All of the available evidence rather suggests that the story of satire in 2016 was the old story of how satire has zero impact on the world.
One word, one chaotic, depressing syllable: Trump. The Donald was the subject of a lot of satire and a lot of it seemed really funny at the time but it didn't mount up to a hill of beans. Humour vs tragedy, the winner is always going to be tragedy.
You even had the strange spectacle of Michael Stipe from REM blaming Trump's election triumph on Alec Baldwin's satirical impersonations on TV show Saturday Night Live. "I blame media completely for it, including Saturday Night Live," he said. "It's satire, it's brilliantly done, but it's still adding to the push of ... Warhol said, I think, there's no such thing as bad publicity."
I don't think Warhol said that. Stipe probably means the Warhol chestnut about everyone being famous for 15 minutes, which is much the same thing - kind of. Anyway his remarks raised some interesting points not just about how ineffective and useless and counter-productive satire is, but also about satire's relationship with power.
Satire laughs at power. Good. But the point of satire is to refuse to take things seriously, and that was the essential failing of the satirical impulse when it came to Trump; he wasn't taken seriously, he was seen as entertainment, a clown to laugh at - his hair, his mouth, his nose-sniffing, crack ho impersonation in the debates!