Summary
Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign failed to connect with low-income workers due to a perceived lack of listening, according to AFL-CIO, the largest federation of labor unions in the US.
While union members largely supported Harris, many low-income voters backed Trump, swayed by his messaging on economic insecurity.
Despite Biden’s pro-labor policies, including infrastructure investments, the AFL-CIO now faces challenges under a likely Trump presidency.
AFL-CIO emphasized labor unions’ resilience and commitment to fighting rollbacks while advancing organizing efforts.
With public approval for unions at a near 60-year high, the labor movement plans both defensive and offensive strategies to protect workers.
Trump told people they were struggling and only he could fix it.
Kamala told people the economy was rebounding and they were gonna create more opportunities for the middle class.
People didn’t give a shit about what opportunities they were given. They also didn’t give a shit about a rebounding economy because none of them were feeling things getting better. Media kept saying real wages beat inflation finally. Only after 3 years of insane inflation where wages in no way kept up.
So sure, the economy is better than it was, and better than the rest of the world. But the shock happened and nothing was done to actually help the people that were suffering. Instead they were told by Democrats that ‘it could have been worse! And it will be worse under Trump’ basically admitting they weren’t really interested in helping.
So Trump, despite him not actually caring or really planning to do anything about it, stayed on message with something that resonated to voters. While Kamala assumed people wanted to start businesses? People can’t afford food but sure, let’s talk about how they have some opportunity to open a mom and pop shop across from Walmart.
She literally said, “I will go after price gouging,” which is 100% the reason prices are so high, but instead, the media focused you on starting a business. The whole price gouging thing was absent from every news article. The only time you heard it was when she spoke live. Absolutely wild.
This message fell flat. She’s the vice president, the message should have been I’m working with the AG now to investigate price to gouging, and will continue that when elected. Also the end result is just the government getting a small settlement check, that means fuck all to people.
Do… You know what the Vice President does? And she should have done all of this while she was campaigning?
If the vice president can’t be the figurehead of a taskforce in a friendly administration for an important campaign issue, they aren’t qualified to be president.
Watch this and you’ll understand.
https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04
One of the frustrations was that they would be talking about how the economy was doing great… if you were a homeowner. The inflation was also in things like rent which they have no intent on really addressing, but disproportionately gets omitted from broader stats regarding inflation despite people getting $500+ rent increases shortly after the end of the COVID eviction protections.
Can you give an example of Kamala saying that? I know Biden did, but I am pretty sure the campaign attempted to avoid this messaging.
I don’t have a citation for you of Kamala saying exactly that- but yeah that was more a Biden line.
The message was weak though. The policy was fairly limited-- like limits on gouging in emergencies-- and not expressed in terms of a tangible achievable metric. And it’s not like we have direct economic control that would allow for specific deliverables-- how exactly are you goung to get Kroger to bend the knee? A fine that’s 12 seconds of their turnover?
‘I’ll get the 99-cent Taco Supreme back’ (or the $2 gallon of milk/dozen eggs) would have helped-- a graspable specific rallying cry. “We’ll tax gougers back into the stone age” maybe too. ISTR there’s some rightwing scumball in Canada who achieved most of his political rise by literally campaigning on $1-per-can beer. Again, a tangible goal, and one more achievable because there’s direct state controlled alcohol sales in much of the country…
How the F does Trump get away with “concepts of a plan” while she should have the exact metrics in place for a very complex new policy. Are you seriously claiming that she would have attracted more voters if only she had been more precise about how to solve price gouging?
Not necessarily precise, just a more resonant presentation. She didn’t have a killer sound bite. If details actually mattered, we’d be in the closing months of the second Warren administration after all.
I literally saw scads of signs saying “Trump - Low Prices/Kamala - High Prices” and one that specifically claimed “Want $2.15 gas, vote Trump.” She didn’t counter well at the slogan/vibes level. There was no “Harris/Walz/$2-per-pound ground beef” signage.
It’s also an audience problem. The Democrats, as incumbents, were stuck with higher expectations. They couldn’t pad their numbers with low-hanging “I just want different” and “let’s burn it all down” crowds, so they have to chase voters who are harder to activate.
Right. She also said she wouldn’t do anything different from Biden. Whose public-facing opposition to price gouging consisted of “knock it off, guys”
Harris: ‘i will go after price gouging by firing the person actively going after companies price gouging…’ and you believed her? 🫨🫠😮💨
Source?
I wouldn’t say Trump stayed on message, but he included it enough in the insane rambling.
The problem is that Harris was from the incumbent party and administration at a time of deep dissatisfaction with the economy. That’s an extremely difficult position to be in, and it’s made all the worse for her because as VP she gets all the blame by association but can’t really do much personally to adjust policy. She’s handcuffed to the status quo at a time when the vast majority want change.
Biden and Harris both chose to try to defend the status quo and spin things as more positive. This waa a mistake. I don’t know if they would have won by acknowledging the problems and portraying this as them leading through a time of crisis, and how they have plans to get us through, but it probably would have had a much better chance.
It also didn’t help that most of the things they did to address the economic woes were either indirect or only narrowly targeted (or canceled out by courts). News that a factory will eventually open and add jobs in one area doesn’t alleviate the concerns of the vast majority of voters, nor does processing student loan forgiveness for a few thousand people at a time under very specific programs. These things are good, but they don’t make most people feel better the way a more broadly applicable benefit would.
This interview with Sarah Smarsh is good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC-VkbEpac4
She says that the Republicans were the party that validated working class voters’ pain, even if the rest of what they said was a pack of lies and they plan to help the rich and harm the poor. The Democrats didn’t even get this far: they repeatedly ignored working class suffering while insisting the economy was good and making promises to help the “middle class” (whoever that is these days). Given the choice between one party that says “we hear your pain” and another that says “you’re too ignorant to realize things are actually going well” it’s not surprising which party got the working class votes. It’s just a shame the Republicans don’t actually plan to help these people.
It wasn’t just not validating, Trump was allowed to just promise no taxes on tips or overtime without getting called out on blatant false promises. Harris just went me too on that.
That was a legitimate weak point. Trump said no tax on tips and she just added that same plan to her platform instead of calling out that i.) Trump was not going to follow through and ii.) raising the minimum wage is much better than removing the tax on tips.