2000 without Lewinsky (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 15, 2024, 06:21:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  2000 without Lewinsky (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2000 without Lewinsky  (Read 757 times)
brucejoel99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,002
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

« on: May 18, 2019, 02:32:57 AM »

Without the Lewinsky scandal, Gore would've done a little bit better in 2000, though as we all know, "a little bit better" is all it would've taken for Gore to win.

For one thing, Bush's claim that he'd change the tone of Washington wouldn't necessarily be more attractive to voters.

Aside from that, though, Gore would've won without the Lewinsky scandal for the simple reason that he wouldn't have made the mistake of distancing himself from Clinton. Without the Lewinsky scandal, it wouldn't have been harder for Gore to run on Clinton's record or to have Clinton campaign with him. If a Clinton with high personal approval ratings (which had been permanently lowered by the Lewinsky scandal) as well as his high job approvals were campaigning for Gore in a state like New Hampshire, which Clinton had carried by about 10% of the vote in 1996, then Gore would likely easily carry New Hampshire in 2000, meaning he wouldn't even had to have carried Florida.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,002
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2019, 10:20:35 PM »

Just before the Lewinsky soap opera, Bill Clinton made a deal with Newt Gingrich to essentially launch the same Social Security privitization plan Bush proposed in 2005. The backlash from elderly WWII Democrats would have been enormous, and Gore likely would have done far worse than he did OTL.

To be fair, whether it would've passed or not is a whole other matter, considering Social Security is a lot more popular than welfare, & Clinton probably would've faced a massive internal party revolt, no matter how much he may have tried to label it "saving" Social Security.

Had it succeeded, though, it's correct that privatizing Social Security would've likely been devastating to the Democrats come 2000. There would've been some massive political infighting between the liberal Democrats & the centrists who were Clinton's allies. "Clinton sold us out!" would be a pretty nasty rallying cry to run on in the Democratic primaries (& potentially on the convention floor). It might've well be enough to knock out anyone too closely tied to Bill (such as Gore) too. At the very least, it likely would've significantly softened Gore's appeal come November.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 11 queries.