By Maurice Tamman | NEW YORK
After a brutal week for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Democrat Hillary Clinton maintained a substantial projected advantage in the race to win the Electoral College and claim the U.S. presidency, according to the latest results from the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project released on Saturday.

If the election were held this week, the project estimates that Clinton's odds of securing the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency at more than 95 percent, and by a margin of 118 Electoral College votes. It is the second week in a row that the project has estimated her odds so high.

Macdoc wrote:Wonder who her pick for new supreme court justice will be ??

scott1328 wrote:I foresee four more years of a republican congress wasting time, and thwarting every action Clinton attempts including any and all Supreme Court nominations. I see the house attempting to impeach her starting on November 8. I see numerous attempts to repeal Obamacare, and other odious legislations that Clinton will be forced to veto.

scott1328 wrote:I foresee four more years of a republican congress wasting time, and thwarting every action Clinton attempts including any and all Supreme Court nominations. I see the house attempting to impeach her starting on November 8. I see numerous attempts to repeal Obamacare, and other odious legislations that Clinton will be forced to veto.

Byron wrote:

scott1328 wrote:I foresee four more years of a republican congress wasting time, and thwarting every action Clinton attempts including any and all Supreme Court nominations. I see the house attempting to impeach her starting on November 8. I see numerous attempts to repeal Obamacare, and other odious legislations that Clinton will be forced to veto.

Yup.

After the nadir of the Obama years, the Dems desperately needed to nominate a candidate who could heal relations between Congress and the presidency. Instead, the nom's a GOP hate-figure. Eight years of stalemate's the good outcome (though for practical reasons, I expect the Senate will confirm a Justice if she nominates someone conservative enough, or at least, solid on the 2nd Amendment).

purplerat wrote:Who were the dems going to nominate to appease the GOP in congress? Short of nominating an actual Republican I think it's a pipe dream to think the GOP would work with anybody from the other side.

I much prefer to have somebody who has zero fucks to give when it comes to making the GOP happy. We could have used some of that out of Obama the last 6 years.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

scott1328 wrote:I foresee four more years of a republican congress wasting time, and thwarting every action Clinton attempts including any and all Supreme Court nominations. I see the house attempting to impeach her starting on November 8. I see numerous attempts to repeal Obamacare, and other odious legislations that Clinton will be forced to veto.

I am afraid I will have to agree with you.

Byron wrote:

purplerat wrote:Who were the dems going to nominate to appease the GOP in congress? Short of nominating an actual Republican I think it's a pipe dream to think the GOP would work with anybody from the other side.

I much prefer to have somebody who has zero fucks to give when it comes to making the GOP happy. We could have used some of that out of Obama the last 6 years.

Some centrist suit from the Midwest would've had a decent chance (spitballing, say Joe Donnelly), but failing that, even Sanders had a long record of working constructively with Republicans in the House and Senate.

If Obama didn't give zero fucks in the beginning, he sure doesn't now. May get the base riled up: responsible government, not so much.

Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed by the Governor General-in-Council, a process whereby the governor general, the viceregal representative of the Queen of Canada, makes appointments based on the advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. By tradition and convention, only the Cabinet, a standing committee in the larger council, advises the governor general and this advice is usually expressed exclusively through a consultation with the prime minister. Thus, the provinces and parliament have no formal role in such appointments, sometimes a point of contention.

Macdoc wrote:
They are retired at age 75

The Supreme Court Act limits eligibility for appointment to persons who have been judges of a superior court, or members of the bar for ten or more years.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:We might go blue for the Presidential election for the first time since slavery, but down-ticket still looks very bloody from here.

Byron wrote:

scott1328 wrote:I foresee four more years of a republican congress wasting time, and thwarting every action Clinton attempts including any and all Supreme Court nominations. I see the house attempting to impeach her starting on November 8. I see numerous attempts to repeal Obamacare, and other odious legislations that Clinton will be forced to veto.

Yup.

After the nadir of the Obama years, the Dems desperately needed to nominate a candidate who could heal relations between Congress and the presidency. Instead, the nom's a GOP hate-figure. Eight years of stalemate's the good outcome (though for practical reasons, I expect the Senate will confirm a Justice if she nominates someone conservative enough, or at least, solid on the 2nd Amendment).

Sciwoman wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:We might go blue for the Presidential election for the first time since slavery, but down-ticket still looks very bloody from here.

Although in many areas of the country with tight races down-ticket, the Republicans are worried that the "Trump effect" could swing those races over to the Democrats. Quite a few Republicans are scrambling to distance themselves from Trump before elction day.