The Democrats might not have voted in favor of repeal en masse if Bill Clinton would have opposed repeal, though. Thus, the Glass-Steagall Act might not have actually been repealed in this TL (well, at least not under Bill Clinton).Even if Clinton vetoed the repeal, it still would've passed the senate by a large margin. Maybe Hillary could do better in 2008 if her husband is more popular with the activists.
That might very well depend on whether or not Al Gore (officially) wins the U.S. Presidency in 2000 in this TL. After all, if the Glass-Steagall Act isn't repealed under Clinton's watch, then it might very well be repealed under the watch of a future Republican U.S. President (such as George W. Bush).According to conservative economists, repealing Glass-Steagall led to the 2008 Recession. Does Clinton keeping Glass-Steagall delay the recession?
Actually, I'm not so sure about that; after all, as I previously wrote here:Clinton's veto gets overridden (it passed 99-0 in the Senate), so he looks weak at the time, but in the future he looks more wise than his times in hindsight instead of being considered culpable for the problems that resulted later.
Sure. Likely though there are enough defectors getting banking money to push it through. It would be much closer, but I don't see it getting blocked honestly. If it doesn't for some reason get through it wasn't much more than a formality at that point considering how much commercial and savings banks were linked as it was:Actually, I'm not so sure about that; after all, as I previously wrote here:
"The Democrats might not have voted in favor of repeal en masse if Bill Clinton would have opposed repeal, though. Thus, the Glass-Steagall Act might not have actually been repealed in this TL (well, at least not under Bill Clinton)."
According to conservative economists, repealing Glass-Steagall led to the 2008 Recession. Does Clinton keeping Glass-Steagall delay the recession?
As far as I know, you might be correct in regards to this. After all, it's not like many Democrats are not the tools of big business either; indeed, these Democrats might simply be more subtle and less open about it than many/most Republicans are.Sure. Likely though there are enough defectors getting banking money to push it through. It would be much closer, but I don't see it getting blocked honestly. If it doesn't for some reason get through it wasn't much more than a formality at that point considering how much commercial and savings banks were linked as it was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Glass–Steagall_Act