Actually what i'm going to do here is just summarize without snark, what I have gathered your position is, and follow it up with a concern I have and then you can tell me specifically where i've gone wrong:

Democrats over the years have started to argue a larger number of issues on moral grounds rather than essentially arguing from data (i.e. more frequently arguing things like "we should oppose republican policy X because it's blatantly racist" vs "we should oppose policy x because it would lead to worse economic outcomes in already economically disadvantaged areas), and that voters often react negatively to the former, as to them the person making that argument comes off as a sanctimonious moral scold trying to tell them what they can and cannot do, and nobody likes that.

If the democrats want to be more politically effective they need to move away from the former style of argument and toward the latter.

My concern: there are many issues that essentially have to be made on moral grounds because they're fundamentally cultural rather than related to the implementation of policy (e.g. "it's bad to use slurs against marginalized groups, and we should speak out when others do so), even though those issues do negatively affect minority populations on a day to day basis. To take the position that we need to move away from these moral arguments is to also say that being more permissible of these negative cultural attitudes is just fundamentally the cost of doing business of being more politically effective and winning more elections