What if GOP leadership negotiates a surrender to Clinton?

Daily Caller article, so be warned.

I’m looking at this like I would a sports trade. Its an interesting idea. GOP leadership along with other prominent Republicans rescind their endorsement of Trump and give a full endorsement of Hillary Clinton. In return, they ask for a few things. The article mentions entitlement reform. A bi-partisan national security team. An immigration bill. An up-or-down vote on all of her first term SCOTUS nominees. Raising the federal minimum wage.

The only non-starter, I think, would be an actual SCOTUS pick. A new justice will sit on the court long after Clinton finishes her terms and given the first opportunity in 30 years for the court to swing firmly liberal, I doubt an endorsement of a winning candidate will mean much. As a liberal, I wouldn’t want Clinton to take that deal. Nor do I think Clinton would do it, but I’m pretty sure McConnell and Ryan would if they went through with this.

The other stuff like the reforms and bi-partisanship are things I think Clinton would do anyways. If I were her, I’d probably take that deal immediately if offered. Something like immigration would be just extra luxury on top of the sundae. I actually think the article is a bit one-sided. Why the hell would the GOP establishment offer to endorse her for those paltry (not counting the SCOTUS pick) concessions? I’d fully expect a craven turtle like McConnell to ask for more than just that. Something like the GOP endorsement for elimination of the estate tax, and/or suspension of all Wall Street regulations, and/or a “religious freedom” bill. Or something something abortion.

On the other hand, if Clinton had her choice, I think she’d willingly concede to reduce some taxes and make permanent some parts of the Sequestration spending limits.

Why would the Dems give them anything? Hillary’s pulling away. She doesn’t need their endorsements.

Yeah. We negotiate when you’re winning?

Maybe the idea is if she’ll pass these things, they won’t let those pesky “2nd amendment people” rough her up…

If they offered an end to obstructionism, Hillary might negotiate. But they can’t credibly commit to that.

An offer to endorse Hillary? Sorry, but that’s worth more to the Republican Party than it is to President Hillary Clinton. The Republicans have already shot themselves in the foot by nominating and endorsing Trump. Offering to go the hospital isn’t a concession: it’s just self-interest.

“Seeing as we’re losing, would you be willing to call it a tie?”

Sorry, the whole OP is non-starters from top to bottom.

Aren’t these things the Democrats want and the Republicans oppose? Why would they make a deal that contains “poison pills” for their own ideology?

Oh, and you won’t mind if we obstruct everything you do, and devote all of our resources to making sure you are a one-term president? That’s cool, right?

“Yeah, and the only entitlement we’re willing to keep is our entitlement to keep screwing with the political process long after it’s become demographically impossible for us to win elections without outright gerrymandering and voter suppression. That’s only fair.”

Aside from the fact that there isn’t much to gain for Clinton to negotiate when she’s up by seven points, its not clear the GOP endorsements are worth that much. If GOP voters followed the endorsements of their elected officials, Trump wouldn’t be the nominee and they wouldn’t be in this mess.

So the deal seems doubly worthless for Clinton.

“Nice candidate you’ve got here, shame if anything were to happen to her…”

You’re looking aty it wrong. In a sports trade, both sides have something the other wants.

Think of it more like a defense lawyer trying to plea-bargain an obviously guilty client.

“Sure, my client has continually called you a liar and criminal, and suggested you should be assasinated before you have a chance to nominate a Supreme Court justice. But, y’know, a trial’s going to be long and expensive, so how about we agree on probation.”

Do you think the GOP establishment actually wants Trump to be president at this point? The whole premise of this deal is that they don’t, but will use the fact that the other side wants it even less in order to extract some concessions. In that sense it’s rather like the whole debt ceiling debacle, “we’ll get something that we want, and in return you’ll give us something that we also want.”

Oh, except for most of the country that isn’t big liberal coastal cities, where actual you know, majorities of these pesky things called “voters” get a say. It may be flyover country to you, but they get to send a lot of people to Congress, and have a real voice, even if they aren’t trendy enough to wear skinny jeans.

I’m not convinced that the democrats are going to dominate the elections, but the longer Trump stays in the race, the more likely that becomes. And if she finds herself in that position, fuck it, let the republican party burn in hell.

I’ve been saying it for a while: the nation needs to follow California’s lead. One party rule. Democratic executive with a democratic super majority after years of do-nothing Grover Norquist politics. The state actually has budget surpluses and jobs growth. We need the same. We can get it if voters stop believing in superstitions and vote with facts.

Yeah, they keep a pretty tight grip on the kinds of places I’ve always lived through gerrymandering and voter intimidation, er, identification laws.

You’re saying there’s a lot of gerrymandering in Iowa and Nebraska? Why? To separate the German-Americans from the Polish-Americans?

Also, there’s a REASON they’re not wearing “skinny jeans” that has naught to do with trendiness. Just saying.

Except there’s no evidence of any of this. Plus I’d love to know how you gerrymander the large number of states with only 3-4 congressional districts, or how much voter id laws affect the states with only a few percent black voters. Democrats aren’t popular there with the population no matter how you cut it up on a map or cut it up racially.

Jamie Weinstein is the author of the Daily Caller piece. To his credit, he retweeted some of the reflections offered by the twitter crowd:

I normally don’t post opinion pieces from conservative blogs but watching them flail helplessly is kinda funny.

@MisterMetokur Is the Daily Caller now the Sweden of conservative media sites?

This is pathetic

I voted for Ted Cruz myself, but Weinstein’s proposal is…well…beyond dumb.

If HClinton is on this gliding path, why in the WORLD would she agree to these demands? ?? Man, the delusions here

@TuckerCarlson This guy has lost it. [mfm: Tucker Carlson is Weinstein’s boss.]

Proof @dailycaller @Jamie_Weinstein and RINOs are all for your rights to be invalidated by Dem win. The Case For A Negotiated Republican Surrender To Hillary | The Daily Caller [/INDENT][/INDENT] https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein