In theory, and given the inevitability with which the fixation on access journalism feeds the manufacturing of consent, it feels like the way for one party to hold the presidency forever is just to always resign 34 months into a four-year term and run the ascended VP as incumbent
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Nymphomachy
I doubt this would actually work, Nixon's resignation was this big unprecedented norms violation that left his successor under a (deserved) pall of being a "fake President"
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
that's an interesting take; personally I tend to think Clinton not resigning after the Lewinsky scandal and giving Gore some time as the incumbent would have changed the outcome of the 2000 election
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Nymphomachy
Well, hindsight is 20/20 At the time, Democrats thought this was a nightmare scenario that would've doomed Gore in 2000 for sure, which is why even people deeply leery of Bill Clinton's creepiness talked themselves around to fighting to defend him tooth and nail
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
The grim irony of what went down with that whole thing is that, despite everything, the GOP came out looking worse from that whole fight and Bill Clinton's approvals bounced back high enough he likely could've won a third term
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
Making the people who muttered that he should've resigned for the good of the party look like assholes, and then making Gore look like a bigger asshole for losing the election anyway (Despite actually winning the election, but that's another topic)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.