From the article:

The survey of 1,200 registered voters by Demand Progress, a progressive advocacy organization, was designed to supply some hard data for the debate.

• It defined the abundance argument by starting off with this sentence: “The big problem is ‘bottlenecks’ that make it harder to produce housing, expand energy production, or build new roads and bridges.”
• The populist argument was described as “The big problem is that big corporations have way too much power over our economy and our government.”

A review of the book Abundance quotes:

the United States can still blaze the path to progress, but only if progressives get out of the habit of putting obstacles in their own way. “If liberals do not want Americans to turn to the false promise of strongmen,” the authors write, “they need to offer the fruits of effective government.”

(…)

Klein and Thompson rightly argue that conservative politicians aren’t the only ones who have hobbled the government’s essential role in a dynamic and innovative society. In recent decades, Democrats across the country exchanged novelty for NIMBYISM…

Yeah I’ve read enough. Fuck the NYT for adding “rightly” in there.

For anybody who still needs it spelled out:

• “Populism” is meant literally here - for the 99%, against the 1%
• “Abundance” is techbro speak for even fewer regulations and even more corporate power