There's some truth to that, but then the solution is to build more housing, not impose tariffs which only make houses and everything else less affordable.

Nobody was offering that option though.

For real, what would an election look like if one party was proposing building 5 million housing units, overriding local zoning when it's in the way, making preferential deals for bulk construction materials, training a workforce, and some mechanism to not erode existing equity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"some mechanism to not reode existing equity" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. 65% of the households are homeowners, who financially might easily be convinced they have nothing to gain and much to loose by building more housing.

Which also shows that lack of home ownership cannot be the driver of this situation. It might be one of the lies of the left, their "trans" story. Where I'm from the left is also pushing this housing narrative but it's not pulling in the votes, its impossible to solve, and i dont know if its the problem enough people have.

In the US the problems are at a state level, and the federal government mostly doesn't have the direct constitutional power to do anything.

Though details like what color your house is arguably are first amendment protected speech and so the federal government could do something (but out likely go to the supreme court - in turn depending on the justices not the election results.)

Why the poor look at the people sitting on giant piles of money, and believe them when they say that China took the money, is another story.

That explains one part of his base, but not the part that lives in McMansion suburbs.