Newsweek: we're such shit journalists that we don't know what overhauls means and probably meant to use "overtakes".
(Just to be clear, this wasn't a copy error on the poster - the article title is literally that)
I was imagining her giving him a combination makeover and tune-up 😆
Slap a little eyeliner on him just like his boy Vance.
I had to look it up, but using overhaul with the meaning of overtake is apparently valid. It sounds odd to me, and I've never actually heard it used that way, but Merriam-Webster validates it.
Oh weird, I even asked around with some of my linguistically minded coworkers and nobody was familiar with that expression. I wonder if there's a region where it's a more common usage.
Language is always evolving, never static. A dictionary and the definitions are backwards looking always. Dictionaries are always trying to keep up with the evolutions of language, but they'll always lag behind.
Just keep in mind that words change how they're used over our lifetimes, and it never stops.
E. G. Irregardless is now a valid word, when 15 and 20 years ago it was people mixing up regardless or irrespective so now I don't even get that high horse anymore 😉
I'd believe that overhauls in this sense means that they have completely restructured/breathed new life to their campaign and thus gained favorability
They have since overhauled the headline.
Ha! They did mean "Overtakes"!
That and they could have directly said she's ahead by 9 points amongst independents.
Think less like a person trying to get your point across in a clear manner, and more like a person trying to generate clicks for money.
I thought maybe she fired Trump and Vance.
I would
I'm still concerned Trump is going to win.
That is a valid concern. We need to work hard for the next 90+ days to prevent that.
He is a cornered animal and will fight more the closer we get to November.
The fucker is already offering retirees "free" money by cutting taxes on Social Security income, which will blow a $1.6 trillion hole in the budget and increase the pace at which the entire system dries up and leaves us out to dry. And the scary thing is, some of these old idiots will fall for it.
Shit's gonna get crazy if his polling keeps slipping.
Social Security income shouldn't be taxed, period. But billionaires should cover the difference, not other working Americans.
I don't disagree, but anyone who thinks that's what Trump and his cronies are proposing is delusional.
I would be all for not taxing Social Security, and using taxes on the rich to pay for it.
I mean why are we giving them money to just take it away. It's a Ronald Reagan thing, so that's why it benefits the rich and kicks the poor.
So, let's fix it! Great idea!
It was implemented under the Amendments of 1983, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support to save a program very much running on fumes. Two of the major compromises were a multi-decade increase of the retirement age (for Republicans) and an increase in payroll taxes (for Democrats). The tax on benefits took effect in 1984 and was designed only to impact upper income retirees. Then Clinton's Congress added a second income tier for taxation in 1993, and the income tiers have never been adjusted for inflation, so like the minimum wage it puts pressure on lower and lower income Americans the longer it goes unaddressed while the value of a dollar falls. In essence, the regressive burden is very much due to the failure of every Congress since that time to clean up the requirements.
To lay it at the feet of Reagan is...to put it mildly...overly reductive. Also you know damn well "fixing it" isn't what Trump has in mind.
Yes, we all should be. Make sure to vote.
It seems like there have been a lot of hints that he's scheming to win in spite of the popular vote, through electoral vote and certification shenanigans, maybe an attempt to just make the situation muddy enough in enough different ways that it goes to his stacked Supreme Court in a manner partially reminiscent of the bullshit that installed GW Bush in 2000.
The country should have taken up arms in 2000 when a Repub SCOTUS illegally decided the election for the Repub candidate.
Possibly, but regardless vote. Force them to make that move and show their hand. Don't just hand it to them.
That's a completely valid fear even if the predicted outcome was a landslide - the potential damage to our political stability is immense if he wins election. (He also might actively accelerate climate change and break a bunch of shit arguably more important than the American state).
(He also might actively accelerate climate change and break a bunch of shit arguably more important than the American state).
Might? Also don't forget the impact on the geopolitical balance of power a Trump presidency would mean, especially at this precarious moment in time.
The race was 60/40 Trump and now it's 50/50. It won't get to more than 60/40 Harris ever. Either candidate winning is an extremely realistic scenario.
Because the US has a fucked up system where a small state vote is worth more than a vote from a populous state.
It should be a simple popular vote and that's it. Kill the electoral college and hopefully the Overton window will go left when no Republican president is elected for a few cycles.
I think the Dems know that, but we need a real majority and we haven't had that since... Clinton? Obama had blue dog democrats and Biden had his two senators holding him up. We also are more willing to than ever to go with simple majority, too, which helps.
It would really turn the tide though, no way Dems aren't considering it if we can get enough votes.
This is the energy I'm going to hold onto.
He'll claim he won regardless of the actual results.
Me too, there’s a real danger of electoral votes rigging and election results not being certified in an expected manner or timeline
Sure, but there's still absolutely a threat that people just don't vote for Harris. We need to actually win the election before we worry about anything after it going wrong. Assume the votes actually matter, and prepare for them not to. Don't assume they won't matter and not vote because that makes it so they don't even have to cheat and be exposed.
List of polls for battleground states: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris
Wow. Rasmussen is down to a Trump +5. He's in trouble.
For those that are curious their final polling for 2020 had Trump+1 but the actual popular vote Biden had 9% more votes than Trump.
Yeah, Rasmussen always leans heavily Republican.
cool cool cool. When does she keelhaul him?
Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Newsweek:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-poll-independents-donald-trump-1936028
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News