WI: Democrats Do Slightly Better in the 1996 Congressional Election?

I was reading a fairly interesting article on Gingrich lately, one which claimed that he nearly cost the Republicans the House in 1996, and that the Republican Majority was only saved by allegations of campaign impropriety on the part of the Clinton administration. That wondering what might have happened had the Democrats done ever so slightly better in the congressional race. Looking at the record, there were a surprising amount of fairly narrow Republican wins, victories in which the Republican candidate won by about 1-2 percent of the vote, a very close margin by the standards of Congressional elections. If the Democrats won all of these close races, if I have the tally correct, they would have had eight additional seats in the House, and consequently, the Republicans would have had eight less. The result is that the Republicans would have a majority of 220 to the Democrats 214.

I know doing better in House elections is difficult, and what I'm proposing probably needs a hundred little points of divergence to work, but for the moment let's say the Democrats manage to pick up those eight additional seats.

What impact, if any, does this outcome have on Bill Clinton's second term, and afterward? Does this force Newt out faster? Would Clinton still be impeached? Going by the math, the President would probably avoid one charge, obstruction of Justice. But the perjury allegation would still pass. But than again, the altered result may so have changed the dynamic as to make any ideas about that untenable.
 
I don't think Gingrich would be out. This is the first time since before the Great Depression that the Republicans retained their majority in the House (though they lost the popular vote).

The Democrats take control of the House in 1998. This is some major legislation passed IOTL:

With a Democratic House, it's possible there are different bills passed. I'd say Al Gore has a mildly higher chance of election due to that, but 2000 was so close it could easily go as OTL. The Republicans still hold the Senate 54-46 (sorry Jim Bunning, your victory was so narrow it's likely to be butterflied away), so nothing too different will happen.



If Gramm-Leach doesn't go through, then that's huge. Huge.
 
I think the attempt to depose Gingrich in 1997 gets more support but I don't know if they get enough support. The impeachment fails on the house floor.
The Democrats keep a narrow majority until 2002 ( There would be enough support from Democrats for the Bush tax cuts to pass.) but get back in 2006. o Of course losing it again in 2010.
 
I think the attempt to depose Gingrich in 1997 gets more support but I don't know if they get enough support. The impeachment fails on the house floor.
The Democrats keep a narrow majority until 2002 ( There would be enough support from Democrats for the Bush tax cuts to pass.) but get back in 2006. o Of course losing it again in 2010.
I don't think the 1997 attempt will succeed. Armey would still kill I think, because he can't be speaker.
With a butterfly net, yes. However, it's easier for the legislature to kill things in committee. Gramm-Leach and the Bush tax cuts would probably be passed anyways, but I could easily see them dying in a Democratic committee.
 
I think the attempt to depose Gingrich in 1997 gets more support but I don't know if they get enough support. The impeachment fails on the house floor.
The Democrats keep a narrow majority until 2002 ( There would be enough support from Democrats for the Bush tax cuts to pass.) but get back in 2006. o Of course losing it again in 2010.

Gingrich argued against his overthrow, saying that if he were to be removed in the way the coup supporters wanted, there'd be an election to replace him, and conceivably that could lead to Gephardt being elected Speaker. Here, that might be a better argument, since the Republican majority is so thin.

On Impeachment, if we are talking simple math, Clinton is still impeached on the perjury allegation, but the obstruction of Justice allegation does fail. So there'd be a single article of impeachment. Clinton is still acquitted. Of course, this assumes that the extra Democrats vote party line on that issue, which seems to be a reasonable assumption in that case.
 
(sorry Jim Bunning, your victory was so narrow it's likely to be butterflied away),

Good riddance, although Bunning's entire senatorial career was so inconsequential that this won't flap a single butterfly's wing...

...until 2010, when incumbent Sen. Daniel Mongiardo is probably a stronger candidate versus Rand Paul than OTL's Jack Conway, who closed the polls for a while in September, but ultimately faded, lost national support (and money) and lost by 11 points.
 
Good riddance, although Bunning's entire senatorial career was so inconsequential that this won't flap a single butterfly's wing...

...until 2010, when incumbent Sen. Daniel Mongiardo is probably a stronger candidate versus Rand Paul than OTL's Jack Conway, who closed the polls for a while in September, but ultimately faded, lost national support (and money) and lost by 11 points.
Sen. Scotty Baesler, actually, but yeah.
 
Top