THESE BE THE IMMORTAL IMMUTABLE COMMANDMENTS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (ok they're not really immutable nor do they necessarily have religious backing but bear with me here. I just want an excuse to write an authoritative-sounding list out of my areas of expertise and just mere curiosity.) 
 1) Humans are not predominantly rational actors. In the majority of cases, rational justifications are made after the fact, and emotions and feelings are predominant in value judgments. Our bodily states can affect our moral judgments. Furthermore, our social conditioning affects our developing morality as well, from our environment, and especially parental influence. 
 Example: Babies have feelings but they cannot reason. Psychopaths (in the clinical sense, not the suave media sense) can reason, but they cannot always feel. 
 For further reading: see David Hume, Antonio Damasio, Wilhelm Wundt, Josh Greene. 
 2) Morality is not based solely upon fairness and the ethics of harm. Based on further examples from evolutionary psychology and a broad survey taken over the internet, Haidt has identified six broad categories of ethics. There are: 
 -CARING for the vulnerable and shunning the cruel 
 -FAIRNESS in treatment and defending the exploited, against greed or cheating 
 -LOYALTY to a group and against traitors 
 -AUTHORITY or respect to social hierarchies 
 -SANCTITY or cleanliness, against impurities of body or mind. 
 2A) Haidt, referring to the American political spectrum, identifies which foundations of morality apply to liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. 
 -LIBERALS emphasize the ethics of caring and fairness 
 -CONSERVATIVES refer a different ethic of caring and fairness, but also to loyalty, authority, and sanctity 
 -LIBERTARIANS place almost no emphasis on none of the above, and are primarily interested in PERSONAL FREEDOM. 
 PERSONAL QUESTION: How could a liberal candidate appeal to a conservative base and convincingly portray LOYALTY AUTHORITY and SANCTITY? If conservatives become a minority within a plurality, would they even need to? Refer to popular liberal reformers such as FDR + learn their appeal. 
 3) Our moral principles form a societal framework and a 'group coherence'. Religion is not necessarily a supernatural means of explaining world phenomenon, but also a means of forming cooperative SOCIETIES which share a common moral code. 
 3a) 'New atheism' ignores parts of this, either focusing on the supernatural effects of religion and myth, but also the oppressive effects of a majority on a minority, and when different belief systems interact non-peacefully. This is not to say that their criticisms are wholly without merit, but their case is deeply overstated. 
 (See also: Durkheim). 
 CONCLUSION: The differences between those who hold different political or religious beliefs are exaggerated by incompatible frameworks for understanding the world. Therefore, it is necessary to expand upon an idea or framework which is held in common, and expand upon this commonality to prevent expulsion. 
 But is such a thing even possible?