A summary
By now it is clear that "elite discourse" is a failure in trying to connect with angry, resentful working class voters who have abandoned the Democratic Party. Recitations of facts and application of sound reasoning come across as insincere, callous, condescending and/or insulting. So, heavy reliance on facts and reasoning are out. Pointing out elite MAGA lies, slanders and crackpottery does not work. Also ineffective are warnings about (1) the rise of authoritarianism, dictatorship or theocracy, (2) the failure of democracy and the rule of law or loss of civil liberties, or (3) racism and bigotry. Rhetoric that explains reality fails to connect -- people need to hear stories, not lectures.
What works? Populist (or semi-populist) appeals to emotion and working class dignity are far more effective for most working class people. Anti-elitist rhetoric works. When done properly, anti-oligarch and anti-kleptocracy messaging can work. Narratives of support for masculinity and marriage works. Story telling in common or plain-spoken language is necessary. Expressions of deep concern for economic and social stability works very well. Sincerity, empathy, consistency and spontaneity are important to signal. Effective messaging often includes expressing some degree of urgency, e.g., economic problems, as urgent crises requiring immediate action against elite interests.
There is a major difference between elites on the left and right. Elites on the left dislike and try to limit anti-elitist rhetoric in the Democratic Party. By contrast, elites on the right encourage and weaponize anti-elitist rhetoric in the GOP because they know that is one of the best ways to connect with and gain political support from the disaffected working class. Right wing elitists deflect blame from themselves by framing themselves as authentic, unfiltered representatives of the people. That effectively co-opts and capitalizes on anti-elitist rhetoric, despite them being elites themselves. They employ performative authenticity, use populist language, and emotional appeals to create a perceived but false moral superiority and basis for trust. That turns anti-elitist sentiments into a tool to consolidate power and disarm genuine critique of systemic inequalities.
In other words, authoritarian Republican donors and right-wing elites have a sophisticated understanding that they need to tolerate anti-elitist rhetoric as a necessary element in their political wealth and power strategy.
Commentary
That summarizes my understanding of an interview with Joan Williams (law professor at UCSF) based on decades of her sociology research. C-SPAN broadcast the interview yesterday or the day before. I can't find it online yet. What Williams is arguing is grounded in solid evidence from modern social science. There is also a lot of logic in much of what the working class responds to in the context of their everyday lives. For example elite interests have shafted the working class, hence the appeal of anti-elite narratives. Williams argues that both major political parties have screwed the angry, disaffected working class. She asserts that they a very good reason to be angry at both parties.
If Williams is at least mostly right, most of what I post here (~95% ?) is ineffective or counterproductive with working class people who can potentially be reached. Some of them cannot be reached by pro-democracy politics, roughly "liberal" politics. According to Williams people who cannot be reached include racists and authoritarian ideologues.