Clinton's approval spiked after acquittal and remained high the rest of his term.
Personally, I don't think the situations are comparable, in part because much of the public saw the Clinton impeachment for what it was, a solely political act. But, some posters have been making the comparison, noting that Clinton's impeachment didn't hurt Republicans (which is arguable), but leaving out what happened on the other side.
If we're going to compare the two, we need to look at all of the information and not just the part that agrees with the preferred assertion. If they're comparable, are we prepared for a spike in Trump's rating if he's acquitted? Or a second term because of it? Frankly, no one knows what will happen, but if it's comparable to Clinton, as some are claiming, it's potential trouble.
Again, I don't agree that they're comparable, but if we're going to make the comparison, we need to look at the big picture and not just the parts we like.
Also note that I don't think Dems should make the decision solely based on what's politically convenient. My point is that we should be aware of unintended consequences. I guarantee that the Rs never would have believed Clinton would have a 73% approval in the midst of impeachment.
Source:
"After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval. He finished with a Gallup poll approval rating of 65%, higher than that of every other departing president measured since Harry Truman."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Bill_Clinton
= new reply since forum marked as read
with Bill Clinton (not to be confused with the other Clinton that should be president) we had someone that was working FOR the country and its people, not for himself and the mega-bucks friends. 
Do you equate lying about a consensual affair to welcoming a foreign adversary's attack on our democracy then obstructing the investigation of that attack?
Do you think the public would?
Seriously?
