Has bipartisanship ceased to exist ?

Not really.
It has in the sense that many politicians, some of which lived out their political lives in obscurity, find new life in not seeking compromise or "reaching across the aisle." Let's face it. Today American politics is like watching old Jerry Springer or Maury Povich episodes where the objective is to be the loudest, most obnoxious, and most ignorant person on stage so you can get all of the attention and we as a nation eat that s**t up because we want to be entertained.
Politics is BORING (have you ever watch CSPAN on purpose? It's better than Ambien). Waiting to see which politician is going to stick their foot in their mouth this week so we can jump on him/her like the last sandwich? THAT is "must see TV."
IMHO, there are no more Statesmen in our government anymore because we as a nation don't want that. We want the flash, rail against the government/establishment, saber-rattling, chest-beating, rage , rage against the dying of the light, bombastic, WWE/concert-style performance from our politicians.
In other words we demand that our politics entertain us, we put those people that play into that role in office, and ensure that they continue to entertain us with their antics regardless of how they make us look as a people or as a nation.
CPT (Join to see), if we want to know why there is no bipartisanship we need look no further than our bathroom mirrors. WE put ourselves in this position and if we are serious about changing this, we MUST demand better and elect those people that WILL do better. We never should have allowed politics to be a new form of entertainment to begin with and we as a nation have to do better if there is any chance of ever having more consistent bipartisanship again.

It is no longer good enough to think of you and your opponent as two people who want the same thing but cannot agree on how to get "there", or cannot agree on what "there" is.

Obviously if we do not agree you are stupid, unreasonable, evil, or selfish.

I personally think bipartisanship is over-rated. The more politicians agree with each other, the more of our labors must be expended to feed an ever greater government that is operating on a perpetual deficit, that continues to create an enormous, and ever-growing debt that will be passed on to our children, and to our children's children. So, the less politicians agree, the better, in my opinion. Of course, the down side to all this is that our government operates SO FAR outside it's Constitutional limits, that it often appears that things are tending to grow on auto-pilot, not even requiring the passage of yearly budgets, as required by the Constitution.

There is little that bothers me more than to hear people say things like, "Congress is keeping the President from getting anything done." Or "the Supreme Court ruled on it, so it's the "law of the land"". Regarding the first, Congress has NO requirement to agree with, or to support anything the Executive wants to do. Regarding the second, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if the Court wants to rule on issues it has no Constitutional sanction to rule on, then they are acting outside THEIR Constitutional limits.

Our government was NOT meant to be a rubber stamp on one person's vision, whoever that person is. It was designed to make frantic, and emotional change difficult, by requiring careful consideration by two large bodies of representatives elected, every two years (or a portion, thereof every 2 years, in the case of the Senate) by the people. So, when an Executive says Congress is standing in his/her way... Well, that's how it's supposed to work. Therefore I wish agreement only on issues of true, Constitutional import. The rest of the time, I hope they pull their own hair out in frustration.

My opinion, respectfully submitted.