22nd Amendment: president can't serve more than three terms

[W. T. Sherman]

What if, instead of a two-term limit for the U.S. president, the 22nd amendment imposed a three-term limit? And, all other things being equal, could the following get re-elected:

Eisenhower in 1960
Reagan in 1988
Clinton in 2000
Bush in 2008

 

[General Mung Beans]

What if, instead of a two-term limit for the U.S. president, the 22nd amendment imposed a three-term limit? And, all other things being equal, could the following get re-elected:

Eisenhower in 1960
Reagan in 1988
Clinton in 2000
Bush in 2008

Eisenhower-Too old
Reagan-Maybe though with butterflies he might never get elected
Clinton-Maybe with above reservations
Bush-You'd need massive butterflies to make Bush popular enough to run for a third term.

 

[Glass Onion]

Ike could win the 1960 election quite easily, but he wouldn't run, at one point he was considering retiring in 1956, so I doubt he runs in 1960.

Ronald Reagan: Assuming no Ike in 60 run, there wouldn't be too many butterflies, so he probably is reelected in 1988.

And that might well butterfly President Clinton away.

 

[General Zod]

Ike's health was too frail, he's not going to run in 1960 anyway,

Reagan will most likely run in 1988 and easily win, presiding over the fall of Communism and the First Gulf War. He goes out being regarded even more of a national hero than OTL. However, this most likely does not butterfly Clinton away, since undistinguished and relatively unpopular Bush Sr. is still going to lose the election to charismatic newcomer Clinton when annoyance about the recession and incumbent party fatigue hits the the Republicans in 1992.

Clinton will surely run for a third term in 2000 and win, getting a vindication for the impeachment and setting himself as the historical nemesis of the Bush dynasty. He rallies the nation when the 9/11 attacks hit, presiding over the invasion and post-war reconstruction of Afghanistan. He goes out being regarded as a slightly controversial but overall rather successful President. Since in 2004 the economy is strong, election between Gore and McCain is a toss-up.

Since Bush Jr. will be trounced by Clinton in 2000, his Presidency is butterflied away, thanks the AH gods. Anyway, had he somehow got the Presidency in 2000, if he had run in 2008, he would have caused the worst Republican landslide electoral defeat since 1964 running against Obama. Think of the Democrats easily getting at the very least another 5-6 Senators, 20-25 Representatives, and 400+ votes in the Electoral College (at least Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia go Blue as well). 20% approval rating and widely being regarded as radioactive by your own party spells that. He might likely still get the nomination thanks to the support of the extreme conservative base, but after that, it will be a lemming charge.

 

[Lord Grattan]

Ike's health was too frail, he's not going to run in 1960 anyway,

Reagan will most likely run in 1988 and easily win, presiding over the fall of Communism and the First Gulf War. He goes out being regarded even more of a national hero than OTL. However, this most likely does not butterfly Clinton away, since undistinguished and relatively unpopular Bush Sr. is still going to lose the election to charismatic newcomer Clinton when annoyance about the recession and incumbent party fatigue hits the the Republicans in 1992.

Clinton will surely run for a third term in 2000 and win, getting a vindication for the impeachment and setting himself as the historical nemesis of the Bush dynasty. He rallies the nation when the 9/11 attacks hit, presiding over the invasion and post-war reconstruction of Afghanistan. He goes out being regarded as a slightly controversial but overall rather successful President. Since in 2004 the economy is strong, election between Gore and McCain is a toss-up.

Since Bush Jr. will be trounced by Clinton in 2000, his Presidency is butterflied away, thanks the AH gods. Anyway, had he somehow got the Presidency in 2000, if he had run in 2008, he would have caused the worst Republican landslide electoral defeat since 1964 running against Obama. Think of the Democrats easily getting at the very least another 5-6 Senators, 20-25 Representatives, and 400+ votes in the Electoral College (at least Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia go Blue as well). 20% approval rating and widely being regarded as radioactive by your own party spells that. He might likely still get the nomination thanks to the support of the extreme conservative base, but after that, it will be a lemming charge.

I disagree w/you about Clinton General. I'm not so sure that the 1st tier of candidates would sit out the '92 election in TTL as they did in OTL. Now the nominee, Cuomo, Biden, Gore (if his son's accident doesn't occur or is less severe) or whoever, may look to the young charismatic governor of Arkansas as their VP pick.

Also, if as you suggest, Republican fatigue would doom GHW Bush to defeat in '92, which I agree with, though as I said, I don't think he would be the nominee, but if he were, I thhink that Democrat fatigue (even if Clinton's 12 years in office is as successful as you say) would doom Gore to defeat in '04.

Our 3 termers could be:
Eisenhower 1953-65
Reagan 1981-93
Cuomo 1993-2005
(I imagine that President McCain would only serve 2 terms 2005-13, unless he looses in '08 to former VP Clinton.)

 

[Actingi]

Since you said "all things being equal", I'll take each on their own...IE in the Clinton scenario, Reagan didn't go for a third term. Etc.

Eisenhower would've been 70 years old in 1960...and this is before a lot of the medical advancements we've since made. It seems pretty unlikely to me that he would've been re-elected.

Likewise, Reagan would've been 77 when he ran for a third time, and he was already beginning a downward mental spiral.

And if we assume the 2001-2009 Presidency of George W. Bush, then there is just no way in the world that he gets a third term. He only got a second term because his opponent was ultra-liberal Kerry. He's lucky to get 10% against Obama...I think he'd even lose to polarizing Hillary, with most Republicans to depressed to vote in that match-up.

But Bill Clinton could definitely get a third term. His personal antics aside, at the time, things were going pretty well both domestically and abroad. In fact, as Clinton had been the President since I was in 3rd grade - 10th, I couldn't remember George Bush Sr, and was shocked to learn Clinton couldn't run a third term.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I would have to agree that of the three mentioned Clinton is the most likely to seek reelection strictly since he has the advantage of youth on his side. Just because you can seek a third term doesn't mean you should or will be permitted.

With Reagan I could see him gaining a third term but then stepping down to permit Bush to become president. Which may work out for Bush when he seeks reelection.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Personally, I suspect this is ASB. Why on earth would there be a 3 term amendment!? The tradition was 2 terms (set by Washington, and only exceeded by Roosevelt, IIRC). So 2 has lots of historical precedent. Why 3? To get an amendment to the Constitution you have to have a supermajority in both houses AND get it passed in a supermajority of the individual states. That takes a LOT of effort and is only going to happen if there is a perceived NEED (not just desire). A law, which only takes a simple majority in each house can be passed about just about anything, but an amendment can't.

Moreover, how many people after serving 3 terms would want (or even be able) to serve a 4th? By the time you've reached the position where you're first elected, you may well not HAVE 16 years of health/life left. So, again, such an amendment would be frivolous - and frivolous amendments just aren't passed (stupid pig-headed mistaken ones are possible politically, frivolous ones aren't).

 

[General Zod]

Well, about Reagan, the crux of the issue is going to be how early signs of his impending cognitive decline manifest. IIRC, the Alzheimer diagnosis was made in 1994, which would have let him complete a third term. Difficult to say, without an extensive checking of his medical history, if and how much any earlier signs of significant mental decline showed up in the late '80s-early 90s in a manner obvious to the Republican party or the Cabinet.

As for the difference between HWB and Clinton, IMO the main reason why the former lost the 1992 election was the recession, incumbent fatigue was just significant but secondary. A Republican running after a Reagan third term is going to face both drawbacks, so has a strong chance of losing to a Democrat. On the other hand, a Democrat running after a Clinton/Cuomo third term, or Clinton/Cuomo himself running for a third term, is going to do so with a strong economy, so he would have rather better chances of winning.

 

[General Zod]

Personally, I suspect this is ASB. Why on earth would there be a 3 term amendment!? The tradition was 2 terms (set by Washington, and only exceeded by Roosevelt, IIRC). So 2 has lots of historical precedent. Why 3?

Because the two-terms tradition is never established in the first place (Washington is persuaded to go for a third term) or is successfully broken (a President runs for a third-term, and that term is widely regarded as successful and beneficial: e.g. Theodore Roosevelt wins the Presidency in 1912). So you get a three-terms tradition established instead, so when FDR goes for his four terms, the limit is set to three instead.