HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Impeachment Lessons: Wha...

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 10:43 AM

Impeachment Lessons: What saved Clinton from Nixon's fate


Pew Research wrote in 2009 (emphasis added):

The Public Saves President Clintonís Job

Of all the opinions that polls have tracked in the modern era, none has been more remarkable than President Bill Clintonís approval ratings rising on the news of allegations that he had carried on an affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. A Pew Research Center poll in mid-January 1998 found that 61% of its respondents approved of the way the president was handling his job.11 Two weeks later, Clintonís ratings spiked to 71%, reflecting public outrage over the way the media had prejudged Clintonís guilt.12 The same trend was recorded in Gallup and other national surveys. The Pew Research poll analysis found the public more discontented with the presidentís accusers in the news media than upset by Clintonís alleged misbehavior.13

The publicís unexpected rallying to Clintonís side led to a transformation of the Washington establishmentís judgment of his political viability. Before news of Clintonís polling boost, political insiders had all but written him off. Public support for the president allowed, if not encouraged, congressional Democrats to rally to his side.

The impact of Clintonís standing in the polls along with growing antipathy toward the presidentís accusers were also potent factors in the impeachment debate and the broader politics of that contentious midterm year. The public stood by Clinton through each chapter of the saga: his grand jury testimony, his admission of lying, the revelations of the Starr report, and ultimately the Republican vote to impeach him. He ended the year with a 71% approval rating. His party actually picked up eight seats in the House of Representatives ó an unusual occurrence for a second-term president, let alone one about to be impeached. It is inconceivable to think that public opinion could have had such an impact in an era prior to the emergence of the media polls.

15 replies, 708 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Impeachment Lessons: What saved Clinton from Nixon's fate (Original post)
Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2019 OP
wryter2000 Apr 2019 #1
Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2019 #2
world wide wally Apr 2019 #3
wryter2000 Apr 2019 #6
Tom Rinaldo Apr 2019 #4
Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2019 #5
uponit7771 Apr 2019 #7
Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2019 #8
uponit7771 Apr 2019 #9
Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2019 #10
uponit7771 Apr 2019 #11
Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2019 #14
uponit7771 Apr 2019 #15
NewJeffCT Apr 2019 #12
Bernardo de La Paz Apr 2019 #13

Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 10:59 AM

1. What saved Clinton

He hadnít done anything worthy of impeachment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wryter2000 (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 11:37 AM

2. Without convincing the public of that, he would have been convicted by Senate or resigned. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 11:46 AM

3. We already have 50% who don't approve of Trump.

I would be willing to take those odds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 02:32 PM

6. No way would enough Democrats have voted to remove him. n/t

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 11:48 AM

4. That's easy. The Piss Poor Case Against Him

That is why the public rallied to his side. The Republicans were nakedly political in trying to remove him from office over a matter that did not effect national security, did not involve obstruction (Clinton volunteered to testify to a grand jury under oath) and at most involved a single area of untruths concerning a purely personal matter.

Impeachment hearings against Clinton exposed the accusers, not their target. The evidence obviously did not support the proposed remedy. It was a massive Republican over reach. The case against Trump bears no resemblance to the anemic case against Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 01:36 PM

5. And the logical conclusions therefore are


1) To make sure the case against tRump is always about the facts, not spin. In interviews and commentary and social posts and chance conversation with pro- and con- people, bring it back to the facts.

When you have strong facts (as Democrats do), try the facts.

When you have no facts (as Republicons do), attack the judge, the jury, the court reporter, the investigators, etc.

This is what tRump is doing. He knows he is guilty so he attacks the ("Mexican" etc) judges, the media, the FBI, and so on.

2) Be ready to impeach quickly when the public opinion crosses 50% in favor of "removal from office".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 02:45 PM

7. Democrats didn't gain anything either in the 98 midterms and then lost the presidency in part cause

.... Gore ran away from the historically popular president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 03:41 PM

8. Wrong. Democrats gained five seats in the house and one governorship in 1998 midterms


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_elections

Article says Democrats gained 8 seats. Perhaps there were three seats elected other than Nov 1998.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 03:43 PM

9. They didn't gain the house or senate ... They did gain control of either



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 03:45 PM

10. It was best since 1822. That's a different story than when you wrote they didn't gain "anything".


With the Republicans having lost 4 House seats and failing to gain any seats in the Senate, it was the first time since 1934 that the non-presidential party failed to gain congressional seats in a mid-term election. [...] It was also the first time since 1822 that the non-presidential party had failed to gain seats in the mid-term election of a President's second term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 03:48 PM

11. Anything in terms of control not just seats, minority seats gets us little

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 04:02 PM

14. In this case it also got the resignation of Newt Gingrich. Not "little".


In November 1998, the Democrats picked up five seats in the House although the Republicans still maintained majority control.[12] The results were a particular embarrassment for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who, before the election, had been reassured by private polling that Clinton's scandal would result in Republican gains of up to thirty House seats.[12] Shortly after the elections, Gingrich, who had been one of the leading advocates for impeachment,[13] announced he would resign from Congress as soon as he was able to find somebody to fill his vacant seat;[12] Gingrich fulfilled this pledge, and officially resigned from Congress on January 3, 1999.[14]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 04:06 PM

15. Joy Reid cover both of these points on Sunday Gingrich was caught in and scandal sorry about sorry a

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 03:49 PM

12. The impeachment vote was in December 1998

A month after the election.

The impeachment trial was in 1999.

Republicans didn't hold any hearings before the election because the Starr Report had been leaked like a sieve over the previous few years and felt the Starr Report spoke for itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewJeffCT (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 22, 2019, 03:56 PM

13. That is correct, but impeachment was a big issue in the election


Since Ken Starr had already completed an extensive investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton's alleged wrongdoing, and it held no serious impeachment-related hearings before the 1998 midterm elections. Nevertheless, impeachment was one of the major issues in the election.

In November 1998, the Democrats picked up five seats in the House although the Republicans still maintained majority control.[12] The results were a particular embarrassment for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, -- Wikipedia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread