What, exactly, is your major objection to "Clintonomics"? (I assume you're referring to Bill and not Hillary -- and by people who brought that, you're referring to Carville?) While I'd admit that Carville's advice is a little stale (he got quite a bit of mileage out of that 'it's the economy stupid' quote...but that's determining wins and losses to the degree it used to)
By most available metrics, it would appear that economy under Bill Clinton was fairly stable.
- GDP growth under him was better than had been since 1970
- He still holds the record for job creation (22.7 million new non-farm/non-government payroll jobs added - about 236,000 jobs per month on average - the fastest for any presidential term).
- Inflation went from 6% down to 2.6%
- Unemployment halved
- Tax revenues up, federal spending down (it was the last time we had a surplus)
- Welfare rolls dropped, home ownership rate per capita increased by 5%
The reason they're losing has nothing to do with "being too much like Bill Clinton"... if modern day Democrats were more like Bill Clinton, they'd be winning. (socially moderate, economically a touch left of center)
Kamala Harris caught on to what the problem is that the democrats have, but she did it about 2 months too late. Politico (I believe it was them, but perhaps it was HuffPo) did a piece about it entitled "Harris pivots towards patriotism" -- in which they detailed how she attempted to distance herself from the extremes, and started projecting the message that it's okay liberals to wave the American flag, be proud of their country, and all of the great things America has done. It was just too little too late.
Which, ironically enough, is the approach Bill Clinton used to win over the moderates... it was what became known in "politics talk" as the "Sister Souljah Moment"
That moment where you publicly stand up to the more radical element of your own base in order to signal to the independents/moderates and the other side that you're not going to be captured by the extremes.
Whenever I see progressive people try to dissect it and determine "why are we not winning", they're overthinking it.
"It's because she didn't signal enough to the blue collar workers that she'd fight for more pro-union policies"
"It's because she didn't signal enough that she would stand up to the big banks and the corporate CEOs"
"It's because her voting record didn't sufficiently demonstrate that she'd prioritize the workers over the investor class"
None of that is the reason why she lost....
Bill Clinton did none of those things, and he cruised to victory twice.
Obama gave it a C+ (and that may be being generous) effort in regards to those things, he cruised to victory twice.
I like Bill Maher's quote about it "You're pandering to people who are even crazier than the person you're running against. You lost a crazy contest against an actual crazy person"
