General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsClinton's approval spiked after acquittal and remained high the rest of his term.
Personally, I don't think the situations are comparable, in part because much of the public saw the Clinton impeachment for what it was, a solely political act. But, some posters have been making the comparison, noting that Clinton's impeachment didn't hurt Republicans (which is arguable), but leaving out what happened on the other side.
If we're going to compare the two, we need to look at all of the information and not just the part that agrees with the preferred assertion. If they're comparable, are we prepared for a spike in Trump's rating if he's acquitted? Or a second term because of it? Frankly, no one knows what will happen, but if it's comparable to Clinton, as some are claiming, it's potential trouble.
Again, I don't agree that they're comparable, but if we're going to make the comparison, we need to look at the big picture and not just the parts we like.
Also note that I don't think Dems should make the decision solely based on what's politically convenient. My point is that we should be aware of unintended consequences. I guarantee that the Rs never would have believed Clinton would have a 73% approval in the midst of impeachment.
Source:
"After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval. He finished with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%, higher than that of every other departing president measured since Harry Truman."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton
LiberalFighter
(50,943 posts)msongs
(67,413 posts)MyOwnPeace
(16,927 posts)with Bill Clinton (not to be confused with the other Clinton that should be president) we had someone that was working FOR the country and its people, not for himself and the mega-bucks friends.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Do you equate lying about a consensual affair to welcoming a foreign adversary's attack on our democracy then obstructing the investigation of that attack?
Do you think the public would?
Seriously?
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)"Personally, I don't think the situations are comparable, in part because much of the public saw the Clinton impeachment for what it was, a solely political act."
Clearly, I agree with you.
sarabelle
(453 posts)ego_nation
(123 posts)KentuckyWoman
(6,685 posts)subvert the free elections of this country and collude against our citizens and money laundering is a whole other conversation.
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Well, they do when the Prez is a Democrat. Plenty of Republican men were obsessed with Clinton's sex life. Some still are.
They don't care about the rest because they benefit. That's really all that matters to them.
KentuckyWoman
(6,685 posts)Half or more of them were also adulterers. What they saw is financial opportunity and the sex as a good tool to line their pockets.
dsc
(52,162 posts)since polling really only goes back to him since Roosevelt died in office and polling was in its infancy in 1933.
ecstatic
(32,707 posts)TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Barring the recount nonsense, voter suppression, and an inexplicable refusal to use arguably the best political campaigner in a generation (Bill Clinton), Gore wins the WH.
Bradshaw3
(7,522 posts)Thank you Lawrence because many having been using that argument against impeachment now.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)Duh.
shanny
(6,709 posts)Clinton's approval ratings spiked not because he was acquitted but rather most people knew it was a bullshit case to begin with. (BUT, despite that, Rs won the WH*, the House and the Senate in 2000.) This isn't a bullshit case and it needs to be pursued through public hearings with lots of witnesses and facts and publicity, because this is a nation of laws, dammit, and we need to start enforcing them. For everyone to see.
* sorta