How would Bill Clinton's presidency go if Congress had remained Democrat the whole time? How could the Republican Revolution of 1994 be avoided? What would be the effects? I presume that their wouldn't be the Lewinsky scandal, the affair would likely be butterflied away with no 1995 shutdown and even if it isn't it's less likely Bill would be caught or impeached. What legislation might get passed? What effect would this have on Bill's legacy? How ould this alternate history go? What if?
Bill Clinton Presidency with Democrat Congress?
- Thread starter Pericles
- Start date
To keep the House & Senate Democratic, you're likely going to have to make Bill Clinton less aggressive in pushing his agenda in those first two years. So, no healthcare push and no assault weapons ban, which galvanized the right and fired up the conservative base.
But like with 2010, I'm not sure there's enough momentum to change the dynamics. Very similarly, Democrats won huge majorities due to their success in Republican-leaning districts. Those are generally harder districts to keep, especially when there's a backlash to the party in power.
The economy was also an issue in 1994. While it was improving, it still hadn't hit that 90s boom and it played a role. All that together killed Democrats' chances. They were likely going to lose seats in that election no matter what but maybe there's enough to hold on to those seats without the failed healthcare push and the assault weapons ban.
Or you could go the more radical route and have a terrorist attack in mid-94 that shifts the narrative and the Democrats sweep to victory in a rally around the flag narrative.
But like with 2010, I'm not sure there's enough momentum to change the dynamics. Very similarly, Democrats won huge majorities due to their success in Republican-leaning districts. Those are generally harder districts to keep, especially when there's a backlash to the party in power.
The economy was also an issue in 1994. While it was improving, it still hadn't hit that 90s boom and it played a role. All that together killed Democrats' chances. They were likely going to lose seats in that election no matter what but maybe there's enough to hold on to those seats without the failed healthcare push and the assault weapons ban.
Or you could go the more radical route and have a terrorist attack in mid-94 that shifts the narrative and the Democrats sweep to victory in a rally around the flag narrative.
Agree about everything except one thing. The majorities Clinton had in '93 and '94 were very slim, much slimmer than Obama's in 2009 and 2010, so even if Clinton governed less aggressively in his first two years, one or both house could still be flipped (the Senate more likely than the house).
While a Democratic house prevents a Government Shutdown in 1995, and that's even if the Senate goes to the GOP, as Dole wasn't a wingnut and Gingrich is weaker and limited as minority leader, I do think that without the '94 revolution, Clinton is more vulnerable going into '96, especially if he's still not governing aggressively after the 94 midterms. He'd be a President with no major accomplishments other than (depending on your views) NAFTA, and no boogyman (Gingrich as speaker and the Government shutdown) to run against. He'd still win, but it would be much harder fought and closer than it was.
Aside from the Affordable Care Act, the Recovery Act, and "Bin Laden is Dead, General Motors is Alive," that would be about right.
Probably with a significantly better economy, for what that's worth. Anyways, I'm not sure he'd have governed too differently even with a free hand in doing so. Democrats were really conservative in the 90's.
While I don't think its necessarily what you had in mind, one way to have a Clinton Presidency with a Democratic Congress would be if he ran and won in 1988. The economy would still be good for at least most of his Presidency. Also, without the stigma of Dukakis' defeat, liberalism wouldn't be perceived as weak by as many people. You'd still likely have the Republicans take over Congress by '94, but six years with a Democratic Congress is better than two.
To keep a Democratic congress in 1995 is not going to help Clinton as much as you'd think.
The reason the House in particular was able to stay Democratic was because of Southern conservatives. Clinton would have to work with them and they are unlikely to support liberal proposals (or proposals they perceive as liberal)
The reason the House in particular was able to stay Democratic was because of Southern conservatives. Clinton would have to work with them and they are unlikely to support liberal proposals (or proposals they perceive as liberal)
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Clinton won in '92 because he talked about Americans working longer for less, and people playing by the rules seeming to slip further behind.
And this is not easy to capture on the left-right dimension.
And this is not easy to capture on the left-right dimension.
It's also not easy to alleviate with policy, at least not the policy menu people were willing to contemplate at the time.
Obama certainly had more accomplishments in his first four years than Bill Clinton. Hell, one of his accomplishments was overseeing the overturning of one of Bill Clinton's first term accomplishments - DADT.
jahenders
Banned
I think the only way for Clinton to avoid big Republican gains in 1994 would be for him to be far LESS successful in pushing his agenda early on. My theory (repeated elsewhere) is that the American "body politic" tends to want to remain close to some "middle." Therefore, when they feel that one party is pulling the country 'too far' in one direction, they tend to correct by tending to vote for the other party. This is why mid-term elections so often favor the party NOT holding the White House.