Apart from the election of Donald Trump as president 2016 brought another welcome benefit, the end of punditry and pundits as something of "value".
For most of America's history the press and more latterly television and the pundits therein (e.g. Cronkite/Huntley-Brinkley) held a high and privileged place in the culture.
Who a newspaper endorsed for president used to be a highly coveted item in any campaign and a journal or magazine that had a respected pundit or pundits would carry enormous weight in respect of voters considerations if not actual choices.
By their actions in the 2016 campaigns the media with their blatant one-sided and grossly distorted bias.
About two newspapers nationwide endorsed Trump for president, towards Clinton and against Trump gave up any pretensions to being in any way a focal point for genuine analysis.
The entire media with its liberal bias is now simply a home for its audiences prejudices.
Nobody could honestly advise that the various 'Posts' and 'Times' in Washington/New York and California are anything but propaganda pieces for the urban left.
Similarity Fox TV, Breitbart and "A Point of View' are repositories for center-left discussion.
This is actually all for the good. The fact that any pretensions to evenhandedness are gone allows for any media site to be taken at face value as well as providing a comforting bubble for its audience.
The same applies to "pundits" too.
Any thundering volley from the likes of Josh Marshall or Nate Silver of any of the Washington Posts's stable e.g. Dana Milbank are now taken with a huge grain of salt or as an indication of what propaganda line the DNC wishes to promote at any one time.