You need to talk to more younger Americans in the working class... too many of whom are literally deciding to not have children, because they don't want to bring children into what they expect the world to be like. Yeah, this is real. Very disturbing, but real. Not "elites." Young Americans in their 20s and 30s, working in service industries. Young Americans learning about survival practices (farming, building shelters, etc.), because they recognize that our nice technological civilization could collapse around them. And by the way, a lot of them are angry about all this.
Ten years ago, climate change was the concern of elites - of people who understood the science, as well as of committed environmentalists (those who, in some cases, value pristine environment over any and all development). But that was ten years ago. Every time another community gets devastated by a "natural" event that is record-shattering, more "regular" people start asking what's going on, and getting answers they don't like, but cannot just dismiss.
Ten more years... this trend will continue. There's not much question that the political class will get with the program (probably bringing up the rear, since corporate money will discourage them as long as possible); the only questions are: 1) When? and 2) Will it be too late to matter?
And you know, you're correct that inexpensive energy has been a principal driver of economic growth. The trouble is, part of the reason that energy has been so "inexpensive" is that much of its real cost, long-term, has been externalized, dumped into the commons, for future generations to deal with. The world cannot avoid eventually paying for that - whether in the form of national and international programs to mitigate and adapt, or alternatively in the form of collapsing productivity and living standards, if we choose not to mitigate or adapt. One way or another, we pay.
You're correct that seriously addressing gun violence requires getting beyond "assault weapons," and recognizing that the "war on drugs," like Prohibition before it, actually generates criminal activity. But that said... I don't see the focus on "assault weapons" as a pet cause of elites, but rather as some people trying to get what they think is actually achievable, as opposed to pursuing an "ideal" that they don't think is politically possible. Kind of like wanting the Democrats to nominate Joe Biden (who might pursue some incremental changes around the margins, but who wouldn't rock any boats too much) rather than a "radical" like Elizabeth Warren. In a real sense, those who talk about assault weapons and expanded background checks are like Biden... as opposed to those who understand and talk about the real gun problem - say, Beto O'Rourke.
You recognize that Donald Trump and his immigration advisors (Stephen Miller) are just as opposed to legal immigration as to the illegal variety? That they have moved to drastically limit admission to real refugees? That they overtly indicate they want "Norwegians" to come here, as opposed to people in need? If you realize that our economic health requires immigration... you won't get that if you vote for Donald Trump, because they won't allow POC, or refugees from the third world in general, to immigrate here, and accomplished Caucasians from the first world aren't stupid enough to leave their advanced societies to come to the United States (with expensive health care, relatively poor social services, etc.). What Brit, Scot, Aussie, Norwegian, German, Frenchman, or New Zealander (or etc.) in his/her right mind would choose to emigrate to the United States in 2020? Under Donald Trump? Maybe a few revanchist German Nazis, but I wouldn't count on anybody else.