John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Figured this was timely moment to review this potential PoD.
Some choice comments from last discussion:
Some choice comments from last discussion:
WI Clinton Impeachment Succeeds (Removed or Resigned)
- Thread starter John Fredrick Parker
- Start date
Well, Al Gore would become President. Whether he could win election is hard to say. Yes, he would be coming off of a tainted legacy, but on the other hand, it would be coming off of the heels that the first successful impeachment was for something as such. The Republicans would have to deal with a troubling economy and with the problems of 2008. Even if they do get elected in 2008, their fiscal policies would ensure their wipeout.
Of note would be that Clinton-like Democrats would pretty much lose popularity. Maybe additionally to some more Blue Dog candidates, but after the Recession, the Democrats would likely swing more to the left and without Clinton's prestige to serve as a buffer, it would have more success IOTL. Sure, the GOP could win in 2008 (if barely), but by 2012, they would be utterly creamed.
Furthermore, the Democrats would likely be less willing to be so cooperative with the Republicans, giving them some needed fire to push back rather than go along with them.
Of note would be that Clinton-like Democrats would pretty much lose popularity. Maybe additionally to some more Blue Dog candidates, but after the Recession, the Democrats would likely swing more to the left and without Clinton's prestige to serve as a buffer, it would have more success IOTL. Sure, the GOP could win in 2008 (if barely), but by 2012, they would be utterly creamed.
Furthermore, the Democrats would likely be less willing to be so cooperative with the Republicans, giving them some needed fire to push back rather than go along with them.
Aa I wrote in 2018:
***
Driftless said:
Regardless of what he does, Gore probably takes a fall, based on perceived guilt-by-association.
I totally disagree. I think President Gore would have a much better chance of winning in 2000 than candidate Gore did in OTL (and even he almost won). (I assume that Clinton would only resign if there were a plea bargain keeping him out of prison, so no pardon would be required.) Journalists would gush about the "refreshing change" in the White House (Gore's "strong marriage" etc.) In OTL, Gore felt a great need to disassociate himself from Clinton in 2000--hence the choice of Lieberman (he may have helped a little with the Jewish vote, but he managed to lose a debate with Dick Cheney...); hence a populist "the people versus the powerful" campaign which really didn't suit a party holding the White House in a year of prosperity. He would not face that same pressure with a couple of years in the White House and his own record.
Monicagate did hurt Gore in OTL in 2000--not only (as I said) by making him choose a probably not-optimum campaign strategy, but also because, although voters opposed impeachment, they did show strong personal (though not job-performance) disapproval of Clinton, and this helped Bush with his claim he would "change the tone" in Washington. In this ATL, Gore would already have changed the tone for a couple of years, and Clinton having been out of office for a couple of years would be much less of an issue--while the peace and prosperity the US enjoyed under Clinton's administration would continue.
In other words, think of Gerald Ford in 1976 with no Reagan primary challenge (I don't think Gore will get a major one), no Nixon pardon [1], and a much better economy. (In November 1976, unemployment was at 7.8%, compared to 3.9% in November 2000. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt) As it was, Ford almost beat Carter...
I have long been convinced that the Republicans in trying to drive Clinton from office and the Democrats in trying to keep him there--though acting understandably given the views of each party's base--were both acting against their party's interest, at least as far as the 2000 election was concerned.
(One other reason I am convinced Gore would win: he would not send Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba--he opposed the decision in OTL. I happen to think sending him back was the right thing to do but Florida's Cuban-Americans thought otherwise, and they did take it out on Gore despite his announced break with Clinton on that issue.)
[1] Even if I am wrong in thinking that Clinton would only resign if there were a plea bargain keeping him out of prison, I still don't see any pardon from Gore, precisely from the lesson of what had happened to Ford after the Nixon pardon.
***
Driftless said:
Regardless of what he does, Gore probably takes a fall, based on perceived guilt-by-association.
I totally disagree. I think President Gore would have a much better chance of winning in 2000 than candidate Gore did in OTL (and even he almost won). (I assume that Clinton would only resign if there were a plea bargain keeping him out of prison, so no pardon would be required.) Journalists would gush about the "refreshing change" in the White House (Gore's "strong marriage" etc.) In OTL, Gore felt a great need to disassociate himself from Clinton in 2000--hence the choice of Lieberman (he may have helped a little with the Jewish vote, but he managed to lose a debate with Dick Cheney...); hence a populist "the people versus the powerful" campaign which really didn't suit a party holding the White House in a year of prosperity. He would not face that same pressure with a couple of years in the White House and his own record.
Monicagate did hurt Gore in OTL in 2000--not only (as I said) by making him choose a probably not-optimum campaign strategy, but also because, although voters opposed impeachment, they did show strong personal (though not job-performance) disapproval of Clinton, and this helped Bush with his claim he would "change the tone" in Washington. In this ATL, Gore would already have changed the tone for a couple of years, and Clinton having been out of office for a couple of years would be much less of an issue--while the peace and prosperity the US enjoyed under Clinton's administration would continue.
In other words, think of Gerald Ford in 1976 with no Reagan primary challenge (I don't think Gore will get a major one), no Nixon pardon [1], and a much better economy. (In November 1976, unemployment was at 7.8%, compared to 3.9% in November 2000. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt) As it was, Ford almost beat Carter...
I have long been convinced that the Republicans in trying to drive Clinton from office and the Democrats in trying to keep him there--though acting understandably given the views of each party's base--were both acting against their party's interest, at least as far as the 2000 election was concerned.
(One other reason I am convinced Gore would win: he would not send Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba--he opposed the decision in OTL. I happen to think sending him back was the right thing to do but Florida's Cuban-Americans thought otherwise, and they did take it out on Gore despite his announced break with Clinton on that issue.)
[1] Even if I am wrong in thinking that Clinton would only resign if there were a plea bargain keeping him out of prison, I still don't see any pardon from Gore, precisely from the lesson of what had happened to Ford after the Nixon pardon.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Regardless of whether Gore wins the 2000 Election, does the successful removal (or resignation) of Clinton, over the specific acts he was impeached for OTL, have any longer term effect on the American Presidency, or US politics more generally?
I have a sense that initially folk in the establishment thought that Clinton was more damaged than in fact he was when the Lewinsky issues came out. He might resign
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I think a very healthy effect!
We as citizens of a free republic start to get over the adulation, arguably even the worship, of the President. I remember this fellow from the UK saying, Me thinks you elect a King. Well . . . me thinks the fellow from the UK is correct!
The Newt Gingrich-GOP strategy to the '98 midterms was to nationalise the election which would bring an overwhelming victory for the Republicans and greatly increase their majority in both the House and Senate, which in turn would force Democrats to either call for President Clinton's resignation or vote for impeachment and removal for self preservation reasons.
That didn't happen with the Senate staying the same with three seats flipping for each side and two of the Republicans losses were from the biggest critics of Clinton, D'Amato of New York and Faircloth of North Carolina and the Republicans lost seats in the House.
That didn't happen with the Senate staying the same with three seats flipping for each side and two of the Republicans losses were from the biggest critics of Clinton, D'Amato of New York and Faircloth of North Carolina and the Republicans lost seats in the House.
We hardly elect a “king.” The President has exactly as much power as his party and the Congress allow. Case in point, President Obama’s lame duck finish. Even Executive Orders, which some Presidents have used to rule by diktat when politics failed them, have a limited scope when Congress decides to enforce those limits.I think a very healthy effect!
We as citizens of a free republic start to get over the adulation, arguably even the worship, of the President. I remember this fellow from the UK saying, Me thinks you elect a King. Well . . . me thinks the fellow from the UK is correct!
The problem is a Congress that is too lazy and/or trigger shy to make firm decision in some matters. Dumping responsibility on the President wrt difficult and complex matters allows them to evade consequences on matters they think might not be a “slam dunk.” If things go well, they were standing behind the President the whole time. If they go badly, well...that decision was out of their hands. You should definitely re-elect them!
As for Gore, I’m skeptical about any change to the outcome. The result was paper thin and he would have distanced himself from Clinton regardless. Even Democrats who liked President Clinton thought he was pretty shady and sleazy in the end. I don’t see them being more motivated to vote for Gore by a successful Clinton impeachment. Maybe a bit of a boost as an “incumbent” could change the Florida outcome but I’m not so sure.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Would you agree that post-World War II in the field of foreign policy, the U.S. President has essentially been a dictator?
Now, domestic policy, we might use the 1986 Tax Reform Act as an example, with a fair amount of give-and-take between Congress and the President, and between Democrats and Republicans, producing a good though not perfect result, it’s an entirely different story.
Last edited:
There’s been a trend of increasing Democratic dissatisfaction with the institution of the senate IOTL as the parties have continued the long process of sorting themselves along ideological lines. This didn’t really even start generating think tank interest until the Bush II years, but the idea was germinating in the “serious” media earlier than that.
A senate ready to convict Clinton would hand that argument a really big data point much earlier on. Since, here in 2020, we’re right at the beginning of large numbers of people starting to take seriously the idea that the senate might be so last season, it’s hard to say what an early boost to this attitude would amount to. Especially without breaking into current politics.
To keep it general and not about the present, I’ll just say it is difficult an electorate to reform institutions that must themselves weigh in on reform. The image of a person lifting themselves off the ground by grabbing themselves by the hair comes to mind.
But time + pressure = change, and we’ve increased both in this equation.
A senate ready to convict Clinton would hand that argument a really big data point much earlier on. Since, here in 2020, we’re right at the beginning of large numbers of people starting to take seriously the idea that the senate might be so last season, it’s hard to say what an early boost to this attitude would amount to. Especially without breaking into current politics.
To keep it general and not about the present, I’ll just say it is difficult an electorate to reform institutions that must themselves weigh in on reform. The image of a person lifting themselves off the ground by grabbing themselves by the hair comes to mind.
But time + pressure = change, and we’ve increased both in this equation.
Sorta kinda? The Cold War led to (or exacerbated) massive abuses of authority, and not just by Presidents. It was damn near the Wild West, with agencies sometimes doing exactly as they pleased to beat the Soviets and prevent a domino effect. And even elements of the anti-war left or right, like libertarians, were cheering it all on. A perceived existential threat greatly distorted our politics and foreign policy.
But even then, there were constraints and consequences. Not every President got two terms and you can’t successfully impeach a “dictator” as we did with Nixon. Granted his sins weren’t all about foreign policy but still...
Abd there are other examples of Presidents not getting their way so...I’ll go with 70 percent foreign policy “dictator” and 100 percent too much ballooning authority. We seemed to be on the way to some course corrections post-Reagan but alas...9/11 happened.
But we’re getting off topic and I’m new here. Don’t want to make a bad impression with an early derail (is that a thing here?)