On Wednesday, Kamala Harris endured a major setback for her campaign by becoming the first Democrat in nearly 30 years to not earn the backing of the influential International Brotherhood of Teamsters union. 

As PJ Media’s Stephen Kruiser noted, the decision was driven by internal polling showing overwhelming support for Donald Trump among the union’s rank-and-file members. Despite this support, the gutless union bosses chose not to endorse either candidate.

But it’s still a huge win for Donald Trump. The last time the Teamsters remained neutral in a presidential race was 1996. Since then, they've thrown their weight behind Democrats for six straight elections. The last time they supported a Republican was George H.W. Bush in 1988. The significance of this is so huge that even the liberal media couldn’t sugarcoat it—outlets broadly acknowledged this as an embarrassing blow for Harris and a worrying signal for the Democrats.

Politico didn’t mince words, calling the non-endorsement "a sizable blow for Vice President Kamala Harris," while the Washington Post went a step further and called it “a blow to the Democratic Party. " The Post noted that the decision not to endorse her came two days after Kamala privately met with the union’s leaders to lobby for their endorsement.

The devastating nature of the non-endorsement for Kamala Harris was something that liberal media outlets couldn’t simply bury in their reporting—in fact, they didn’t even try.

Some outlets tried to spin this as a failure of both Trump and Harris to obtain the union’s endorsement. Over at Axios, the headline read, “Teamsters decline to endorse either Harris or Trump.” However, the outlet conceded in the second paragraph of their story that the decision “is a blow to Democrats, who have historically enjoyed the Teamsters' support.”

ABC News similarly framed the endorsement as "a blow for both candidates" but admitted that internal polling of union members showed "a nearly two-to-one preference for former President Donald Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris."

Newsweek didn’t even try to put lipstick on that pig. “Kamala Harris Is First Democrat in Decades to Not Get Teamsters Endorsement,” read its headline.

Nor did the liberal rag Mother Jones, which conceded in its headline, "In a Win for Trump, Teamsters Endorse No One."

Even CNN couldn't deny the obvious.

Even @CNN can't deny the significance of @Teamsters not endorsing Kamala Harris. pic.twitter.com/JVapCii9Mp

— Matt Margolis (@mattmargolis) September 19, 2024

NPR highlighted how unprecedented this move is, reporting that "the Teamsters had endorsed every Democratic presidential nominee since Bill Clinton."

CNBC also pointed out that the "non-endorsement is a break from the union’s decadeslong [sic] tradition of backing Democratic candidates."

There are many more examples, but you get the idea. And now, Kamala’s campaign must grapple with the fallout. This non-endorsement is more than just a symbolic loss for her. It reflects a larger problem for the Democratic Party, where working-class voters are recognizing that Democrats aren't actually looking out for them.