What is a “real voice”? The folks you’re describing seem to be in the habit of sending reps to Congress who don’t represent their interests at all, and appear to be surprised and pissed off when they don’t. And after a sufficient number of election disappointments these same idiots get so pissed off that they nominate a cross between The Terminator and an out of control bulldozer as their presidential candidate, in some wild hope that this destruction machine will somehow make everything all better. You know what? I don’t care what kind of jeans they wear, I’d be more concerned that they have very little understanding of the source of their political and economic ills.
Except that Real Americans are only a majority in their own mind. The majority of Americans live in cities and that’s been true since around 1920.
"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. "
We’ll let you win as long as you allow us to do the most important thing that would happen if we won.
And by “we’ll let you win” we mean there’s nothing we can do that would stop you from winning.
Right now Hillary is on track to be POTUS and appoint a centrist judge to the Supreme Court.
The Republicans generously offer is to let her be POTUS if she promises to appoint another right-winger to the Court.
… With some counter-promises to be broken later (“Blame me not,” said the scorpion, in a supplicatory tone, “it is not my fault; it is that of my nature; it is a constitutional habit I have of lying.”)
I think The Daily Caller needs to give that writer a drug test.
As a liberal, no deal.
Conservatives have made plenty of hay trading on problems they created. No more.
Let’s revisit this after November.
#electionshaveconsequences
“That jury is coming back in 2 months and you could get nothing…”
“We made our case, you didn’t make yours, and we’ll take our chances.”
Inasmuch as the Republican Party appears to be getting behind the strategy of enticing unhinged people to assassinate Hillary Clinton, might I suggest that they are probably well past the stage of horse trading.
What is there to negotiate? The Republicans are stuck with a dumpster fire that they can’t extinguish (and even if they could they’d just lose the hardcore crazies and be as badly off as they are now).
Negotiate? How about “You lose! You get nothing! Good day, sir!”
The point of the article, I think, is that a widespread GOP endorsement still means something. For all the talk here about dismissing their support as nothing, we do hold up people like Susan Collins, and those 50 conservatives who signed a statement saying Trump would be a danger to the world as president, to be something of an outlier and meaningful. The individual doesn’t matter, what matters is the perception that Trump is losing everyone.
Let’s face it, this race shouldn’t be this close, and though the last week of polls is nice, I’m still worried. Trump could run all over Clinton with bullshit during the debates. Some attack could still happen. Wikileaks and Russia still has enough unreleased emails to fill a few weeks worth of news.
So why would Clinton want to do any deal? Simple, she’s smart enough not to give up too much. For example, the article says the GOP could get her to commit to a bi-partisan national security team. Well, Obama worked with Bob Gates, I’m sure Clinton would too, so this “concession” of hers would be something she wants anyway.
An immigration bill has been dead on arrival for the whole of Obama’s terms. Even if its filled with poison pills, the fact that we may be able to get the country talking seriously about immigration is a win for Clinton. I doubt she’d simply agree to sign whatever bill the GOP passes, the article mentions that a bill would at least be pushed through to, I’m assuming, the voting part, instead of dying in committee. So again, Clinton agreeing to work with them on an immigration bill in exchange for their endorsements is a win for her and for liberals.
3 months to the election and a lot can still happen. And even so, how confident are liberals that we can take back the Senate, or the House even? 50/50? Even less? If we assume that the crazy type of Trump voters are the base of these GOP Congressmen and Senators, then this deal would be a double blow: they’ll endorse Clinton, she gets a boost from independents, moderates, and conservatives who can’t stand Trump, at the same time the Teahadists desert the GOP by calling them RINOs and refusing to vote for them due to the betrayal, and the Democrats win back the House and Senate. I won’t say it will definitely play out this way, but even if there’s a chance, Clinton should entertain the thought at least
The Republicans chose their nominee at the RNC. If some of them, individually, come out against Trump, good for them.
Ms Clinton cutting a deal with the corrupt Republican party would betray her own followers. What about Bernie’s fans who’ve realized that she’s better than Trump? They wouldn’t be happy.
Let the remaining Republicans learn to work with President Clinton after the election. If they want to fix their party, it’s up to them.
Interesting question. Take a look at the way Iowa’s districts have been redrawnover the last 40 years.
Since Des Moines is the largest city in the state, and Polk County has enough people for half a district by itself, why is that area’s district constantly moved to cover different areas of the state? Wouldn’t it make more sense to always keep Des Moines and Ames together in the center of one district and adjust the rural district boundaries?
What new claims are out there? Suppose Wikilinks releases a bunch of emails that prove Hillary Clinton really is guilty of whatever the right wingers are claiming she did over Benghazi. It’s still old news. Anybody who’s going to be swayed by Benghazi revelations has already made up their mind.
The Republican problem isn’t that they need to convince people that Hillary Clinton is bad; they’ve already convinced people of that. Their problem is they need to convince people Clinton is worse than Trump. Even if the Republicans could produce evidence that Clinton has committed actual felonies, I think the consensus would be “Well, at least she’s been smart enough to get away with it all these years. I guess the country would be better off with a smart criminal in charge rather than a dumb one.”
That’s the image problem the Republicans face. This isn’t a battle of good vs evil. It’s a battle of competence vs incompetence. And everyone can see who’s running the incompetent campaign.
Skinny jeans are so out, man. And “Flyover country” is more often used as a badge of honor than in a pejorative sense. Cite.
(This was a hijack, but then again so was the preceding comment: Derleth was discussing politicians, not voters never mind hicks.)
She’s smart enough to know that whatever the Republicans agree to now, they won’t stick to after the election. Even if the Republican leadership intends to stick to the deal, they no longer have enough party discipline to enforce whatever deal they want.
I haven’t been paying attention and apologize for the digression, but when did the handcart to hell get turned around?
Thanks.
Any sort of deal that results in the implementation of Simpsons-Bowles is unacceptable especially if paired with a GOP-driven immigration “reform” bill that would expand “guest worker” (ie indentured servants) programs. Now if they just demanded stuff like a twenty-week abortion ban and national concealed-carry, Clinton should consider this but were she to accept this, it would be pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory. Obviously she won’t since she isn’t a retard, but were Clinton to accept this proposal I’d probably write-in Benjamin Butler’s name out of sheer spite.
Most Republican voters don’t from farms or even villages but small cities, suburbs, and exurbs.
Shockingly to many Jerry Brown in his second go-around has been very tight-fisted and disciplined about budgetary matters ( well, proposed bullet train aside ), to the point where his own party have been tearing their hair out a little in frustration. He’s sufficiently popular that he has basically been able to ride roughshod over the legislature and been largely immune to internal party pressure. Couple that with a few positive trends and CA has been doing rather better the last few years. All that could come to a screeching halt at any time of course, like if Silicon Valley pops again.
Frankly I’d happily vote for this incarnation of ‘Governor Moonbeam’ over either of our current two presidential candidates and not because I think he’d be more liberal than Clinton.
For me, the endorsement of people like Collins and the condemnation of those 50 conservative security advisors is important as vindication – “See? Even these Republicans see that Trump is a lying piece of shit.”
But what’s the real value of such statements? Suppose every major Republican endorsed Clinton – not Cruz-like “vote your conscience” but actual “vote for Hillary.” How many extra votes would that give her?
Personally, I’m thinking “Not that many.” The hardcore Trump supporters will vote for Trump. I think even if Trump himself tells them to vote for Clinton, they’ll decide he’s just joking (“That Donald! What a card! It’s just like the crying baby and the Russians hacking her and the 2nd amendment supporters could kill her!”) and still vote for Trump.
Yes, it would increase the perception that Trump is a danger to the world. But how much is that worth?
Especially when the Republicans would have to somehow finesse endorsing Clinton without it sounding like a general endorsement of the Democratic Party. The last thing they want is people thinking “Well, if you’re telling me to vote for a Democrat in the Presidency, why shouldn’t I vote for a Democrat in Congress too?”
The Republicans are basically trying to move away from Trump without moving towards Clinton.