no president has ever won an election after the impeachment process began.

[unblock]

andrew johnson was impeached but not removed during his first term and couldn't get the nomination in 1868.

nixon resigned during his second term after impeachment hearings began and was told his presidency would not survive the process. he never ran for elected office again.

bill clinton was impeached but not removed during his second term and never ran for elected office again.


the circumstances and the times were different in each case, and the sample size is admittedly small, but i don't think we can look to past experience and conclude that donald fraud will somehow gain from the impeachment process.

yes, bill clinton's popularity improved after surviving the process, but that surely had a lot to do with the fact that the charges were rather flimsy, certainly compared to the charges that would be levied against donald fraud.


even if there's zero chance of removing him, there's much to be said for going on record as saying we (well, at least the house) reject these actions, and forcing republicans in the senate to go on record approving of his blatant criminality.

finally, it may very well give swing voters pause in voting to re-elect an impeached president, and it may also help encourage democratic voters to come out to render a final verdict on donald fraud at the ballot.


conversely, not impeaching might easily be seen by voters as democratic leaders deeming that everything donald fraud has done is really just politics as usual, or at least, not unfitting enough for the office to even try to remove him.

[bearsfootball516]

1. Sort of an odd headline there.

How many presidents run for another office after finishing the presidency?

[NYC Liberal]

2. Johnson was elected to the Senate after he left office.

Although that was pre-17th Amendment, so he was chosen by the Tennessee legislature.

[unblock]

3. donald fraud would be impeached during his first term.

andrew johnson was the only other one. he didn't win nomination after impeachment even though he survived it.

[Aristus]

5. John Quincy Adams served multiple terms as a Massachusetts congressman after his Presidency.

Taft became Chief Justice of the United States after his Presidency. (Although he was appointed, of course, instead of elected.)

[tanyev]

4. This a man who won an election even after video emerged of him bragging

about grabbing women by the pussy. I agree he should be investigated/impeached, but it does seem like historical precedent is often not applicable to this man.

[unblock]

6. i don't disagree; point is, we shouldn't use history to justify *not* impeaching him

as many people seem to want to do. e.g., noting that clinton's numbers went up after he wasn't removed.

sure, donald fraud's numbers will improve *on the day* he's not removed, but over all, i don't think his numbers would be helped by going through the impeachment process.

[onenote]

7. Johnson's failure to get reelected after being impeached

probably had less to do with his having been impeached and more to do with the fact that he was seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party after having abandoned the party to run with Lincoln in 1864 as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Republican ticket (re-dubbed the National Union Party for the purposes of that election).

[unblock]

8. yes; arguably his putting himself in that politically precarious position is what led to impeachment

again, small sample size.

still, nothing really in the limited history of impeachment to really suggest that donald fraud would actually benefit from going through the process.

i recognize the value of not appearing eager to impeach; it's not good if it looks like we went out of our way to impeach, that, imho, was the republicans' key problem against bill clinton. but i think we're way past that point now....

[Trumpocalypse]

9. Intellectual dishonest

The Clinton and Nixon examples don’t apply because they were second terms and were constitutionally barred from running for President again.

[unblock]

11. on the contrary.

it's true that clinton and nixon were barred from seeking the presidency again, though not from seeking any elected office. it hasn't happened recently, but other former presidents have sought and won other elected offices after the presidency.


more to the point, your statement supports my view, which is that people shouldn't be looking to historical examples of impeachment to rationalize *not* impeaching donald fraud.

the typical argument is that we shouldn't impeach donald fraud knowing that the senate won't remove, because that's what happened to bill clinton and he actually went up in the polls.


but that ignores a number of differences, including the fact that clinton was impeached during his second term. and, of course, the fact that the accusations and supporting facts are vastly more damning in donald fraud's case.

donald fraud would be impeached during his first term, and we only have one other example of that (andrew johnson), who couldn't even win nomination in 1868.


the only intellectual dishonesty in any of these arguments is the notion that we shouldn't impeach donald fraud for legitimate high crimes and misdemeanors because clinton got a modest bump in the polls after being impeached and not removed over far more minor concerns.

[Trumpocalypse]

13. How many former Presidents ran for office

after their presidency was over in the last 100 years?

Like I said, intellectually dishonest.

[unblock]

14. obama, shrub, clinton, poppy, carter, ford, nixon, ike, etc.

they all sought re-election (well, it wasn't technically "re-"election in ford's case).


intellectually dishonest of you to insert the word "former" in there. my argument is that people shouldn't look to clinton's post-impeachment bump in the polls to justify not impeaching donald fraud. there's nothing to suggest that impeaching donald fraud would make him *more* likely to win in 2020.

there are *zero* examples in our history of a president being impeached and later winning any elected office, whether the presidency or other office.

donald fraud won't be a "former" president as he seeks re-election in 2020 if he's impeached and not removed. and frankly i'm not nearly bothered as much if donald fraud wins some lesser office after getting the boot in 2020, that's hardly my main concern that the moment.

[Trumpocalypse]

15. No that is not the question I asked.

Stop spinning and give an honest answer.

[unblock]

17. start your own thread if you feel like veering off-topic.

the point of this one is to discuss whether history sheds any insight on if donald fraud's chances of getting re-elected are actually improved by getting impeached but not removed.

my argument as that history doesn't support that conclusion.


yes, my phrasing also threw in the fact that no impeached president ever won any other elected office either, but that's hardly my main concern regarding donald fraud at the moment.

[Trumpocalypse]

19. Not off topic.

Your argument is intellectually dishonest.

As pointed out before, Nixon and Clinton were in their second term and were barred from running for President again.

And since former Presidents usually don't run for office again. There are only 3 who did out of 45 and none in the last 100 years. So that argument doesn't apply either.

[unblock]

20. you keep saying that phrase. i do not think it means what you think it means.

others have claimed that impeaching and not removing donald fraud will help his re-election chances, and they point to history (bill clinton's bump in the polls) to support their view.

all i'm doing is showing that the very limited amount of presidential impeachment history doesn't support their view at all.


they're trying to say that if we lose the impeachment battle, he will win re-election; i'm merely pointing out that that's never happened, ever.

nothing "intellectually dishonest" about that, no matter how many times you repeat it.

[Trumpocalypse]

21. It hasn't happened before

because it couldn’t happen. That’s why your argument is intellectually dishonest.

[unblock]

22. what are you on about?

the only intellectually dishonest argument here is the one you're trying to make.

donald fraud is in his first term, even though it seems like an eternity.


you can't go around repeatedly calling other people's arguments "intellectually dishonest" just because you don't understand them.

[Trumpocalypse]

23. I understand that they don't apply

to the current situation since Nixon and Clinton were in their second terms and barred from running again. That’s why the argument is intellectually dishonest.

[unblock]

24. so you agree there's no historical basis to think impeachment will benefit donald fraud's chances

in 2020?

[Trumpocalypse]

28. There is a historical basis

The 1998 midterms when the GOP was pursuing a partisan impeachment and lost seat in Congress.

[unblock]

29. wow! a reply without you accusing me of spinning or of intellectual dishonesty!

i gobsmacked! i hardly know what to do now....


well, i suppose that's an argument, though it doesn't really get to donald fraud's chances as it relates to congressional results instead. of course, republicans won in the next presidential election, in 2000, albeit with the help of some dubious counting and legal decisions....

and, of course, i'm sure the gdp running at around 4.5% in 1997 and 1998 had nothing to do with the democrats' performance in the midterms....

i'm also sure the severity of the accusations (or lack thereof) played into it....

[Trumpocalypse]

30. No the GOP didn't win the 2000 election

They stole it with Ralph Nader driving the getaway car.

[lame54]

10. Other than T Roose has any ex President run for office?

[unblock]

12. most incumbent presidents try to regain the presidency, certainly.

nixon and clinton were constitutionally barred from seeking a third term; andrew johnson was impeached during his first term and tried but failed to win the nomination for presidency in 1868.

john quincy adams became a representative in congress after his presidency.

james k. polk became governor of tennessee after his presidency.

grover cleveland, was elected president in non-consecutive terms, having lost in 1888.

[lame54]

16. Let me try again...

I meant a 2 term prez
Like Clinton

But thanks for the examples
They answer the question I meant to ask

[unblock]

18. after having won two terms as president, the only one i can think of is fdr

who of course won a third and fourth term as president.

[USALiberal]

25. LOL, is this a joke post? You know about term limits, right? nt

[unblock]

26. duh. it's a refutation to the common argument that impeachment would somehow benefit donald fraud

people keep saying we shouldn't impeach because donald fraud's chances to win in 2020 would be improved after the senate fails to remove him.

i'm simply saying that there's nothing in the limited amount of presidential impeachment case history to support that view.

[former9thward]

27. No president was appointed king of the world after an impeachment process began.

Makes as much sense. Johnson did win an office again contrary to your OP. Nixon and Clinton were term limited.