This stuff about realistic politics is kind of old when it only seems to apply to one side. What compromises did the Democrats make with Obamacare? None. They had a filibuster-proof majority and rammed it through over near-unanimous opposition. They might have pretended to remove certain ideologically offensive things, which went right back in by executive order afterwards, like the reproductive funding stuff. What is the Democrats' compromise on immigration? Why should the Republicans compromise on that issue, when it is entirely and wholly to the benefit of the Democrats, as the immigrants overwhelmingly vote their way? Where is the compromise on judicial appointments? A Bush appointee upheld Obamacare, Reagan appointees wrote the opinion that upheld Roe V. Wade. Reagan appointed O'Connor & Kennedy, neither of whom was consistently conservative, Bush I appointed Souter, and Bush II appointed Roberts (and would have appointed Harriet Meyers instead of Alito if the Party had not revolted). What Democrat-appointed judge has been anything remotely like centrist, or cast a "conservative" vote since Byron White? The federal government only grows, the spending only expands, and entitlements only increase. There is no "give and take" between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans give, and a Democrat is considered a sell-out because he agrees to "take" a little slowly. The Democrats' idea of compromise is to let John McCain or Olympia Snowe propose a bill advancing a left-wing policy or agenda. Any attempt to adhere to a conservative principle is roundly denounced by those who claim objectivity, Republicans who do so are called stubborn and unrealistic...but when did a right-wing agenda on the scale of Obamacare get run through against adamant Democratic opposition?

Democracy is nothing more or less than the will of the majority. If a Trump or Cruz gets sufficient support in Congress, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to run through an immigration security bill or something similar, nor any reason to feel bad about doing so. Neither Obama nor Clinton ever showed the slightest remorse or consideration for Republican feelings when making their appointments, but when a Republican is in the White House and has a majority in the Senate, suddenly every newspaper editorial is demanding that the Democrats be allowed to have a say on Supreme Court vacancies. Republicans' intentions to block a Supreme Court appointee by a lame-duck president, who lacks the votes to force it through along party lines, are denounced as obstructionist, if not something akin to treason, but no one called the Democrats to task for unsportsmanlike conduct when they blocked Robert Bork. When the Democrats filibustered Bush's federal court appointees, the filibuster was an act of patriotic & honorable dissent. The labels "loyal opposition" and "obstructionism" differ only in their application, which depends on which party is attempting the exact same thing.