Jill Abramson: who owns the economic ideas that must rejuvenate the Democrats?

[portlander23]

The Clintons turned the Democratic party over to donors. Can it recover?
Jill Abramson
The Guardian

But Bill and Hillary Clinton are the people responsible for turning the Democratic party into the party of Wall Street and their glitzy friends. During his time in office, Bill Clinton did little to change a campaign finance system that has always been fundamentally at odds with the party’s egalitarian message.

It isn’t just that Democrats are the minority party in Washington, it’s that they’ve lost state governments at all levels, from governorships to the state legislatures. While the Democrats have focused on gaining and holding the White House since 2008, the Koch brothers and their billionaire, rightwing allies have been showering money on local candidates, too, and the payoff has been huge.

Hillary Clinton did not have a cogent economic message. This was the most serious failing of her campaign. It is also the biggest challenge facing the Democratic party as it tries to rebuild with an alliance of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren liberals and the financiers who have funded the party since Bill Clinton’s victory in 1992.

Of course, the Sanders-Warren economic message is at war with Wall Street interests. So who owns the economic ideas that must rejuvenate the Democrats as Trump and his new cabinet try to rip apart the social programs that are the signature accomplishments of Democratic presidents from Johnson to Obama?

How will the Democrats approach trade, another issue that deeply divides Wall Street donors from the Democratic rank and file. Perhaps most important, who are the best thinkers and activists who can begin to answer these questions?

Everyone I have talked to in the party is still too stunned and angry over Trump’s upset win to really get their heads around the daunting work ahead. Democrats are still obsessed with Russian interference in the election and with blaming the FBI director, James Comey, for defeating Clinton. These, too, are important subjects, but don’t help shape the future.

[putitinD]

1. Bernie Sanders...its too bad DWS made sure he didn't get a fair chance.

[SFnomad]

2. FFS, give it a rest.

He got a fair chance and he lost, by a lot.

[guillaumeb]

3. If the system is fueled by money, what trumps money?

Enthusiasm. Wile money is necessary, voter enthusiasm is even more necessary. The turnout in key states was lower. Some of that was due to a lack of enthusiasm.

[geek tragedy]

4. presidential elections are driven by culture in the absence of a bad economy.

if the economy under Trump is bad, they have a pretty easy task.

If the economy is okay under Trump, it will require cultural/psychological appeals rather than economics

[NCTraveler]

5. Clinton presented excellent plans for the economy...

And talked about them daily. That's why she won voters with the economy as their number one concern.

Clinton was that person.

I recognize what is going on here.

Article is absolute bullshit.