WI: Bill Clinton opposed welfare reform

What if Clinton refused to sign any welfare reform bills, instead saying, "The Democratic Party is the party of the poor, not the party of people who want the poor to go bankrupt"? Would this effect the results of the 1996 election, or the results of subsequent elections? Would it effect nominees in future elections?
 
There were more than enough Senators who voted for the OTL bill to override his veto. In the House, there weren't enough, so he might have had a chance at killing it, and I think he'd have won re-election regardless. That said, I wouldn't underestimate the chances that this revelation would just push more Congressmen to vote for the bill to make sure the veto is beaten. I don't think this would change too much in the future, though that's speaking from a perspective where welfare was taken off of discussion after 96, so it might have retained salience for longer without a Republican victory.
 
While Clinton could have vetoed the bill he actually signed, he could hardly have "refused to sign any welfare reform bills" given that he had campaigned in 1992 on the promise to "end welfare as we know it."
 
While Clinton could have vetoed the bill he actually signed, he could hardly have "refused to sign any welfare reform bills" given that he had campaigned in 1992 on the promise to "end welfare as we know it."
Oh I didn't know he said that during the campaign. I know he changed a lot of his policies after the 1994 midterms on the advice of Dick Morris to outflank the GOP on a lot of issues. Perhaps 1996 could be a little bit closer if he didn't,
 
Top