they often include the amount inherited from Bush II.

I'm cynical about politics for a reason.

They need to be a party of and for the working class, of the everyday US citizen. Clinton and her entourage had an elitist stick so far up their ass Pluto was shifting it's orbit.

The path is clear: remain part of the Uniparty...
Nothing matters but attaching themselves to the Washington money well.

Bernie will be way too old and Elizabeth Warren has no appeal, Tulsi Gabbard is the best choice for Democrats going forward.

But honestly if Trump executes his immigration plan well then he will most likely win the Hispanic support going forward and this is coming from a Hispanic. If He brings jobs to the Rust Belt than all the States that he won will never go Blue again for the foreseeable future.

They never had any chance against the friendly neighborhood billionaire.

Trump is terrible and will be a terrible president, but the Democratic Party really thought they could keep Clinton to win the presidency and that was a huge mistake.

There is no reinventing. The parties are fine how they are since they appeal greatly to their voter base. The policies never change. The difference is made by a handful of idiots who vote something different every time because they aren't really interested in politics.

Idiots are fickle, so trying to appeal to them is nothing more than a gamble.

Take disgruntled Bernie supportes for example. They didn't vote because it wasn't Bernie running. As loyal Bernie fans they didn't vote for Hillary and as such went against everything Bernie tried to achieve. Those people do not respond to logic, they only act on buzzwords. The best you can do is hoping they won't get too many buzzwords to sway them to not vote.

2.  I mostly agree.  I remember the big knock on Al Gore being "he's too wooden".  My mother told me that she voted for Bush II because "he seemed trustworthy."  Yes, that was her literal reasoning.  Like many, many other people, she hates following politics so often her vote comes down to presentation.  If you don't have the most charismatic candidate then you have to hammer on the issues (or the faults of the other candidate).

4. Trump has taught me to believe the exact opposite.  Being extremely vague worked brilliantly with him.  He had almost no plans or explainations, which worked extremely well with the less educated and less informed.  Just make a bunch of promises, over and over.  Talk about what you will do, not how you will do it.  "I'm going to clean up corruption!  I'm going to stop excessive spending in Washington!"  How?  Who cares.  If someone keeps bringing up that you have no plans, go after them and label them as someone who is against stopping corruption or excessive spending.  

I mean, that's not what I want but it looks like the most effective way to get elected.  After all, contrary to popular belief, the main job of a politician is to get elected.  Everything after is secondary.