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.

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I don’t have a citation for you of Kamala saying exactly that- but yeah that was more a Biden line.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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…

      • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        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?

        • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      She literally said, “I will go after price gouging,” which is 100% the reason prices are so high

      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”

    • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Harris: ‘i will go after price gouging by firing the person actively going after companies price gouging…’ and you believed her? 🫨🫠😮‍💨