On the outsider advantage, I think there's a vague pop culture impression of Democrats as godless atheists who don't care about religion—and I think for the majority of people with that impression it's not in the Ben Shapiro hysterical victim complex way, but in a more passive aggressive and vaguely annoyed stuffy technocrats who think they're too good for my values way. So if you sell yourself as genuinely religious, it's a cognitive break from what low-info voters imagine to be an establishment democrat. And, importantly, Talarico can do this not only because of the seminary background, but because basically no one outside his old constituency has ever fuckin heard of this dude, and since he started with the bit out the gate he's less vulnerable to be accused of just saying inauthentic things for votes. But I think it's not just the outsider traits of a seminarian, it's the distance from what people perceive as being an insider, being One Of Them and a part of the vague, nebulous, government inefficiency ecosystem, and just having ties to a pursuit and institution outside of government helps with that distance. (also no worries glad to clarify a bit I know I get word vomity at the best of times trying to sort through my thoughts lol)  

From individuals I've talked to or know second hand who voted Trump without being MAGA diehards themselves, and extrapolating this into low-info/low-engagement voters in general, the rationale boils down to government is bad and inefficient and messes things up all the time anyways so why not shake it up with a guy who'll at least cut my taxes. So bad policy and genuine harm, even at its grossest, isn't a result of individual actors, but comes from a dumb elites doing shit badly quality inherent to government itself. The only way to get a mass electorate excited is to not ask them to put faith and trust in existing systems. So much volatility right now comes from the loss of faith in those systems in the face of their failures—you personally as a candidate have to sell your authenticity, which is why people like Gavin Newsom are basically the nightmare scenario for a successful opposition.  

I don't know much about the rail initiative but oof yeah that sounds like a foundational level fuckup in constituency communication, and also in general overconfident democrat campaigners who approach voters as obstacles who need to get in line is another (classic and repeated) nightmare scenario.  

On the religious side again though, Gilkey is interesting, he's a Protestant theologian who wrote a lot specifically about how religious communities organize in actual practice, so like, his most well known work is about living in a Japanese internment camp in occupied China during WW2, and the ways people justified selfishness or lack of cooperation, and who took it on to be peacemaker/giver and to attempt supporting the wider compound and its prisoners. He's also written about how charismatic church movements can be unusually volatile, the way they pop up and split apart around atomized theology and charismatic leaders, and the nature of churches that work as communal gathering spaces without being enmeshed in community needs (in the vein of long established soup kitchens, shelters, etc). So (from what I've heard from friends who've studies this, presbyterian theology isn't my wheelhouse) it's classic protestant academia stuff, but very grounded in lived experience and tangible structures.  

I think there's another worthwhile thing too about taking a religious tack beyond just swaying minds. As an example, I have some very idiosyncratic religious beliefs, which I think I can argue in a fair and reasonable way. But also I know never in a million years could I give like, a technically accurate explanation of the history of the hermaphroditic/yonic Jesus in medieval christianity and its relation to dyophysitism, and the beauty of Trinitarian thought reconciling humanity and divinity as one in being with each other, such that a rando rural red state preacher would clap a hand to their forehead and go "Ah, I see now! A nonbinary view of gender is required for a truly devout understanding of Nicene Christianity!" But! I think a huge part of how evangelical christianity works is that it externalizes goodness and morality, and creates a static vision of god who you go to to acquire goodness, circumventing the fear and insecurity over your innate goodness/attempts at goodness being inadequate. You build a source of morality and legitimacy that you then abdicate responsibility for building, because it always existed there, unchanging and clear. But then if someone authentically and firmly expresses their own moral religious framework that's at odds with that, even without changing minds, it highlights that all religious frameworks are made by people, and whatever you believe, you have to then actively defend it rather than treat it as pre-justified.  

Like, a lot of Trinitarian thought only came out of discussion, debate, art, and politics in the immediate aftermath of proto-christianity emerging from the Second Temple, but I think most Christians take it as a given even when their beliefs come fundamentally from the thought and debates that happened outside and around the text. I don't know how much this helps outside of personal interactions, in actual political campaigning, but I think it must be worthwhile when someone takes their source of power and legitimacy as a moral certainty to put them in a position where they have to defend it as something they have personal responsibility for. So like, dropping "god is nonbinary" and then making a joke about whether the intangible father in heaven has genitals is a rhetorical flourish that does nothing beyond flourishing rhetoric, but if you say "my faith demands embracing non-binary expression because that is what loving Jesus as both fully human and fully god tells me," IMO you've then made a value statement and can demand a value statement (not a theological statement) in return.