AHC: Clinton resigns in January 1998

I think that President Gore wins in 2000. He can't run in 2004. If Hillary still runs for the Senate, she is still in her first term. Just as in OTL she does not run. I think it could be a good Democratic year. The economy was good. If Gore was unable to stop 9/11, then the Democrat could use the War on Terrorism to his or her advantage. The Democrat loses in the economic collapse of 2008 to I assume Mitt Romney. Romney or whomever lose in 2012. There would not have been a stimulus package so the economy is worse.
 
Most of Madoc's last post belongs in chat, because it's basically "Republicans are responsible for the Clinton economic boom." I think that argument is demonstrably false, but since it's not really relevant to the TL here, I'm not going to respond to it here.

However, there is one point Madoc tries to make that I think deserves emphasis:

At this point Bill Clinton's record is not all that stellar. His big push in his first term was health care reform as led by his wife. That turned into such an epic disaster that it cost the Democrats the House. AND it burned any hope of actual health care reform for an entire generation. That's not much to crow about for Bubba.

The only problem with this argument is that Clinton's approval ratings were in the high 60s/low 70s at precisely this time So, yes, 30% of the country agreed with you -- in rather the same way that 30% of the country today thinks Obama is a Kenyan Marxist who plotted 9/11. However, the evidence demonstrates that pretty much everyone else in the world -- moderate Republicans, centrists, and Democrats -- all felt exactly the opposite.

With the GOP in control of the House they throttled Bill Clinton to the point that he finally retreated from his liberal economic policies and gave it up for the Republicans. That brought about a definite economic boom for the nation. In OTL, Billy Jeff was exceptionally adroit at laying claim to that boom as his own. This, when it was actually due to the Republicans forcing their economic agenda upon him.

You've unwittingly scored an own goal here. Since we're talking about the political implications, it doesn't matter if Clinton "deserves" the credit for the late 90s economic boom or if he "stole" it from the Republican Congress; so long as Clinton actually gets the credit -- which he did IOTL, and you've given no reasons why he wouldn't ITTL -- then it redounds to Clinton's political advantage.

I could add that your argument is wrong both in terms of public policy and history, but again: it doesn't matter. You've conceded that voters were ready to credit Clinton for the economic upturn in his second term; that -- plus the actual data showing that voters did in fact do so is enough to support my argument that those same people are going to be mighty pissed that a minority of right-wing ideologues have driven that President from office over something that each and every one of them have also done (that is, have affairs and lie about them).
 
There will be fallout for both parties, and I think voter frustration and apathy will be stronger during the season. A lot of the races become close because voters don't feel like going to the polling booths, dissatisfied with both the Democratic presidential administration and the Republican congress. Anyone who thinks either side would have much of an edge is either making too many assumptions or knows a lot of things that I don't :p
 
Would this diminish the DLC's influence in Washington?

I think the DLC is still ascendant; after all, their central thesis was that the Democrats would continue to lose big by nominating classic old-school liberals (McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis) and can only win by nominating centrist southerners.

Gore -- who spent his entire political career up until 1992 staking out a very DLC-friendly voting record -- is going to reinforce that, even though obviously Gore ran considerably to the left in 2000 (and drifted further leftward afterwards). Recall, too, that Ralph Nader quadrupled his vote total from the prior election to nearly 3% by arguing that there was no meaningful difference between Bush and Gore.

So the bottom line is: I think the DLC remains the dominant wing of the Democratic party in TTL; perhaps even more so if (as I suspect) Gore wins rather convincingly in 2000 and there's no George W. Bush to reinvigorate the political left.
 
There will be fallout for both parties, and I think voter frustration and apathy will be stronger during the season. A lot of the races become close because voters don't feel like going to the polling booths, dissatisfied with both the Democratic presidential administration and the Republican congress. Anyone who thinks either side would have much of an edge is either making too many assumptions or knows a lot of things that I don't :p

My God... could that lead to an opening for the Reform Party?
 
So if Clinton resigns in January of 1998, what happens to events in Kosovo? Does the US still have the guts to bomb Yugoslavia into the ground without a Clinton presidency? And when did Clinton made his de-regulation decision?
 
In this case, I think Gore wins in 2000 as an incumbent with his own record (although a very small one) as President to run on. I have a feeling the presidential line of succession in this chain of events would look something like this:

42. Bill Clinton (D-AR)/Al Gore (D-TN): 1993-1998
43. Al Gore (D-TN)/Bob Graham (D-FL): 1998-2005
44. John McCain (R-AZ)/George Allen (R-VA): 2005-2009
45. Joe Biden (D-DE)/Brian Schweitzer (D-MT): 2019-2017
 
In OTL, Billy Jeff was exceptionally adroit at laying claim to that boom as his own. This, when it was actually due to the Republicans forcing their economic agenda upon him.

In January 1993, the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent. By December 1994 it had gone down to 5.5 percent. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

"It was in the spring of 1994 that the U.S. economy finally reached "escape velocity": GDP growth surged and the number of jobs created (3.85 million) set a record that has yet to be surpassed as of 2015." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s_United_States_boom

All this was *before* the Republican Party took control of Congress.
 
Top