Interesting. Maybe give some examples?
The following is a list of US populist complaints, which Trump successfully addressed. (Don't up/down-vote based on whether you agree or not with the issues of the list, which I may or may not, just note that the points are important to enough people to vote a Trump into office.) In no particular order...
Facilitation/celebration of LGBQT (most people aren't, and find differing sexualities repulsive). Demands for "safe spaces" while eliminating the only long socially established safe spaces: sexually segregated restrooms. Taking taxpayer earnings and spending them on advocacy of opposing views. Reducing a sense of safety vs crime, while seemingly protecting criminals (this issue dominated by the US "gun culture"). Laying blame/responsibility for environmental issues on those thinking themselves not guilty (say, global warming). Stifling parental preferences in education (Common Core, lack of school vouchers, absolute intolerance of anything hinting of Christianity). Broad/unrelenting accusations of whites & males as invariably & irredeemably sexist/misogynist/xenophobic/racist/etc (say, Hillary's declaration of 1/4 of Americans as "deplorables"). Incredible growth of national debt ($10,000,000,000,000 in last 8 years, doubling all previous debt) with prospect of populace having to pay it. Lack of jobs (need for jobs has far outstripped creation of jobs). Overwhelming regulations, making compliance & cost untenable. Abortion being considered, on the whole, inexcusable murder of children.
Understand that classic US culture is deeply rooted in individual liberty & rights. Basically, taking someone's money to make them pay for something they don't want angers them; they'll put up with a lot, but once "enough!" hits they're prone to taking dramatic steps to end the offense. Also note that the USA is huge, having a broad range of views from coast to coast; what Hillary offered was "coastal" culture, while Trump appealed to "heartland", and with the Electoral College deliberately biasing Presidential elections toward populist views, the large number of central states won the vote.
I believe most people in the US are accepting of homosexuality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homo...
> 46 percent of respondents said transgender people should be required to “use the public restrooms of the gender they were born into.”
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/half-of...
It's hard work, but what I've found to work is this: Instead of getting into an argument, state what you believe and talk with them in terms of cooperatively finding out what claim is correct. Don't let your ego get in the way. Figure out what exact parts of the claim they believe (or disbelieve), and research those specific parts, with them present. For example, say someone doesn't believe in global warming. Maybe they just don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, or they misunderstand some of the evidence. Shouting that they're stupid (which I've done before, it's about as ineffective and childish as it sounds) won't work, because you aren't addressing their actual concerns, which they themselves might not be fully aware of.
This is slow, hard work, but it does pay off. You have to keep an open mind, and be 100% aware of your own behavior. If you are dismissive because of a value difference between you and the other persons cultural background, it's counter productive. Likewise, if you can't admit when you're wrong, then it doesn't work either. Admit when you don't know something, and that you are flawed and imperfect like everyone else. Take this as an opportunity to learn about your own beliefs.
A concrete example: A close friend believes some conspiracy theories (no AGW, moonlanding faked, etc.) I've successfully gotten him to go from the position of "Global warming is a liberal conspiracy" to "Climate change is a real and serious issue, but I'm not 100% on the evidence for it being man-made". This has been really hard work over a period of about a year, but it's worth it. I'm not done, but this is how it's gone so far. Any time he expresses his opinion about this, I'll express that I disagree. This usually leads to some anger on his part because people tend to get their opinions wrapped up in their identity and take disagreement as a personal attack. I 'll point that out if things get too heated. Instead of just saying "no" or "you're wrong", I'll say something like, "well let's find out. I could be wrong." A lot of times, he won't believe the research I pull up, or pull up a denier website. I go through the denier websites and investigate claims point by point. For example, quotes from people who have since changed their mind, cherry picked lines from studies, things like that. Most of the time, it didn't seem like there was any progress made that session, but the next time it came up, his opinion would be a little more nuanced, or his opinion would move a little away from the conspiracy.
It's slow, gradual work, but we are both more educated on many issues because of this. I feel the important thing is to treat their opinion as valid. Often when you investigate why people believe irrational things, you find that they believe them for rational reasons. People they respect believe that, they have personal experience that runs counter to the research, they distrust the source of the claim.
If you don't understand why someone believes something, you can't change their mind about it.
/rant
Sorry for the wall of text, this is something I deal with all the time. tl;dr: Change people's minds one person, one opinion at a time. Be patient and open minded. Research it with them, and make sure you are cooperating, not verbally fighting for dominance. Changing someone's mind is an incremental process. Emphasize being open minded and doing research instead of advocating "not believing crazy things".