The 7/13 NY Times Morning email suggested:
"The social liberalism of Democrats — on immigration, marijuana, L.G.B.T. rights, affirmative action, abortion and more — has simultaneously attracted progressive college graduates and repelled more culturally conservative working-class voters. If you’re trying to figure out why Latino voters have shifted right in the past few years, even during the Trump presidency, this dynamic offers an explanation."
It's certainly true that some blue collar whites and some African-Americans and Latinos are conservative or "socially conservative." But this seems to be a simplification to me. One of the factors which caused alienation of blue collar workers from at least some Democrats was their support for free trade agreements / impact on jobs in the US. When Hillary Clinton entered the 2016 primaries, she had a record of supporting such deals. During the primaries, she found that this was a factor in her losing some votes to Bernie Sanders. As a result, Clinton started trying to present herself as a critic of free trade deals. There were blue collar workers who voted for Obama then voted for Trump because of issues like this. Clinton wasn't on the Democrats' left wing - that wasn't the issue.
At least part of the problem is there are a number of issues which have the support of 70% or 80% of the American people which aren't being passed into law. Issues such as raising the minimum wage, letting Medicare negotiate drug prices, making the rich pay their fair share, etc. Many Democrats talk about such things, but "moderate" Democrats tend to block these. (What does "moderate" mean if it includes opposing 75% of the American people on multiple issues? Are we supposed to believe that half of that 75% are left-wing and half are right-wing, and the other 25% are in the middle? Clearly, that's not the case.)
The 7/11/22 Times Morning email noted:
"Congressional Democrats have spent much of the past year bickering, with a small number of moderates blocking legislation that would reduce drug prices, address climate change and take other popular steps. Many Democrats — both politicians and voters, especially on the party’s left flank — also seem more focused on divisive cultural issues than on most Americans’ everyday concerns, like inflation."
So, "moderates" have prevented the passage of policies which would seem to be "pragmatic" to get votes. At the same time, another type of elected Democrat may support these popular issues, but do not prioritize them as much as the public wishes.
I would suggest money in politics is a major factor in this. I would recommend two award-winning books on this subject, both published by the Princeton University Press. These aren't pundits, they present careful scholarly analysis showing the impact of the wealthy on legislation.
1) Affluence and Influence by Martin Gilens, copyrighted 2012.
Winner of the 2016 AAPOR Book Award, American Association for Public Opinion Research
Winner of the 2013 Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award, American Political Science Association
One of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles Top 25 Academic Books for 2013
2) Unequal Democracy by Larry Bartels, first published 2008
Winner of the 2009 Gladys M. Kammerer Award, American Political Science Association
Winner of the 2009 Leon D. Epstein Outstanding Book Award, Political Organizations and Parties Section of the American Political Science Association
Gilens' book takes a wider view of the influence of money on legislation. Bartels focuses specifically on the Democratic Party. It is important that you note that both books were based on data from BEFORE the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, allowing more big money in politics. The findings in these books are NOT about the consequences of that ruling, but are about the reality which existed even before the ruling.
One of Bartels' findings was that there was no statistically significant correlation between the policy preferences of the least affluent 1/3 of the US population. In his efforts to consider various explanations, Bartels looked at the hypothesis that Democrats don't pay as much attention to poor people because they are less likely to vote and/or contact elected officials to express their views. Bartels found there was some correlation between the preferences of people in the least affluent 1/3 who both voted and contacted elected officials, and the actions of Democratic elected officials. However, the correlation was lower than that between the policy preferences of the most affluent 1/3 and Democrats. If the policy preferences of the less affluent who vote and contact officials was the same as the preferences of the less affluent in general, the statistical correlation results would have been the same. It seems the policy preferences of the lass affluent who vote and contact officials are closer to the preferences of the more affluent. Since the more affluent have the most influence and see more of their preferences acted upon, those whose preferences are closer to that of the more affluent may be voting and contacting officials because they feel their voice may make a difference. As Bartels says, those in the least affluent 1/3 don't have a reason to think Democrats will listen to them or act on what they hear. While there can be other reasons why the less affluent don't vote, feeling or knowing their preferences will be ignored will give them less motivation to go to the polls.
I don't have a similarly definitive basis for the following conclusion, but I think we must consider it. We've seen Obama voters become Trump voters. The "cultural issues" that Republicans use to win votes from Americans who suffer from other Republican legislation have not always caused blue collar workers to vote Republican. It's not as simple as "these people prioritize cultural issues over economic issues." Perhaps, what is happening is: Blue collar workers who find elected officials have been failing to pass legislation to help them economically, ask themselves, "Are there any politicians who will actually enact ANY legislation that would interest me?" Some of the blue collar people who vote for GOP cultural issues always voted for conservative candidates, some never will. Others may be tempted in if they don't see hope for bread and butter issues. Some of those will build a connection to "cultural" organizations on the issue(s) they choose, and may become harder to bring back over time.
Whether or not that is the most accurate description of the situation, we know these economic issues have wide public support. For some blue collar people, the economic issues may not be as decisively important as for some people, but that doesn't mean that giving them economic legislation they support won't have some influence on how they vote. If Democrats don't pass such legislation, it definitely won't help get votes. If they do pass such legislation, it should at least encourage some I'm-not-sure-I'll-vote people to show up.
Sure, the left culture issues will turn off some voters. The voters who will be inflamed against the left culture items are the least likely to vote Democratic regardless. The thing about voters who aren't certain to vote one way or the other - no matter what - the ones that might or might not be swayed to vote Democratic - is that they don't have policy preferences that are totally consistent with right-of-center or left-of-center. But most of them WILL support those policies supported by 75% of the public. If you don't support those policies, that’s pretty sure to be at least one demerit against you. Some issues such as immigration may seem like family-economic-security issues to some blue collar voters. But other culture issues may not seem as much of a personal threat as continued inaction on these highly popular economic issues. If you're really helping people pay their bills, they may accept some culture issues as a trade-off.
The Democrats did put forward a bill that put a huge number of various policies into a single vote in Congress. Whatever the pros and cons of that were, it didn't pass. In that vote, members of Congress had the opportunity to vote against raising the minimum wage by saying they objected to some other part of the huge bill. Here's the question: Are "moderate Democrats" and the Democratic Party in general ready to make several bills each of which only address one single issue, such as the minimum wage? Find several issues that have at least 70% support among the public and put forward separate bills for each one issue to be voted on as soon as possible. If it passes, campaign on those accomplishments. If they don't pass, campaign on attacking those who prevented it and acted against the wishes of the American people.
This is not a "radical" proposal. It's not a culture war proposal that will alienate more voters. It's not something which would scare off moderate voters.
The 7/14 NY Times reported:
"Now, the polling shows, the number of Americans in both parties who believe their government is capable of responding to voters’ concerns has shrunk.
"...
"The lack of faith is starkest among the young, who have little to no memory of a time when American politics didn’t function as a zero-sum affair. Nearly half — 48 percent — of those surveyed between the ages of 18 and 29 said voting did not make a difference in how their government operates."
Democratic politicians don't have to do this, but if they don't, they shouldn't blame people for not voting for them and not trusting them.
