Carville is talking political strategy, and it's a mistake to think this is a simply young/old thing or to equate it with appeasing racists. You can make an argument that it is, and it probably rings true in a perma-blue state. But that argument makes people tilt their head in confusion in the Midwest.
Yeah - his political strategy is "appease old people." Meanwhile, the argument "my neighbors are real people and yours aren't" is beneath you. 36% of Washingtonians identify as Democrats. That, of course, beats the tar out of the 18% who identify as Republicans but that is due in no small part to the fact that the Republicans ran a speedbump from nowheresville whose principle qualification was refusing to enforce a gun ban so why the fuck would you bother. Carville is stuck in this red v blue checkers game that he won in 1992 by going Republican Lite when the real question is "can you make people under 30 hold their noses long enough to vote for someone James Carville thinks will win." I don't have many conversations about who to vote for. My conversations? Across the board? Are "should I vote at all."
California was reliably Republican until they decided to profile brown people. Arizona was reliably Democratic until Barry Goldwater encouraged military families to move in. Eventually it, too, became too racist to persist. you know what a "swing state" is? It's an ephemeral political abstraction weaponized to disenfranchise the coasts. Swing state Michigan: "Deep red" Texas:
