I agree with you in general, but I think we have to define more clearly the group you refer to as "conflicted voters" (perhaps you do this in your books--I need to check those out).
1. Let's omit the hardcore Trumpish. I live in Marjorie Taylor Greene's district, so I know these people fairly well. They were Trumpish before Trump jumped into politics (with the birther hoax); he simply gave them a voice and a rallying cry. They've defined their tribe, and even the possibility of death (e.g. from going unvaccinated) won't persuade the majority of them to change their beliefs / allegiances. Our only hope with this group is to reach out their children. Any messaging effort should appeal to people too young to vote, even if their parents are hardcore Trumpish.
2. Although Democratic strategists should not ignore Black people or take their support for granted, there are probably very few "conflicted" Black people, especially women. Still, Democratic messaging should not ignore the numerous and diverse concerns of Black people; a show of gratitude for their support wouldn't hurt either.
3. I think we can ignore White people who don't self-identify as progressive but who are concerned about systemic racism; they are also likely to be aware of economic inequality and the various subterfuges of the Republican party to conceal the economic oppression of their agenda.
4. So, if my assumptions are valid, the most likely groups to appeal to are largely White, Hispanic, and Asian voters who don't identify themselves as progressives (liberals) or as conservatives. They may not even see themselves as moderates. Rather than donning a monolithic battle helmet, they probably feel strongly about a number of concerns.
It's not that these voters are internally conflicted between left / right, Democratic / Republican ideals, and I think that restricting the reframing solely to economic analysis won't be very effective. Race is just one of the dog whistles / wedge issues that Republicans use to appeal to the tribal instincts of these groups. The War on Women, for example, is used to appeal to voters who are ambivalent about or perhaps even opposed to abortion. Yes, it's true that the ultimate goal of Republican strategists is to protect the .1% by convincing voters that Republicans are concerned about "the right to life," but I don't think reframing the recent assault on Roe v. Wade as an economic issue (though it is) will work, because the equivalence probably won't make sense to most voters in this group. Rather, a more productive reframing would be to expose the "right to life" campaign as a corollary of the rape culture that Republicans have on occasion defended outright, or to show how Republicans seek to derail programs that protect children. Marjorie Taylor Greene seems to see no conflict between her anti-abortion screed and her support of a politician accused of paying for sex with an underaged young woman, and apparently Greene's supporters, many of whom are in this "conflicted" group, don't see the problem either--no one is bringing up the contradiction, so why should they?
There are many other "issues of conflict" that should be addressed. Unfortunately Democratic strategists aren't particularly good at developing a plan to address diverse and complex viewpoints. "We're anti-Trump" won't do it, nor will a nuanced explanation of the fallacy of the Laffer curve. Bernie Sanders tried this approach, and he never won over the "conflicted voters." We're a big tent party, but that requires convincing all the diverse people under the tent that they have something in common and at the same time that their diversity will be respected.
The only ray of hope is that the Republican strategists are just as blindered and just as inflexible in terms of rhetoric. If we can expose the numerous dangers of their platform, we have a chance.
