I didn't read the whole article, but I think your last line makes an important point. In a way, it is less about specific stances than about how the party is at least perceived as viewing those with different stances.

I don't just disagree with immigration restrictions, I think those who disagree with me are xenophobic racists.

I don't just disagree with rules about which bathroom transgender people can use, I think those who disagree with me are homophobic gay bashers.

Along with that I think the dem party gave the impression that these cultural issues were all that mattered - it seemed not to even speak to people's day to day struggles.

So Trump was spouting off about saving jobs - you and I agree that he was completely full of shit, but that was besides the point. Enough voters feeling disenfranchised by the massive econ changes of the info age were just happy to hear this as the primary campaign topic. Hillary? She and the dems just talked about taking the high road and how inappropriate that mean ol' Donald Trump is! You want your kids listening to that mouth?

Well actually Hill, what I really want is to know where my kids' next meal is coming from.

I do think people may be overthinking all of this, and a whole lot of even the down ticket problems are about how bad a candidate Hill is and how well suited the Don was as a candidate at exactly this moment (almost as ill-suited as he is at the job of being president). But mostly about how bad Hill is.

Biggest lesson IMO is embodied in your last sentence though - maybe be a little more tolerant and a little less judgmental of those with whom you disagree, especially on cultural issues.

I think there are limits to what govt can do to relieve the pain of those being left behind without the right skills in the new economy. But at the very least, maybe don't talk down to them so much. Maybe visit WI and MI at least once during the general election.