Impeachment Supplements

Introduction

No one could have ever predicted the bizarre ending to this election season six weeks ago. Rather than the President being removed from office, the Speaker of the House removed himself from office after the election. Elections are most often lost and they are rarely won because incumbents have the decided edge over challengers.The 1998 midterm elections, unlike the 1994 midterm elections, were characterized by relative contentment by citizens with incumbent members of Congress. The election itself did not produce an upheaval. The upheaval occurred after the election because the party controlling the White House gained seats in a midterm election, which rarely happens. There was no surprise that Republicans maintained their majority status in the House and Senate as a result of the election. The shock was that Democrats improved their representational standing in the House and did not lose any Senate seats. It was the first time since 1934 that the party controlling the White House gained seats in the House of Representatives in a midterm election.

Going into the election, Republicans appeared to be in a strong position to increase their majority in the Senate. With one-third of the Senate up for reelection this year, there were actually two more Democratic seats being defended in Senate contests. Republicans were poised to win as many as five more Senate seats giving them a filibuster-proof majority; meaning that they could shut off unlimited debate and control the legislative agenda. Furthermore, significant electoral gains would validate the Starr investigation of the President making impeachment and trial of the President of the United States more likely. On the other side of Capitol Hill, with all members of the House up for reelection, Republicans seemed likely to gain more seats in the House of Representatives for the same reasons.

The discussion of a possible impeachment had cast a pall over the presidency of Bill Clinton, and Democrats seemed destined to pay the price for his mistakes. The 1998 elections were compared to the near catastrophe that congressional Republican's faced in the 1974 midterm elections three months after President Nixon's resignation from office. However, once the President Clinton's videotape testimony of August 17, 1998 was played on television in late September, the issue quickly faded into the background because Clinton's performance was convincing enough to assure most voters that he accepted responsibility for his actions, and it did not warrant his removal from office. This was evidenced by the fact that Clinton's job approval ratings remained above 60 percent in most national polls and that less than 40 percent of voters were either calling for his impeachment or resignation despite the fact that he, personally, was not popular. Voters were separating his public from his personal actions.

Six weeks can bean eternity in the course of an election; an election characterized by brutal ads and charges reflecting the bitter partisanship on CapitolHill. Yet, that divisiveness had little impact diminishing the stature of incumbents among their electorates. The status quo had been maintained.Two parties of Congress and two Houses bitterly divided, had stood and remained to battle over economic and social issues for the next two years. Only three incumbents were defeated in the Senate out of twenty-nine running for reelection. In the House, an astonishing 98.5 percent of incumbents were reelected to another term, which was the highest reelection rate since 1988.

Today, however there is another election--one where expectations are supposed to be met. Advertisers often remark that perception is reality. Republicans did not meet those expectations in this election. In the technological age at the end of the 20th century, events move so rapidly that it is often difficult to predict their consequences. For example, negative attitudes harbored towards incumbent Democrats in the last midterm election were a long and forgotten memory. The 1998 election was not characterized by any particular trend or political movement. Instead, the election was fought, for the most part, on how national issues played out in local races. Midterm elections are often viewed as a correction or a check on the party that controls the White House. That correction was expected to be far more significant this year because of the President's troubles. Unpredictably, once the results were in, the leadership team of the Republican House was overhauled in the tumultuous week following the election. Pressure from House Republicans resulted in the resignation of Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

Such shock waves were not felt on the state level. Moderate-to- conservative Republicans who appealed to middle class voters by soft- peddling social issues were reelected by large margins to governorships. For example, George Bush, Jr. (TX), George Pataki (NY), Tom Ridge (PA), John Engler (Ml) and Tommy Thompson (WI) were all easily reelected. These Republicans distinguished themselves from allies in the nation's capital by emphasizing issues close to voters such as education, welfare reform and the environment. The devolution of power of federal programsto the states in areas such as welfare reform had increased the power of governors. The fact that new state welfare or environmental programs were popular with swing voters in most states benefited incumbents. Most importantly, nearly all governors, Democrat and Republican alike, benefitedfrom a strong economy in their states. Only two out of twenty-four governors running for re-election--Republicans Fob James of Alabama and David Beasley of South Carolina--lost their reelection bids. Impeachment was simply not an issue in gubernatorial elections.

How did a campaign radically transform itself over a period of just six weeks from being fixated on presidential impeachment to more mundane local issues? The purpose of this text is to explore the context, major trends, results and implications of the 1998 midterm elections to determine what effect they might have for governing as we head towards the millennium; and, what it might portend for the future of this president and the next Chief Executive to be elected.