Compromise may be an ugly word for the most radical supporters of each party, but something far more riveting is about to take form in Washington. President Obama is left to reap what his party has sown, fully aware of his party’s contrived attempt at distancing itself from him during the midterm election cycle. Obama at times has played the role of a crusader for his party, at times a bystander to the constant irresolvable ideological battle in the Senate between two parties, at times touting his sole executive power, but as the curtain is about to fall on his presidency, it is likely that Obama’s last role is going to be one of a renegade.

There is no question that Obama’s relationship with the establishment of his party is at its ebb. The party seems to have given up on him and is already basking in its excitement and anticipation for Hillary Clinton’s arrival in 2016. Even Clinton herself seems to be concerned about Obama’s vulnerabilities. Obama is an outcast, but the fact that his interests may not be aligned with that of his party anymore does not suggest that he has nothing else left to win. With the Senate wing of the Democratic Party’s public mandate officially rescinded, Obama has the chance to be a direct negotiator and turn his focus to improving his own legacy rather than embellishing his party’s. Combine this with what we know of the incoming conservative candidates’ profiles, and the stage may very well be set for a formation of a strange alliance between President Obama and the Senate wing of the Republican Party.

This possibility is augmented by the fact that facing the formidable force of Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Republican Party would much rather bring to the 2016 platform evidence of leadership and reform—likely in areas like immigration where progress would mean attracting the voter blocs that GOP is after—rather than another two years of gridlock. This is even more relevant if the Republican candidate, as most indications suggest, emerges from the Senate.

On the agenda for the Senate is the impending vote on the “tax extenders” (a series of tax breaks aimed at among others auto race tracks, wind energy, school teacher expenses, and multinational corporations that expired at the end of 2013). Support for renewing these tax breaks has not been unanimous on the Right, and it is likely that there is room for negotiations in the party. If a successful compromise is reached on this issue, immigration is likely to be the next goal. Running through the profiles of the incoming freshman senators makes this likelihood more evident.

In May, Joni Ernst of Iowa was able to earn a peculiar endorsement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an organization known for its strong support for comprehensive immigration reform. Tom Cotton of Arkansas found one of his earliest endorsements and biggest fundraisers in the Club for Growth PAC. The club has already shown its support for allowing the tax extenders to expire and has shown to have a more moderate stance with regards to that issue than Grover Norqist’s Americans for Tax Reform. Cory Gardner of Colorado has directly stated that he is open to including provisions such as the “earned status” in the comprehensive immigration reform bill. Mike Rounds of South Dakota was publically criticized by Senate Conservatives Fund for his pro-amnesty record. Add to all of this Rand Paul’s desire to run on a record of successful tax and immigration reform in 2016, and the possibility of future cooperation between the Senate Republicans and the White House seems far stronger.

These concessions, if made, are obviously not going to represent the current standing of the hardcore base of either party. Nonetheless, they will represent the spirit of states like Illinois where voters are calling for comprehensive immigration reform without any clear split between party lines, and Montana where people show support for a compromise on tax reform. (Sen. Max Baucus of Montana was in the midst of shaping a comprehensive reform plan before leaving the Senate).

There is no question that this alliance would serve both Obama and Senate Republicans’ interest. It is, however, equally clear that the only victim would be Hillary Clinton which now faces the possibility of facing a Republican Senator who is carrying his party’s message of successful reform rather than gridlock. Whether or not this will factor into Obama’s decision to work with the Republicans remains to be seen but given the current tumultuous relationship between the White House and the Liberal establishment, all signs point to the possibility that Obama is more likely to be concerned with his own record leaving the Office than helping his party in 2016. There is no doubt that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is disenchanted with the President; we’ll soon find out if the feeling is mutual.

Kia Rahnama is a student of international law at George Washington University. He frequently writes about politics and cinema and can be found on Twitter at @KRahnama.