That sounds ridiculous. Regardless of what happens the press always wants to write the "Democrats in disarray" story.

The core problem is the last 30 years have seen billionaire conservatives completely take over and dominate the political press. Tens of millions of Americans believe the propaganda from these networks. We liberals, and the Democratic party, don't have a counter to that media stranglehold. Millions of people are literally voting against their own interests.

Third Way politics is finished, but the new alternative is not yet in place.

Whenever I see that type of rhetoric, I am tempted to put that person on ignore. This is a meaningless phrase.

We are not in disarray just because some blogger wants to write an article with an attention-grabbing headline.

Where you don't put forth a bold message, but try to craft narrow technocratic solutions. I think Hillary would have been a good president, but she is a technocrat and people usually don't vote for technocrats.

A Democrat that like techno music? Ya, I don't think you are making much sense either.
Definition of technocrat
1 :an adherent of technocracy
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technocrat

Huh, ok, what is technocracy?

Technocracy is a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge. Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives.[1] Leadership skills would be selected on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than parliamentary skills.[2] Technocracy in that sense of the word (an entire government run as a technical or engineering problem) is mostly hypothetical. In another commonly used sense, technocracy is any portion of a bureaucracy that is run by technologists.

The term technocracy was originally used to advocate the application of the scientific method to solving social problems. In such a system, the role of money and economic values could be less emphasized. Concern would be given to sustainability within the resource base, instead of monetary profitability, so as to ensure continued operation of all social-industrial functions. Some uses of the word refer to a form of meritocracy, where the ablest are in charge, ostensibly without the influence of special interest groups.[3] The word technocratic has been used to describe governments that include non-elected professionals at a ministerial level.

What exactly do you mean by technocrat? And how Is Clinton one?

As noted in your definition, "experts in any field." Clinton has plenty of expertise in governance. And she contrasted her own expertise and experience with Trump's evident lack thereof. But it didn't work. By contrast, Obama had less experience compared to Clinton, yet defeated her, then went on to defeat McCain. Trump who had no experience or expertise at all defeated much more qualified rivals in the primaries. Going back further, Reagan, who was dismissed as a lightweight and a RWNJ defeated an incumbent who probably had twice his IQ and was a nuclear engineer.

Conclusion: Experience, expertise, competence doesn't win elections.

We wouldn't want experience, expertise and competence. Idiocracy is here.

It is not possible to communicate if everyone has their own definitions.

And if experience, expertise and competence don't win elections, then I guess we will just have to find a pack of fools to run for office?

You make no sense.

And it doesn't mean we have to run fools or incompetence. It does mean we have to run on something besides that.

but their numbers are small.

The hyperbole displayed by this title is an echo of that oversized, overrated voice.

Hillary won by about three million votes. I saw no timidity. I saw a gutsy, qualified woman thrown up against forces no one could have overcome. I see no timidity now by our Congressional leaders.

Purity never works in politics. If the "American left" described in this article wants to win anything in 2018 and beyond, they need to get on board with everyone else and pull together with them.

But she ran too much on competence and not enough on vision. And that vision needs to appeal in the places we need votes, or the next democrat may win by 5 million votes and still lose.

definition of vision.

Honest elections, getting rid of gerrymandering, getting foreign interference out of elections, getting the big money out of elections, getting rid of voter suppression, and a number of other things will help us win elections.

We can start by GOTV.

Vision? That is a meaningless bit of rhetoric.

Clinton was a great candidate. We could not have chosen better.

Is this the kind of stuff the Russians were posting?

The trick is to bring us back together without leaving anyone out. It's not a Bernie vs. Hillary thing, it's a "what does the future of the Democratic Party look like" thing.