The day after Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination for president, Moody’s Analytics released its analysis of her economic plan — which people were awaiting if only because Moody’s was so uncharacteristically savage in its dismantling of Donald Trump’s proposals that Clinton running mate Tim Kaine used it in his own acceptance speech Wednesday night.

And the news was good enough — but in an important way, incomplete.

Moody’s says Clinton’s plan would add 3.2 million more jobs by the end of her first term than current budget plans, and 10.4 million overall. The unemployment rate would be 3.7% in 2019, about half of what it would be late in Trump’s term.

“Secretary Clinton’s economic policies when taken together will result in a stronger U.S. economy under almost any scenario,” wrote Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi and two colleagues.

But the way this election is developing, one question matters most: Will the plan deliver for workers, mostly white and many older, who polls say are flocking to Trump, giving him his only plausible path to the White House?

Some things should help. A higher minimum wage — Clinton has proposed $12 an hour, and the Democratic platform calls for $15 — would reduce employment by 650,000, but higher pay would raise incomes for 14% of all workers by 13% on average, Moody’s writes. A planned push for infrastructure spending would add 800,000 jobs, mostly in construction, Zandi said in a follow-up e-mail exchange.

But not much about Clinton’s plan directly addresses people who work at the 1,400-job Carrier air-conditioner plant that’s moving to Mexico from Indiana, to pick one example. Asked about that specifically, Zandi said Clinton has proposed spending $10 billion a year on efforts including tax incentives serving areas that lose factories.

WSJ Opinion: The Khan Controversy

Tax credits “could be used to jump-start private-sector investment in places like Indianapolis that have been hurt by relocation of the Carrier plant,” he wrote.

Maybe, but no one ever staged a political revolution for public-private partnerships.

So Clinton needs to do two things.

First, convince at least some blue-collar workers that her agenda will help them. Then, eventually, tell less-skilled workers to face the fact they need more education and training, or at least that they must convince their kids to get it.

Also read:Blame the Trump voter for the drop in the labor force

On the former, Clinton has something to work with. Take the minimum wage.

A $12 floor, up from the current $7.25, would mean 336,000 Iowa workers — 22% of the state’s total — would get a raise. In Ohio, it’s 21%. In Pennsylvania, it’s 20%, according to Economic Policy Institute data. More workers who make a little more than $12 now would also get a bump to keep them ahead of lower-ranking colleagues, EPI says. These are more than enough workers to tilt close elections.

In each of these states — exactly those Trump needs, to offset Clinton’s edge on both coasts — at least 72% of those who would get raises from higher minimums are white, according to EPI. Many are 40 or older: 96,000 in Iowa (4,000 more than Barack Obama’s winning 2012 margin), 365,000 in Ohio (Obama won by 166,000) and so on.

You want to help white working-class people in swing states, convincing even older demos to love Trump less? Raising the minimum wage is a start, at least for Trump supporters who don’t — yet — tell pollsters Clinton is conspiring with Lucifer.

But these workers’ long-term wage problem isn’t trade deals, as Trump argues — it’s that their skills are growing obsolete. It takes two workers to make the amount of steel that it once took 10 to make. U.S. manufacturing’s dollar value is within 1% of all-time highs, but 7 million fewer workers do it. No one is changing that.

But a report from Goldman Sachs explains clearly how to help manufacturing workers even if you can’t save their old jobs — you send them to school.

The more routine and the more manual a job is, the fewer of them have been created, and the less their pay has risen, Goldman says — since 1979. And yes, it has hit less-educated men the hardest.

The politic thing to say, as Clinton has, is that the economy should work for people who don’t want college. True enough — for folks in local, service jobs.

But for hard-pressed workers in the middle — who are neither nannies whose jobs can’t be sent to Asia nor iPhone designers who write their own tickets — asking them to make their way without college or advanced training is like sending them to gunfights with knives.

That means the most important piece of Clinton’s plan is subsidizing tuition for in-state students at state colleges whose families make $125,000 or less. Every $1,000 shaved off college costs boosts enrollment by 3 to 5 percentage points, Zandi says, and low-income students are the most price-sensitive of all.

Clinton won’t cover rich kids’ Harvard dorms, but her plan would make sure kids she saw at a Youngstown, Ohio, high school on Sunday have $8,100 a year to attend Youngstown State. That would get them started.

Now, can she sell it?