Impeachment proceedings began in Dec.1998 after the midterms were already over. Most of the damage from the impeachment and Clinton fatigue was felt by Gore in the 2000 election.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Impeachment proceedings began in Dec.1998 after the midterms were already over. Most of the damage from the impeachment and Clinton fatigue was felt by Gore in the 2000 election.
Yes, I saw that. I don't think that single poll from the early date (December 1998) really gives an accurate picture of the effects of the impeachment and public perception. People are even remembering impeachment incorrectly thinking it came before re-election or before the midterms. It can be true that Clinton saw an initial bump in public polling right at the start of the scandal (c.Dec. 1998) but by the end of the scandal (c.1999-2000) people were sick of Clinton and his drama and the Republican impeachment did have some benefit for them.
"Personal image problems and fallout from Clinton administration scandals are contributing to Al Gore’s declining favorability ratings and his poor showing in early horse race polls. As the vice president has inched closer to the Democratic presidential nomination, his favorability ratings have fallen and he has slipped further behind GOP frontrunner George W. Bush in the horse race polls.
While general election polls taken at this point in the cycle are more often wrong than right (see page 5), Gore’s problems may be more enduring. Fewer Americans volunteer positive descriptions of Gore than did so just two years ago, and his favorability ratings are well below the 1987 ratings of Vice President Bush, who trailed the likely Democratic nominee at that time.
The patterns of response to questions about Gore may be more troublesome than the weak numbers themselves. Analysis of the latest Pew Research Center survey shows that attitudes toward Gore are more closely linked to Bill Clinton’s mixed personal ratings than to his strong job approval. The opposite pattern was observed for Bush and Reagan 12 years ago. The survey also finds that three-quarters of Americans say they are tired of the problems of the current administration — an attitude more closely tied to voter choice than are views of Gore’s likability or his sympathy for the problems of ordinary Americans."
https://www.people-press.org/1999/04/17/clinton-fatigue-undermines-gore-poll-standing/
"President Clinton appears to have worn out his welcome with many Americans. More than half of those surveyed (53 percent) said they are "just plain tired" of Clinton, a view expressed by many political independents and moderates, two swing groups that will be crucial in determining the outcome of next year's election.
The issue of "Clinton fatigue" is a closely watched – and vigorously debated – phenomenon as the presidential campaign of 2000 unfolds. Some earlier polls have found clear evidence that a scandal-weary public will be happy to see the Clinton presidency end.
The new Post-ABC poll confirms broad weariness with a president who has a high job approval rating but low personal standing following a succession of scandals that culminated in his impeachment last year."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/poll090899.htm
That reads a bit like an excuse from the campaign of a very boring and uncharismatic candidate.
What's most interesting is that the Democrats virtually repeated their own history after their last two term presidents. Gore's campaign was meant to be a coronation, much like Hillary Clinton's yet in both cases the party had its head so far up its ass that it couldn't see the Republicans for the trees allowing candidates that most would consider rank outsiders unfit for office to sweep to victory.
Its not. I lived through it as an adult. Gore ran an uninspiring campaign but people were also absolutely sick of the Clinton drama. If people really want to analyze the real effects of the impeachment of Clinton they can't just take a single poll from right at the start. That's nonsensical. You have to look at the results from polling, focus groups, stories AFTER the impeachment.
This quote from the poll sums it up:
"An overwhelming majority (74%) of Americans agree with the statement, “I am tired of all the problems associated with the Clinton administration.” This view is held by 77% of Independents and 64% of Democrats. "
That is about right. I lived through it too. People were thoroughly sick of the Clinton name and imo it’s never recovered.
Yeah, you're not the only one who was an adult during the Clinton years.
The details you quoted also cite "personal image problems" first and foremost; i.e. Al Gore's lack of charisma and personality were likely the larger contributing factor when compared to Clinton fatigue. Additionally, in the modern era American voters have a remarkable tendency to vote for the other side after two terms from one party with only a very few exceptions post WWII.
Did Bill's numbers go up or down after the failed impeachment ?
Not sure what you are saying. That the polls and other findings that 3/4 of Americans were sick of Clinton's scandals are all wrong because Gore was uncharismatic? I referenced multiple findings that all ask very specific separate questions about Clinton fatigue because it was a thing.
Why are you asking a question that has your answer in the post you quoted
"An overwhelming majority (74%) of Americans agree with the statement, “I am tired of all the problems associated with the Clinton administration.” This view is held by 77% of Independents and 64% of Democrats. "
The TV coverage of the impeachment proceedings tend to give people a sense of fatigue. He was still very popular when he left office (somewhere in the 60s). Gore was just a dull candidate compared to Bill so its no surprise someone like Dubya wound up competing well against him.
Again you are only taking a single data point and then conflating it. When you look at much wider arrangement of polling its not nearly as clear cut as reducing everything to a single statistic that may or may not even measure what you are implying it does. Its simply not true to claim impeachment didn't have a negative impact on Clinton
Let me try to clarify that for you, since it wasn't clear enough the first time around. Loser candidate (Gore) favours data that places the blame elsewhere (Clinton scandals) for his failure to win the election, for which a larger portion of blame can probably be placed on his own flaws (lack of personality, etc).
Then I said it was kind of funny that the Democrats virtually repeated the same thing after their next two term President; that is, fielding an undesirable candidate and laying the blame elsewhere when they lost, with the caveat that modern American voters have a tendency to want radical change after a party holds the presidency for two terms.
For the record, plenty of people were sick of the Republican party and Ken Starr's actions, too. And all that because of a blowjob.
That point doesn't apply though. I am referencing independent polls from Pew, ABC, Washington Post, NY Times that were taken before the election happened. They are measuring Clinton fatigue which was a thing at the time. Being sick of the Republicans isn't mutually exclusive to being sick of Clinton as well.
Other data like poll from 2 weeks before the election: 17% of people saying Clinton campaigning would help them vote Gore while 40% said Clinton campaigning would hurt their chances of voting Gore
The question we are trying to get at is whether impeachment hurt Clinton and the collection of these polls plus other things confirms that even a failed impeachment hurt Clinton in the public perception.
Clinton’s final Gallup approval rating was 65%, higher than any president since Harry Truman.
Even that one shows a dip after the impeachment (between 1998- and 1999-4)
When we combine this with all the other polls and focus groups and stories, I think its clear that impeachment had a negative affect on public perception of Clinton overall so simply making a results oriented calculation on the Senate not impeaching Trump is probably not the best move for the Dems.
Clinton’s final Gallup approval rating was 65%, higher than any president since Harry Truman.
Pretty amazing that an impeached President can finish his term with higher poll numbers than when he started.
Conveniently ignoring the rebound, I see.
The public definitely thought he’d done a good job doing what he was elected to do.
Agreed. He was pretty popular when he finished up, although that didn't translate very well to Gore.
He was a popular and likeable man, but people were still weary of it all and wanted a break from him.
Al Gore was not a suitable option though and that’s part of the reason the Dems lost. If people get Trump weary (which they may well do) there is not a suitable option waiting to take over either.
Al Gore was not a suitable option though and that’s part of the reason the Dems lost. If people get Trump weary (which they may well do) there is not a suitable option waiting to take over either.
Last edited:
You are doing exactly what Trump does. You are cherry picking a single poll that is favorable to your point while simply ignoring tons of evidence that counters it.
I'm not ignoring anything. The rebound is post 2000 so that's different because you have new variables coming into play like Bush being elected and nostalgia.
Why aren't you calling out Raoul for ignoring:
"An overwhelming majority (74%) of Americans agree with the statement, “I am tired of all the problems associated with the Clinton administration.” This view is held by 77% of Independents and 64% of Democrats. "
"More than half of those surveyed (53 percent) said they are "just plain tired" of Clinton, a view expressed by many political independents and moderates"
"17% of people saying Clinton campaigning would help them vote Gore while 40% said Clinton campaigning would hurt their chances of voting Gore"
You want to talk about conveniently ignoring any data that goes against your point you need to question Raoul first and foremost.
How do you explain the data that in 6 months he dropped to only 44% wanting to continue Clinton admin policies then?
The data is simply more complex than some people are pretending. Its entirely possible for someone to believe that Clinton did a good job with the economy(positive approval) but still be sick of all the scandals and want a completely new direction (all the polling that shows evidence of Clinton fatigue)
--
The actual question is whether or not impeachment helped the Republicans irrespective of them not removing Clinton from the office. From all the data it is simply not possible to objectively conclude that impeachment did not help the Republicans at all.
he was a rapist and a war criminal
Gallup actually wrote an article explaining all this.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/4609/presidential-job-approval-bill-clintons-high-ratings-midst.aspx
This from the eve of the election suggests not many people were thinking of the impeachment when voting
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/06/...either-candidate-within-reach-of-victory.html
Also worth noting that in the Senate, where the impeachment wasn't convicted, Dems won 4 seats. The House stayed basically the same. So there's not a lot of evidence that impeachment will help your election prospects from that particular episode. The candidate itself is far more important.
But of course, that was about sexual misconduct, something Trump was on tape bragging about weeks before the election that he won. Maybe widespread corruption and obstruction of justice would play differently.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/06/...either-candidate-within-reach-of-victory.html
Also worth noting that in the Senate, where the impeachment wasn't convicted, Dems won 4 seats. The House stayed basically the same. So there's not a lot of evidence that impeachment will help your election prospects from that particular episode. The candidate itself is far more important.
But of course, that was about sexual misconduct, something Trump was on tape bragging about weeks before the election that he won. Maybe widespread corruption and obstruction of justice would play differently.
This would lend evidence to the view that even a failed impeachment can still affect public perception. Its simply that with Clinton his moral failings didn't affect whatever "job approval" measures for some people. Same principle for why conservative Christians support Trump despite his affairs.
I don't think that supports the view that Democrats should not impeach Trump on the basis that the Reps control the Senate.
You answer your own question.
His base won’t be affected and the impeachment won’t be finished by the Senate.
The interesting bit about "the people" wanting change after eight years is that in two of the past three elections that fall into that category, the two Republican winners actually lost the overall popular vote whereas the Democratic winner also won the popular vote by a sizeable margin. Which tells me "the people" actually preferred to carry on the previous admin/party when a Dem was in office or a change when a Rep ran the shitshow.
Add to that the 1992 election, where the Democrat won by 6.4% in the popular vote after essentially 12 years of the same admin.
You bring up an interesting point here that I hadn’t even considered...
I was born in 1988 just before the election, so in my lifetime, the GOP has only won the popular vote 2 times. 1988 and 2004, but they’ve had the presidency for half of those years.
Last edited:
Really interested to see how the subpoena on security clearances will pan out. The house oversight committee subpoenaed some White House person in relation to the accusations made by a whistleblower that Trump was overriding even his chief of staff on clearance decisions, but the White House is telling that person not to show up. His lawyer says he is beholden to two masters, and is going to listen to the one that employs him.
Big deal that, with regards to how the constitution was setup.
Big deal that, with regards to how the constitution was setup.
Hard to feel sorry about the ISIS teen in my opinion but the other two incidents are fecking atrocious. Have Navy SEALs ever testified against their own for war crimes before?
what
wear your jeans bucko
I think I get it
What am I missing?
Don't get it 
I have no idea either. The tweet but especially the pic looked funny to me, that's why i posted.
sarcastic clapback slay kween khaleesi gif
wendell primus
wendell primus thats my name that name again is wendell primus