They criticized Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan, "Stronger Together", as flat and opeque, according to multiple people present at the dinner, some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.
A message about the economy is almost always successful, and no one should know that better than the Clintons. But what was going on this year was more complex. In the end, statistically speaking, it seems that more people who were very concerned about the economy DID vote for Hillary. Unfortunately, that didn't work for her geographically, because people in the Rust Belt were less enthusiastic.
I think there were two broader problems from the outset. First, Hillary's proposed policies were seen as an extension of the Obama administration's. Obviously there was no way to escape that; it always handicaps candidates who run following a two-term presidency won by their own party. Second, Hillary's campaign was largely reactive, and reactive is really never good. Whether deliberately, or just because it's his style, Trump forced that. I don't think "Stronger Together" was "opaque". It was a deliberate reaction to an extremely divisive candidate on the other side.
Trump was able to direct the course of the campaign, and its subject matter, consistently. The Dems needed their own message.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
