1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

The Case for A Negotiated GOP Surrender to Clinton

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by rocketsjudoka, Aug 9, 2016.

  1. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    29,749
    Likes Received:
    3,977
    I don't think this would happen and at this point Clinton doesn't really have much incentive to do this but it's an interesting idea and if Clinton and the GOP Congress can essentially form a national unity government might be able to get some things done instead of continued gridlock.

    It would be a great legacy of Trump if he does succeed in uniting Democrats and Republicans together to get things done.

    OPINION
    The Case For A Negotiated Republican Surrender To Hillary

    It’s time for Republican leaders to consider a negotiated endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

    Barring a Wikileaks revelation showing Clinton to be a secret member of ISIS, she seems to be on a glide path to the White House. Instead of Donald Trump attempting to expand his base since securing the Republican nomination, he is politically self-immolating on a national stage. Trump apologists keep saying he will soon change course. But the only way for Trump to change course is to change who he is. That’s not going to happen.

    Meanwhile, Trump keeps humiliating the Republican bigwigs who reluctantly endorsed him, be it by attacking the parents of a fallen U.S. soldier or refusing to immediately reciprocate their endorsements of him.

    Why do Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other Republicans continue to allow Trump to sap their dignity, especially as it becomes increasingly clear he is going to lose? And even if he did win, what would there be to celebrate? Trump stands against so much of what conservatives have been fighting for since Ronald Reagan.

    So what to do? The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza recently posed an interesting question on Twitter.

    “What if Hillary offered Republicans one SCOTUS pick? Would that open the floodgates for skeptical Republicans to rescind support for Trump,” he asked.
    Why not go one step further? Given that Trump is on track to lose and given that his presidency might very well be worse for the country and conservatism than Hillary’s anyway, why don’t Republican lawmakers band together and see if they can come to some sort of deal with Hillary?

    More precisely, top Republican and conservative leaders should band together and offer Hillary a deal to rescind their endorsements of Trump and endorse her in exchange for some policy concessions.


    What would a possible deal look like, you ask?

    In exchange for an endorsement, Hillary might promise Republicans the right to choose whom she nominates to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. She should also be pushed to agree to some entitlement reform, perhaps in the form of Simpson-Bowles (not the best fix to our entitlement crisis, but better than anything Republicans can hope for when even the Republican presidential nominee rejects the need for entitlement reform). Maybe Republicans could even get her to commit to putting together a bi-partisan (or non-partisan) national security team to include widely respected figures like former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and retired Gen. James Mattis.

    In addition to a public endorsement, the Republican legislators might agree to do everything they can to push through a Gang of Eight-style immigration bill if Hillary is elected. They might also promise to do their best to get her an up-or-down vote on any Supreme Court nominations she makes during her first term. If she demands it, they even agree to help her achieve a federal minimum wage increase.

    This wouldn’t be a bad deal. In fact, it would be a pretty damn good deal given where the Republican Party finds itself.

    Ideally, the Republican delegation would include a wide range of respected Republicans and conservatives from both the establishment and anti-establishment, but for it to matter to Hillary, it must also definitely include Republican congressional leaders like House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (and as many other members of Congress as possible) who would actually be in a position of fulfill the commitments of a deal.

    The real question isn’t whether such a deal would be good for Republicans given their current circumstances, but why Hillary Clinton would even contemplate such a deal at this point? Every day, Trump seems to do something new to ensure he will lose in a landslide, and possibly take the Republican Senate and House with him. As the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg recently observed, he is not so much running a national campaign as a national speaking tour.

    Given all this, Hillary might say, “no dice. I am on track to win this election with possibly a Democratic Senate and even a Democratic House. I don’t need to come to any accommodation. Thanks, but no thanks.”

    But there are a couple reasons why Clinton might be inclined to come to an agreement. For starters, while Trump looks like he is tanking, you can never be so sure. A deal would make it more likely Hillary wins the White House, something she cares more about than any policy initiative.

    Beyond that, a deal could be good for Hillary’s presidential legacy. If she can enlist Republican support in achieving some of her big policy goals before she is even sworn in, why not take it? Even the entitlement reform plank is something deep down she must know is necessary. History would remember her fondly for breaking from party orthodoxy to achieve something important for the country.

    No matter who wins in November, conservatives have very little to look forward to politically over the next four years. A deal like this, fanciful as it may appear, would temper the pain.



    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/08/t...epublican-surrender-to-hillary/#ixzz4GrezEaMP
     
  2. CometsWin

    CometsWin JOSE URQUIDY - oor-KID-ee
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    25,292
    Likes Received:
    7,205
    I have to laugh that Trump is such a bad candidate that Republicans would consider capitulating the race to get their ducks in line for after the race. However, there's zero chance Clinton would or even should allow Republicans to make a Supreme Court selection. She may well have up to four replacement selections (Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer) to make in her four years in office. She has the chance to overturn Citizens United which is one of the most damaging decisions to American democracy ever.

    This whole thing is like downing the ball on the five yard line on your way to the end zone. No sir.
     
  3. larsv8

    larsv8 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    17,802
    Likes Received:
    4,915
    We do not negotiate with terrorists.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    46,967
    Likes Received:
    11,134
    LOL - This is not going to fly in about a gazillion years. Maybe offer ISIS a trade agreement while you're at it.
     
  5. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,319
    Likes Received:
    1,184
    Democrats definitely won't be taking control of the HoR anytime soon, nor will they take the Senate this year. So, it makes no sense for them to forfeit a SC selection for what could be another mediocre president and Simpson-Bowles.

    BTW, Hillary is leading by 7% in the latest Reuters-Ipsos poll.
     
  6. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    50,810
    Likes Received:
    11,092
    The Republicans have no leverage to work out a deal, they already nominated Trump for president essentially making Hillary the president. Hookers don't negotiate price after the deed is done for the same reason.
     
  7. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    29,664
    Likes Received:
    15,308
    How's this for a counter offer... she agrees to provide a list of four SC candidates (one might be Garland), and let them choose. They get to interview each of the four before choosing. She also agree to name one or two GOP key members of the cabinet. I'd actually be OK with Gates... or Powell.
     
  8. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,780
    Likes Received:
    990
    If liberal journalists and pundits could have narrowed their focus to Trump himself and not partially used it as a jumping off point for diminishing all the other candidates and the Republican party as a whole, it might have been easier for mainstream GOP strategists and officials to compartmentalize their ideology, platform, legislative strategy and national campaigning network from Trump's candidacy. This would set a bad precedent of requests to concede elections beforehand in exchange for legislative or judicial concessions down the road, a plague on all houses.
     
  9. txtony

    txtony Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    10,262
    Likes Received:
    3,602
    <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I guess this is why Republicans deluded themselves into thinking they could get a better Iran deal, too. <a href="https://t.co/JV3GJCT6lJ">pic.twitter.com/JV3GJCT6lJ</a></p>&mdash; Jeffrey Lewis (@ArmsControlWonk) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/762872134188150784">August 9, 2016</a></blockquote>
    <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
     
  10. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    39,711
    Likes Received:
    31,769
    The best Republicans could hope for is that the Clinton would agree to put Garland back up for nomination instead of someone more liberal.
     
  11. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    50,810
    Likes Received:
    11,092
    Basically yeah, things are about to get really bad for a really long time and the Republicans have only themselves to blame for it. You nominate someone like Trump, this is what happens.
     
  12. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,745
    Likes Received:
    29,186
    Yes, and in the current environment it is likely that Clinton pushes someone younger and more liberal.
     
  13. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    46,530
    Likes Received:
    14,039
    This doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell, Judo. I personally would be very much against it. One reason? Handing the GOP the selection of a replacement for Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court is the dumbest idea I've heard since the last time Trump opened his mouth. We have elections for a reason.
     
  14. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    46,530
    Likes Received:
    14,039
    I think Garland would make a fine justice on the Supreme Court. Clinton, however, will be able to fill more than one seat on the SC if we take back the Senate, in my humble opinion. After Garland? I hope she nominates a very healthy 45 to 50 year old Federal judge that's to the left of any of the liberals left on the court.

    (Sorry for the double post - should have parked this in the post above)
     
  15. bnb

    bnb Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    6,992
    Likes Received:
    314
    Because life isn't already humiliating enough for the non-trumpian republican base, you're suggesting their 'leaders' endorse Hillary Clinton! Apart from their inability to sway voters away from Trump in the primaries, that would pretty much be the final stake in the party's theoretical heart.

    I like it.
     
  16. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    46,967
    Likes Received:
    11,134
    I would renominate Garland just to set the precedent that Obama's nominee gets t in, regardless of the GOP's bullsh-t tactics.
     
  17. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    29,664
    Likes Received:
    15,308
    Agree on Garland. Plus, he has been a trooper in light of the republican stonewall.

    But the next opening? Sri Srinivasan and Jane Kelly were my two favorites before Garland was named. Both have already been approved by both sides of the aisle, and both our young. If neither of them, maybe Jacqueline Nguyen, Goodwin Liu or Lucy Koh.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. subtomic

    subtomic Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Messages:
    3,013
    Likes Received:
    266
    The article fails to clearly state how Clinton would benefit from such a deal. Would support from mainstream conservatives really ensure her election? And what's to stop republicans from continuing their obstructionism once they get their choice of Supreme Court justices?

    In any case, trading a Supreme Court nomination for Republican endorsements is a lot like trading a blue chip stock for some random penny stocks with a combined similar value.
     
  19. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    19,804
    Likes Received:
    3,614
    No negotiating with terrorists. She needs to drone their asses.
     
  20. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    11,076
    Likes Received:
    4,944
    not saying it shouldn't but it won't. the millions who voted for trump would never forgive them and they would all lose their next elections. they care more about themselves than a national unity government that helps us.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now