WI Juanita Broaddrick comes forward in 1992?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I fear you are all vastly overconfident in folks "doing the right thing".

Look at the supposed "gentle" treatment that Kavanaugh's accuser received IN 2018, after the #metoo movement took hold. We are talking 1992. There was not even a Federal "Rape Shield" law (passed in 1994, signed, at least as far as this thread goes, ironically by Bill Clinton) at the time.

Why didn't she report it when it happened? Why did she wait 14 Years? Why did you go to a rally, WITH YOUR HUSBAND (you know the husband you were cheating on at the time with your current husband) three weeks later? Why did you accept a job offer from then Governor Clinton a few months later?

The woman would have been rapidly torn to furless bits. Whether she was telling the truth or not would be so far from people's minds that it would have been revolting. It would have been seen a political dirty trick (as was the Paula Jones accusation at the time). This was only a year after the Senate burned Anita Hill at the stake, and the biggest issues dogging Hillary was that she used Rodman-Clinton as her business name while practicing law, and the fact that she wore headbands (I SO wish I was joking on that one, people acted like it was the Mark of the Beast).

If anything it might have HELPED the Clinton campaign as the voters saw the revelation as just one more desperate attempt to stop an outsider from beating all the insiders.

Very different time.

Yes, its Slate, but it tells the headband tale. https://slate.com/human-interest/20...air-attacks-from-the-headband-to-the-wig.html

The Horror that we must protect our children from seeing:

994cb75e-7d07-43f2-b5f6-a578ac0ccf40.jpg
 
If the Democratic nominee doesn’t do as well in the general election - whether it’s someone other than Clinton or not - and the result is that no candidate manages to win a majority of Electoral College Votes, then mightn’t it be possible for the House to deadlock on President* while the Senate elects the Democratic nominee for Vice President, effectively making the latter President?

*since each state’s delegation votes as a unit and each state is worth one vote, this is actually within the realm of possibility, even with the overall advantage Democrats had in the House overall
 
If the Democratic nominee doesn’t do as well in the general election - whether it’s someone other than Clinton or not - and the result is that no candidate manages to win a majority of Electoral College Votes, then mightn’t it be possible for the House to deadlock on President* while the Senate elects the Democratic nominee for Vice President, effectively making the latter President?

*since each state’s delegation votes as a unit and each state is worth one vote, this is actually within the realm of possibility, even with the overall advantage Democrats had in the House overall

President Gore in 1992 would be interesting.
 
If the Democratic nominee doesn’t do as well in the general election - whether it’s someone other than Clinton or not - and the result is that no candidate manages to win a majority of Electoral College Votes, then mightn’t it be possible for the House to deadlock on President* while the Senate elects the Democratic nominee for Vice President, effectively making the latter President?

*since each state’s delegation votes as a unit and each state is worth one vote, this is actually within the realm of possibility, even with the overall advantage Democrats had in the House overall

President Gore in 1992 would be interesting.

While I'm not 100% sure, going by when I asked that question on Space Battles during the 2016 Election, when the polls were closer, while Gore would be "in the Office", it wouldn't be as President, it would be as Acting President, similar to when George W. Bush went in for a medical exam and required medical sedation (the procedure required it, it wasn't anything special for him), he temporarily signed power over to Cheney as Acting President, under the 25th Amendment. Cheney didn't really do anything with it, but one thing he did do was write a letter to his granddaughter, and signed it as the "Acting President". As soon as the House finally voted a President in, he would "take over" for and replace Al Gore as the actual President.

As for who that would be, it would be a toss up between Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot, (going by the 1992 Presidential Election) nobody else who didn't receive any Electoral Votes would apparently qualify. Presumably, some of the states that went for Perot on Election Day in this scenario, would go with either Bush or Clinton in the House, but which, I don't know. Some might go with whoever came in second in their State, others might go for who they, personally prefer, rather than the State preference (if there are 1-3 Representatives for their state, they might be majority Democrat (2 Democrats, 1 Republican), but the 2 Democrats handling two cities, while the Republican handing the majority of the Rural Area, with him/her being more Conservative Leaning and the cities being more Liberal/Democratic Leaning).
 
The Dems either select a different nominee, or go down in flames. They are spared the price of hitching their wagons the Clintons for a generation, at the price of the 1992 election.

Which, in the end, may be for the best. Say what you will, but that combo of GOP Presidents and Democratic Congresses got a lot of work done. Plus, President Bush the Elder getting another term would have had some profound effects on foreign policy - the second Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe alone would have MASSIVE repercussions for the future of the USA, NATO, the EU and Russia.

Depending who the GOP nominates in 1996, they could win again, especially with the Soviets gone and the economy booming. Colin Powell (whom, since he's not running against an incumbent President, his wife tells him to run), Jack Kemp or Norman Schwartzkopf would win. Bob Dole or Dan Quayle would not.

Between Gary Hart and Bill Clinton, to say nothing of the Kennedies, the Dems are going to make damned sure to make sure nobody who can't keep it in thier pants ever gets near the Presidential nomination again.

Maybe Perot makes something of the Reform party this go around.

Hillary Rodham divorces Bill, and spends the next 30 years unsuccessfully seeking higher office, most notably, running in the Democratic primaries for a Senate seat in Illinois. She loses to some fella named Obama.
 
If the Democratic nominee doesn’t do as well in the general election - whether it’s someone other than Clinton or not - and the result is that no candidate manages to win a majority of Electoral College Votes, then mightn’t it be possible for the House to deadlock on President* while the Senate elects the Democratic nominee for Vice President, effectively making the latter President?

*since each state’s delegation votes as a unit and each state is worth one vote, this is actually within the realm of possibility, even with the overall advantage Democrats had in the House overall
Building off of this further, if the alternate nominee in 1992 is a non-southerner -- like Paul Tsongas or Bob Kerrey -- they'd be under more pressure to choose a southern running mate than Clinton was OTL. That (AFAICS) shortens the list to basically Al Gore, Ann Richards, or Bob Graham; and while Richards is obviously interesting, I think Graham is actually the most likely choice here.

Which means TTL could see Bob Graham becoming Acting President in 1993...
 
Let's say Broaddrick comes out in the general and Bush eeks out the electoral win. Most Clinton voters defect to Perot, and the election ends up being 41.4/30/28.9 Bush/Clinton/Perot - partisanship is a hell of a drug and I don't think it's crazy to think that 2/3 of Democratic voters would be sticking with Clinton here.

If the election goes to Congress, I don't see why it wouldn't go to HW. Neither party wants Perot (Independents set a bad precedent) and Clinton is too toxic on the whole.
  • For the Senate, which the GOP improved in that year OTL (56D-44R)
    • Richard Shelby won reelection that year but proceeded to change parties following the 94 Republican Revolution. He could be flipped.
    • Bruce Herschensohn only lost by 5 points to Barbara Boxer in California. Clinton could plausibly drag down Boxer.
    • Ernest Hollings (D) beat Thomas Hartnett (R) by 3.2 points. Give that to Hartnett.
    • Patty Murray beat Rod Chandler by 8 points. A 4-point swing gives it to the Republicans
    • Russ Feingold beat Bob Kasten by 6.6 points. I'd give it to Kasten.
    • Vermont, Ohio, and Colorado were all Democratic wins by below 10 points.
  • For the House, Republicans gained 9 seats OTL.
    • Looking at Congressional races, there were 32 that democrats won by a 7-point margin or less
    • Ergo, a 3.6-point swing on average across all races nets the GOP an additional 32 seats,
    • 226 (+1) - 208 D (+I) - R means that you have more state delegations that are red here and plenty of Democrats looking towards their next election who might opt to back HW or could just be persuaded to change parties or be persuaded.

Maybe Democrats cut a deal: HW is President but he is to be saddled with Gore as VP. It'd be a workable relationship and Gore would be heir-apparent for 1996.


For 1996, I think Kemp would have a bigger profile having been a 9-term Congressman, 3-term Conference Chair, HUD Secretary for 8 years now, and having some pretty distinct crossover appeal. Dole really didn't have much opposition in 1996, but here there'd be a fight for the nomination. I can't see anybody supporting Quayle within leadership as they know he'd lose. Kemp would probably need an FP-oriented VP: Cheney, Powell, Baker, or Schwarzkopf could work. Maybe he cuts a deal with Dole: you drop out and Liz gets to be VP. She'd have a Cabinet/Executive Branch Record of 15 Years + 6 years as an FTC Commissioner and would be a historic candidate if the ticket won.
 
Broadly speaking, I'd agree with a lot of the thrust of what CalBear said. I think some people are almost ludicrously overstating the impact this is likely to have. It's worth bearing in mind that when Broaddrick disclosed what had happened IOTL there was more or less essentially a collective shrug of the shoulders. That was after Broaddrick's allegation had been rumoured for some years and in the wake of impeachment, and when Clinton's electoral career was over, but it's not going to collapse Clinton's candidacy if it emerges during the general election. Broaddrick had Republican ties; I'm afraid it will just descend into a 'he said, she said' for a lot of people and the assumption that this is Atwaterite politics taken to the max. I'm not even convinced it would influence enough votes to narrowly swing the election the other way. If it emerges during the primary season though, I think that's something of a different story.
 
Last edited:
Top