You can't realistically ask a population to vote a party or politician forever. The real solution is to reform the U.S. political system so that people don't have Republicans as their only alternative to Democrats when the Democrats become too corrupt, as well, or people just grow tired of some of their policies.
Historically in the US, parties undergo radical change: FDR's party is very different from Wilson and even more so than Andrew Johnson; Harding's is very different than Lincoln's. We are in what is called the 6th party system if I'm not mistaken.
So practically speaking it could be that the primaries are more important than the actual elections.
Sometimes a party goes away in name but continues in spirit, at other times an existing name is retained but the core philosophy of the party changes enormously.
For example the ordinary term for members of the Conservative and Unionist Party in England is "Tories" but legally Tories are a different and much older political party. The allegiances and policies shifted, those who opposed Whiggs in parliament hundreds of years ago and those today arguing about how exactly to leave the EU have almost nothing in common beyond being vaguely "centre-right".
Remind me who was President when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed? That’s at the heart of all of this. And the so-called Community Reinvestment Act.
False equivalencies do not make both parties the same.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernizat...
After his policy agenda got derailed (especially healthcare which he hoped would be one of his signature achievements) and his party was wrecked in the midterms, and then he got dragged into years of frenzied investigations into nothing, he ended up signing a lot of the legislation that the GOP-controlled legislature put on his desk over the coming few years, because he thought that would help him out politically. It didn’t really work, but we got a lot of terrible policy out of it.
I don’t think it’s fair to blame “Democrats” in general for a GOP-driven policy agenda though, just because Clinton didn’t veto every bill that came across his desk.
Also, in comparison to the administrations either before or after him (or if we compare their Supreme Court picks, ugh) Clinton looks positively dreamy.