How would a Democratic Party more accommodating to social conservatives fare?

[WalterWhite]

The Democratic Party has, in recent years, not been so accommodating to social conservatives. (The Republican Party has not been so accommodating to social progressives either). However, with some rhetorical finesse, the Democratic Party could become significantly more accommodating to social conservatives without having to change policy very much. This can be done by slightly altering rhetoric on two major issues: abortion and crime.

On abortion, the Democratic Party could promise to reduce the total number of abortions with better sexual education and upholding Roe v. Wade. This would appease social conservatives, who are generally personally opposed to abortion, while keeping the Democratic base in line. In this case, it would be wise for the Democratic Party to adopt "safe, legal, and rare" as their slogan on the abortion issue.

On crime, the Democratic Party could promise to prioritize rehabilitation over straight punishment and mention how countries with rehabilitative justice have generally lower recidivism rates. This would appease social conservatives (especially law-and-order types), who would be attracted to lower recidivism rates, while keeping the Democratic base in line. The Democrats can then paint themselves as the true law and order party because of this. In this case, it would be wise for the Democratic Party to steer clear of "defund the police" messaging, given that such rhetoric proved to be unpopular in Minneapolis and cost Mandela Barnes a Senate seat.

If the Democratic Party switched their messaging on these issues to be more accommodating to social conservatives as shown above, what would the electoral impact be? Would it swing more conservative states (such as Southern states) leftward? Would it swing more progressive states (such as Pacific Northwestern states) rightward? Would it depress Democratic turnout in solidly Democratic states?

[RINO Tom]

"Social" conservative and "social" liberal has more or less morphed to mean "supportive of the RNC's policy on 'social' issues" and "supportive of the DNC's policy on 'social' issues," respectively ... so not well at all, obviously.

As far as being more accommodating to cultural conservatives (which I freely admit is more difficult to define), I think they would benefit from a slight move to the right.  The Democrats did fine for years with having both people with far left cultural attitudes and those with rather conservative cultural attitudes in the same party, as the lefties knew the Democrats were still the spot for them, and the national party made serious efforts to come across as a party concerned with "kitchen table issues."  Let's forget about the Southern Democrats entirely, as there is so much history there; I am talking simply about a time when your views on political correctness seemed rather minor when deciding which party to identify with.  And I do think in our current climate, Democrats suffer a bit with mid- to lower income people who they could win due to being all-in on cultural liberalism.

(The GOP isn't much better, but that's not the topic here.)

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

I don't see how those changes to Dem messaging on abortion and crime would make socially liberal states more R. Those sound a lot like standard arguments left-of-center individuals and organizations already make in practice.

[Spectator]

"Social" conservative and "social" liberal has more or less morphed to mean "supportive of the RNC's policy on 'social' issues" and "supportive of the DNC's policy on 'social' issues," respectively ... so not well at all, obviously.

As far as being more accommodating to cultural conservatives (which I freely admit is more difficult to define), I think they would benefit from a slight move to the right.  The Democrats did fine for years with having both people with far left cultural attitudes and those with rather conservative cultural attitudes in the same party, as the lefties knew the Democrats were still the spot for them, and the national party made serious efforts to come across as a party concerned with "kitchen table issues."  Let's forget about the Southern Democrats entirely, as there is so much history there; I am talking simply about a time when your views on political correctness seemed rather minor when deciding which party to identify with.  And I do think in our current climate, Democrats suffer a bit with mid- to lower income people who they could win due to being all-in on cultural liberalism.

(The GOP isn't much better, but that's not the topic here.)

Agreed. The Democratic party would do much better if it were less associated with cancel culture/defunding the police/gender-affirming care for pre-teens. A lot of that may be because the GOP/right wing media has been largely successful as defining Democrats as that, even if it is not entirely true.

[SInNYC]

"Social" conservative and "social" liberal has more or less morphed to mean "supportive of the RNC's policy on 'social' issues" and "supportive of the DNC's policy on 'social' issues," respectively ... so not well at all, obviously.

That is very true. "It takes a village" was something conservatives used to say (in some form). But once it became the title of Hillary's book it was denounced by Republicans as some form of communist takeover.

But this is true of non-social issues too.

[Death of a Salesman]

I don't see how those changes to Dem messaging on abortion and crime would make socially liberal states more R. Those sound a lot like standard arguments left-of-center individuals and organizations already make in practice.

If social issues mattered less in voting, some voters who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative would switch their votes.

[Vosem]

Probably much worse. The best arguments the Democratic Party has are that its opponents are religious fanatics or racists, and shifting focus away from that (to things like their very unpopular suggestions for universal healthcare, or whatever else) are almost always bad for it.

(Depends on what you mean by "social conservatives" exactly -- just over the past 48 hours I've seen this word defined in ways that include 70% of the American electorate and in ways that include ~0% of the American electorate. But my guess is that what you're asking about here is attempts to make the party more 'populist', which would go poorly for Democrats much as they have gone for Republicans.)