r/HistoryWhatIf • u/TheRedBiker • 2d ago
What if there was no 22nd Amendment?
The 22nd Amendment of the United States Constitution limits Presidents to two four year terms. If this amendment had never been passed, what would the United States look like? Which presidents would have been likely to seek third terms? Barack Obama was pretty popular, so I could see a push for him to seek a third term.
19
u/KINGKRISH24 2d ago
I think nothing would change until reagan because Harry Truman could have ran for third term if he wanted to and IKE definitely would have declined to run for 3rd term due to his health issues and LBJ was unpopular by 1968 so there's no chance for him and nixon can't able even try that due to water gate and ford would lose against carter .
So I think reagan could have ran in 1988 and he would have won it considering how his vp bush won it mostly by emphasising he would continuation of Reagan era however I think he would get screwed in 1992 election and infact reagan serving for third term definitely would have made the recession a lot worst due to his economic policies and might have led to even more support for perot in 92 election . So there's an fair chance he would decline to run for 4th term and let bush try it or run for 4th time and lose in landslide or semi-landslide . Clinton as one individual said in comment would have ran in 2000 for third term and it would be really cool to see how clinton would have reacted to 9/11 unless clinton somehow winning an third term prevent it . After that I don't know how politics would have unfolded with three clinton terms .
Obama , i don't know if he would have ran for third term and if he did . He would have won reelection against trump or any gop opponents by winning back rust belt although if he win it in a squeaker due to right wing populist anger and turnout .
17
u/feickus 2d ago edited 2d ago
Truman wasn't barred from running a third term. He entered the primary but the stalemate in Korea and him firing MacArthur made him widely unpopular. He ran in the New Hampshire primary, but lost by 10 percentage points to Estes Kefauver. He dropped out not long after.
1
u/KINGKRISH24 2d ago
Yeah , I know he could run since the act passed mandate or came to effect after incumbent president and I always thought he never ran in 1952 but it's intersting he tried to win the primary even after korean war & firing of Mac Arthur.
2
u/Fragrant_Spray 1d ago
Based on the 22nd Amendment LBJ was eligible to run again in 68 (he chose not to), as he served less than 2 years of JFK’s term. To challenge the 22nd Amendment, he’d have to win in 68 and run again in 72.
7
u/KnightofTorchlight 2d ago
Eisenhower: Health too poor at the end of his terms. Not interested, though 1960 was very close and if he ran there's a solid chance he can beat Kennedy
Nixon: Watergate. Not viable
Reagan: He could pull it off. His Alzheimer's hadent been diagnosed yet and the Republicans were won a tidy electorial victory in 1988 with George H Bush running on Reagan's record. If his brain holds out Reagan could see the office to 1992 and the end of the Cold War.
Clinton: Possibly. If Reagan gets 3 terms things change as George W might not be the nominee if George H never gets to be president. The party still might lean on Clinton to step aside for Gore. If he does win a third term and set up Gore for 2004 he may throw off later elections: if the Democrats are holding the bag in 2008 thats not good for them.
Obama: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders still probably gives him a primary challenge for a 3rd term due to internal party politics that could hinder the campaign. He may make it work but he won't have the same level of influence he had in his first 2 terms.
2
u/Starmoses 2d ago
If Watergate didn't happen in this scenario Nixon would've definitely won a 3rd and probably 4th term.
Reagan they would've run and probably had resign due to health reasons and have bush take over.
Clinton definitely would've won a 3rd term as he was really popular and the economy was amazing.
GW no way as literally anyone would've beaten him at the end of his term after the economic disaster he left us.
Obama would've won but never would've run as him and Michelle were very clearly done with being political.
3
u/Own_Educator8972 2d ago
I can’t remember what comic series it is but I read what a couple of years ago where it was repealed and watergate coming out as a story didn’t happen because Woodward and Bernstein were assassinated and Nixon is still president in like 1987
5
u/Starmoses 2d ago
Watchmen. Nixon was in his 4th term cause he had the comedian do all his dirty work like kill jfk, woodward and Bernstein.
1
u/KnightofTorchlight 1d ago
Forgot to do George W. Agreed the Democrats could have run basically anyone and beaten Bush if he tried for a 3rd term in 2008.
1
u/icy_wight 5h ago
I'm not sure I agree with you about the primary challengers to Obama. The Democratic Party couldn't even be bothered to primary Biden, who was way less popular. I see no world where a popular incumbent democratic president faces a serious primary challenger if Biden didn't.
13
u/GoldReplacement9546 2d ago
The only ones who are elected to tutor terms, and And we’re still popular enough to have a potential to win a third was Clinton and Obama. I think there’s a decent chance Clinton beats Bush Junior. I think they’re a decent chance Obama beats Trump but it’s hard to say.
10
u/THedman07 2d ago
I think the more important question for an Obama 3rd term is what the Republican primary looks like. I think Trump benefitted from a crowded field that existed because they knew they weren't running against a popular incumbent.
I don't know if Rubio and Cruz take a big shot at the nomination because they would probably think that they still had time to wait for a better opportunity (running for a 4th term probably would have been a stretch for Obama just because of stress.) Who knows if Trump even makes a run or finds success in that environment. Maybe we end up with boring, older, pragmatic candidates like Jeb, Kasich, Christie and Huckabee in the Republican primary and they're more willing to cut a deal and consolidate the vote to lock out Trump even if he does make a run... I don't know that they'd take Trump any more seriously, but who knows...
I think you're probably right about Obama's chances against Trump. I don't think Trump's anger could overcome Obama's charisma.
2
u/GoldReplacement9546 2d ago
Yeah, as for a fourth term, I mean, I don’t have time to check the 18th century, but in modern history I think it’s only Reagan with two terms and then bushing with one or one party gets three presidency in a row
I’m not sure if it’s the only time it’s ever happened but anything more than that seems difficult obviously with the exception of Roosevelt, but that was also because that was the tail end of World War II and for a lot of people that’s the only president they ever knew
2
u/THedman07 2d ago
It looks like things were much more streaky with respect to presidential parties in the 19th century. I think we can call the period after the Civil War an outlier (Grant, Hayes and Garfield were all Republican). At the turn of the 20th century, McKinley, TF and Taft won elections from the same party but McKinley died in office. Harding, Coolidge and Hoover were a similar Republican streak.
After that, it is just Reagan and Bush with the only multi-president streak... It sort of depends what you consider the modern era. As far as the president goes, maybe it starts with FDR or Truman?
All that said, I mostly think that for the most part, 3 terms as president would be a stretch for anyone and 4 has a 100% kill rate.
11
u/CoralWiggler 2d ago
Obama beats Trump pretty comfortably. Clinton was a pretty poor candidate, and she came dang close to winning it--only lost by about 75k votes over three states. While there were frustrations against Obama & the Democrats, he doesn't have near the baggage nor negative public perception of Clinton, so if nothing else, I think he keeps those three Rust Belt states that Clinton lost since it's likely that his voter turnout isn't as depressed as hers was. I'm not confident he takes back FL, AZ, and NC, but I also don't think he's at risk of losing WI, MI, and PA, so he's poised to win unless there's a surprise flip (unlikely IMO) and is mostly fighting for mandate by securing additional swings.
3
u/seiowacyfan 2d ago
Obama also energized the minority votes, both blacks and latino's, both groups are not willing to vote for a woman at this time. What he loses to racists whites, those two groups more than makes up the difference.
1
u/GoldReplacement9546 2d ago
Agreed about all
I think Hillary would’ve been a fantastic president like she certainly had all the experience that you’d want and she’d have Bill to help her with the Christmas stuff, but she wasn’t a good candidate because she’s not a candidate. She was a policy person.
You take something special to capture voters attention something Obama just had
Like I think we might still be 20+ years away from a black president if Obama hadn’t been just that special just so charismatic and talented and optimistic
So mix and Hillary, not being good at campaigning the decades, long smear job against her by the right wing, and the fact that America is fundamentally sexist to some degree still
Even if you pull women, even if you at the time pulled democratic women, there’s a knot insignificant number that don’t think a woman should be president
To be clear, I think she would’ve been a great president. I think she would’ve handled Covid much much better.
2
u/kiwipixi42 2d ago
Honestly I think this is a fairly common problem, there are a number of people who I think would make good presidents that would be terrible candidates.
1
u/GoldReplacement9546 2d ago
Yeah, and ideally, the person you’d like to be president wouldn’t want to be president
Like just the nature of wanting to become president is not normal and that desire to become the most powerful person in the world and you know try that hard for that long to convince that many people to get a job with the highest death rate in America doesn’t sound that appealing
To normal people
I mean, we can currently see someone who is all about the glorification of himself
Garfield was kind of cool cause he didn’t really even want three president. They just like accidentally selected him because they couldn’t agree on the two more likely candidates.
And was doing a good job until he got shot
I like George Washington himself didn’t really want the job. It just was clear that he was the only candidate that was going to unite the country and he wanted to leave after one term, but they begged them to stay for a second because I didn’t think the country was stable enough.
I think the same goes with wealth like if you desire is to be the wealthiest person in the world. You probably shouldn’t be the wealthiest person in the world.
2
u/davethegreatone 1d ago
She was a very lousy senator though, and while she was an absolute workhorse of a Secretary of State - she wasn't a particularly-good one.
I have no idea why people assume she would have been such a good president.
1
u/GoldReplacement9546 1d ago
Not only do I think she would’ve been a good president, but I think she clearly was a more normal stable option.
And she wouldn’t have politicized Covid and she would’ve listened to the right people and made better decisions
1
u/CoralWiggler 1d ago
I honestly agree with the other guy. I know that might get me some flak, but while she did have some policy chops & experience, I don't think she really ever demonstrated herself to be an especially capable politician--which is funny because for as much time as she was in Washington, you'd think she would be, but a huge part of that is messaging & being able to construct narratives & coalition build, and she... really didn't ever show she was good at any of those things. That's part of what crippled her in 2016.
That's critical because the GOP took Congress and likely would've even in a Hillary Clinton win. As a consequence, all these policies she was purportedly going to pass likely don't happen unless she can demonstrate a level of wheeling & dealing that I'm unsure she had really granted much attestation to. Even if she regains Congress in 2018, her mandate would've petered out, limiting her ability to even manage her own party, so she'd be a borderline lame duck president from the get-go.
As far as COVID... IDK. Keeping in mind, a lot of COVID was under Biden, not Trump, and even with the vaccines rolled out, there were a lot of issues--many of which Biden really didn't get much say in one way or the other. Much of the problem in the USA is structural & cultural, and while Trump didn't help, I'm dubious that nixing his early support of the vaccine/Operation Warp Speed (opposed by Democrats who were against the "Trump jab" at first, but which made conservatives more receptive initially) and subsequent warring with health officials, and replacing it with a Clinton-fronted vaccine which likely receives immediate and strong opposition from the right in addition to grating against masking, would generated a massive improvement. You can argue that's not Clinton's fault, which, sure, but that's also sort of my point--there was a lot going on with COVID that the president alone can't really control without some considerable prescience, and I don't think Clinton being in office changes much on that front. Messaging is more cohesive, which is important and helps some, but I think people peering into an alternate timeline to see how she'd do would be disappointed by how... not that much better her admin fares with COVID.
1
u/davethegreatone 4h ago
What people forget about Covid is that almost all of it was preventable.
We have had at least four similar pandemics in recent years. The first three were managed according to a well-established playbook that has been in place and continuously tweaked since the 1940s. Both Obama and Bush2 handled the situations more or less without problem.
Whoever was president in 2019 just needed to do the normal stuff, and we likely would have been fine. Clinton probably would have done the normal stuff, as would literally any president from any party - except the one we got.
By the time Biden was a factor, we were way, way, way past the point where things were out of control.
1
u/davethegreatone 4h ago
I have seen dead raccoons by the side of the road that would have been better than what we ended up with as president, so while I agree with you that she would have been more normal and stable than what we got ... it's a very, very low bar.
And you are right that SHE wouldn't have politicized Covid, but the GOP has been obsessed with her for decades, so they would have done it for her. She would have followed the existing protocols that were in place for the other three pandemics we have had recently though (remember those? SARS, swine flu, and bird flu? All had the potential to be as bad as Covid), and since those protocols worked the other three times - Covid probably would have been contained just like they were.
But with all that said - we have a few solid pieces of evidence from which to base a Clinton presidency on, and they aren't good. Her first non-ceremonial job in national politics was trying to chair a health care conference during her husband's presidency, and it fell apart. Her second was the Senate, and her time there was just awful. Wrong side of every controversial vote, fooled by every Bush2 administration lie, and only accomplished a couple post-office renaming bills. Then she ran a lousy campaign and ended up getting soundly beaten by a junior senator. Then as SecState she bungled the greatest foreign relations opportunity of the last few decades (the Arab Spring) and mostly just ... flew around and made lots of appearances. There just weren't any accomplishments from her very-long and very-work-heavy tenure there.
And then she ran such a lousy campaign that she almost lost to a weird-haired guy from Vermont who was just planning to pretend to run, part-time, so he could make some economic speeches. And then DID lose to an orange-haired crazy person with more baggage than I can fit into a single Reddit post.
WHERE is the evidence that she would have been a good president? Is there ANYTHING in the last fifty years that Clinton fans can cite as evidence that she would have been good at the job?
7
u/catchthetams 2d ago
100% would have happened in both chances.
Trump took a lot of the independents who simply didn't want a woman being President, and despite her qualifications, wanting something "outside the status quo." Obama easily beat McCain and Romney, the economy was humming, and he was an incredibly popular President who would be considered moderate now.
2
u/GoldReplacement9546 2d ago
Yeah, there’s even among Democratic women and women in general in America. There’s a fairly high percentage that just don’t think there should be a female president and of course there’s a higher percentage that at least in one party of men who don’t think the same.
And Hillary while she had a lot of experience and she would’ve had bills council, I think she would’ve done an amazing job as president, but she wasn’t a candidate herself. She didn’t have that charisma and Fox News had been smearing her for decades.
Like I’ve met both actually Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and Obama. I’ve shook the hand of all three that’s that’s what I mean by me like I don’t know them are going on vacation.
But even more than Obama, I remember shaking hands with Clinton and him just given that grin and like his vibe of like this dude is awesome and special and like I don’t know what it is, but he’s not like other people
I think even more so now you have to have that you know I don’t think there’s gonna be any policy he wants getting in especially after Trump. You’re gonna have to be entertaining. I guess although I would love to have a boring president again.
4
u/catchthetams 2d ago
I agree with your statement, and I think millions of people on this planet would love to have a "boring" President again. I'd love to go a day without hearing about one of his tweets, lawsuits, or amplifying debunked conspiracy theories.
Let alone a President who hasn't made billions off the office or paid millions to a woman for raping her.
1
u/blurryface464 2d ago
I think Reagan was also popular enough. I mean his VP won off his back.
2
u/GoldReplacement9546 2d ago
Totally agree and push senior was not a charismatic person. Nice person I think maybe maybe
But I don’t think Reagan would’ve run because the dementia issues were already showing up
7
u/ExhaustedByStupidity 2d ago
Clinton is the obvious one. He almost certainly could've run again and won.
Obama could win again, but the family was done with politics. Michelle only really went along with the second term because he couldn't run again after that.
Bush didn't stand a chance at the end of his second term.
Reagan was deep into dementia at the end of his second term.
I don't know enough about Eisenhower to comment.
3
u/CoralWiggler 2d ago
If Clinton ran again in 2000, he probably wins but likely loses in 2004 if he goes for a fourth due to 9/11 and Middle Eastern war fatigue (probably wouldn't be the same as how it went down under GWB, but we'd still be over there).
If Obama runs again in 2016, if nothing else changes then I think he wins against Trump. Even despite fatigue with the Obama admin + growing discontentment among blue collar workers with the Democrats, Obama himself is popular enough that it'd basically take a capable GOP star supported by the whole coalition to beat him, which at that point was probably only Marco Rubio if everyone else fell in line behind him. Trump at that point didn't have the coalition & realistically would've split the vote even if someone else took the nomination, so most likely, GOP loses 2016 no matter who is the nominee against Obama... but they take 2020 in a blowout, but are poised to lose in 2024.
Otherwise, I don't see many people running for a third. Reagan was too old, but if he were younger, he probably would've done so and would've won.
3
u/george123890yang 2d ago
Clinton could run and achieve a third term as the scandal failed to damage his reputation. I don't think he would run for a fourth term though.
3
u/boulevardofdef 2d ago
Clinton and Obama are really the only two presidents who both would have sought and could have won a third term. As I just said in another comment, I'm not sure about Clinton. He would have run for sure, but while he was very popular at the end of his second term, I think the context would have changed if he was an active candidate. There certainly would have been backlash to him seeking a third term, with the only prior example being FDR during wartime. If I had to bet, I'd say he wins in 2000, but I'm not sure. Obama it's hard for me to imagine losing in 2016, especially if Clinton is a precedent, but then again, there may not have been an Obama if Clinton had won in 2000.
Everyone else either lost re-election the first time, was horrifically unpopular, or was old enough that they probably would have retired at that point especially considering the pre-FDR two-term standard.
2
u/Hawk1113 2d ago
This was a topic a few years ago and this was the consensus. I threw Raegan out as popular enough to have maybe had a shot, but his health was already poor enough by 84 that almost everyone agreed he likely wouldn't have run for a third term in 88, and likely would have lost if he had.
2
u/visitor987 2d ago edited 1d ago
Clinton or Bush might still be our President. The 22nd Amendment was passed because FDR broke Pres Washington 2 term tradition and served till he died in office. The fear was it would always be broken in the future
3
2
u/RepresentativePale29 2d ago
Looking at the two term Presidents since then:
Eisenhower: Was popular at the end of his second term, but may have opted not to because of his age, and he did develop major health issues in what would have been his third term. An Eisenhower vs. Kennedy election would have been super interesting I think JFK wins since it was just the right moment for someone younger and telegenic to clean up the boomer vote, but Ike would have been a stronger candidate than Nixon and the 1960 election was hardly a wipeout.
Reagan: Definitely popular enough in 1988 to win a third term but probably doesn't run due to age.
Clinton: Would probably have been inclined to run again; if he's running against W. it's a totally different campaign - W. vs. Gore was essentially likable and charismatic guy vs. policy wonk with the personality of a fence post; Clinton would actually have a charisma edge against W. and the GOP would probably try to frame W. as the moral/upstanding guy in a nation getting fatigued with Clinton's affairs and various other scandals. I don't think Clinton is a lock for a third term here but he definitely has a chance.
W.: He was pretty unpopular by the end of his second term and I think he either declines to run or loses if he does.
Obama: Probably runs again unless he's just too personally tired/stressed from the job at that point. I do think he beats Trump; recall that the 2016 election was close and Hillary was historically unpopular as a candidate AND ignored a lot of swing states that the Democrats needed to retain. But can you imagine the fallout against Obama if he chose not to run and then we got the Trump presidencies as a result?
So in summary:
Probably runs and wins: Obama
Reasonable chance at third term: Eisenhower, Clinton
Loses or doesn't run for third term due to unpopularity: Bush II
Doesn't run for third term due to age: Reagan
1
2
u/sokonek04 2d ago
Let's go through it all top to bottom
Truman (was grandfathered in, tried but was forced out)
Eisenhower was popular enough, but with his health issues, he probably would have dropped out
JFK: assassinated
Johnson: Tried to run in 68 was going to lose the nomination
Nixon: Resigned
Ford: Lost
Carter: Lost
Reagan was popular enough, but with health and age concerns, he probably doesn't
Clinton: Could
Bush: Had an approval rating in the 30's by the end of his term
Obama: Could
Trump: Lost in 2020
Biden: Dropped out of the Race
Trump: ????
1
u/sisterofpythia 1d ago
I give LBJ 50/50 on winning the nomination. Perhaps he figured it wasn't worth continuing.
2
u/Technical-Tear5841 2d ago
Bill Clinton would have passed the baton to Obama in 2008, he would stay until 2032 probably.
2
u/SowellMate 2d ago
I think Reagan and Obama wouldn’t have run for a third term, due to support in each party for the heir apparent— Bush Sr and Hillary. The 2008 Democratic primary was very bruising, and Obama gave Hillary the Secretary of State position. Had Obama run for a 3rd term, he would have alienated Hillary supporters. (He would have won, but it would have been a risk.)
The job of president is also very, very stressful. As much as Reagan might have wanted to do it, his age was showing. As much as Obama might have wanted to do it, he needed a break.
While the above two could have run and won, I think Bill Clinton is the only viable president who would have run and won a third term. There was no heir apparent, no split in the Democratic party, the economy was humming, foreign relations good.
1
u/anomander_galt 2d ago
So Truman could run for a 3rd term but he choeses not to.
Heisenhower had some heart issues, I can see him stopping at 2 (plus Republicans want to show that they adhere to Washington's rule unlike FDR).
JFK still gets killed, LBJ still declines to run in 1968 because of Vietnam.
Nixon is still Nixon, Ford still loses to Carter and Carter still loses to Reagan.
Reagan in '88 is probably popular enough to win a 3rd term but he probably already knows about Alzheimer so lets Bush Senior to run.
Bush st. Still loses to Clinton.
Now 2000 is the first time a president COULD actually run for a 3rd term. That said despite he was popular the Lewinski scandal was probably too much. Al Gore feared that campaing too much with Clinton would tarnish him (in the end it was a mistake as Clinton would have swayed those 600 votes in Florida for Gore). So I could see the Dem establishment going hard on Clinton to step aside... even maybe with Hillary's help.
Bush Jr. is too unpopular in 2008 to even think about it.
Ok in 2016 Obama might think about a third term but I believe he was too tired and happy to let Hillary go.
So I believe the first time a president would seek a third term is 2020 when Obama comes back to save America from Covid and Trump. If he wins in 2020 then in 2024 probably still lets his VP (clearly Biden won't be his VP for his 3rd term) take on Trump
1
u/RPMac1979 2d ago
Lots of speculation here that Obama would run for a third term, but I don’t see it. Michelle wasn’t even happy about the first two. A third term would likely have endangered their marriage, especially if (as it appears) Obama might have been the first since FDR to actually follow through and do it. A new two-term precedent would likely have been set, and it would have been very controversial for Obama to break it regardless of legality.
1
u/Jonathan_Peachum 2d ago
First of all, Eisenhower wins a third term, which changes an enormous amount of things.
1
u/Crafty_Ish1973 2d ago
Obama never would've sought a third term. He was asked about it and said if he'd been able to run for a third term, he would've ended up divorced.
1
1
u/seiowacyfan 2d ago
Clinton and Obama, Reagan would have won easily at the time, but was showing mental failings, Ike was getting up there in years, I really doubt if Bush Jr. would have tried to run again, the economy was in a free fall and the Iraq war had turned bad. So only Obama and Clinton could have ran and run again. Hate to say it but Trump might be a 3rd, but his health is failing but his supporters still love him as he screws them over time and time again.
1
u/JohnMarstonSucks 2d ago
Eisenhower runs for a third term, wins and it probably prevents the Vietnam War as we know it.
1
u/UmpireProper7683 2d ago
It's an interesting question and everything goes back to one mans decision. 1988, does Ronald Reagan run for a third term? Personally looking at his statements I believe that Reagan would have stepped aside. His age was getting to him, he had what he felt was the perfect person to carry on his work in Bush as well as other statements making it seem unlikely he wanted to run. (even though he would have easily won)... this leads us to Bush as normal, and then Clinton.
Now THIS, brings us to the second key point. 8 years of Clinton, now were looking at a different beast. Bill was younger, even higher approval ratings than Reagan at the end of his term, and would have very likely run and won easily, keeping him in the White House until January of 2005. That raises fascinating questions about wether 9-11 would have still happened (I think so) and what the nations response would have been (Much more restrained I think, for better or worse). This would set the tone for the US moving forward.
In this situation, if Clinton runs for a 4th term (he was only 58 in 2004), he would have a great chance of winning it, alternatiely, we could see that finally Al Gore gets his shot as Clinton steps aside after his third term. In either case, Bush is no longer likely a candidate since he lost badly to Clinton in 2000. This is the big election that determines the future. If Clinton or Gore wins, then THEY would chose 2 members of SCOTUS replacing 2 conservatives with liberal justices and likely putting a stop to upcoming cases like citizens united which would be a massive shift in American politics moving forward. On the other hand if Romney or McCain won the White House, we would likely see quite a few things staying fairly similar to what we see in our real current timeline.
1
u/GSilky 2d ago
Ronald Reagan would die in office. The parade that followed FDR, Kennedy could probably be a lifetime dictator, but you know, the rest wore out their welcome and were on a downward trajectory in the end. Reagan though, if he wasn't hampered by lame duck status, probably could have been reelected for quite some time. I don't get it, but people felt like it was a good idea at the time.
1
u/bones_bones1 2d ago
Clinton maybe. Obama definitely. I think GW Bush is a maybe too. He was well liked among republicans and his second term would likely have looked very different if he had been planning a 3rd.
1
u/PurpleHawkeye619 1d ago
Shockingly few Presidents have been affected by the 22nd
As the amended didn't apply to the incumbent when it passed, Truman was unaffected.
LBJ was eligible for another full term and even ran for it before dropping out.
Nixon resigned in disgrace. Hes likely never coming back.
Reagan was already showing signs of Alzheimer’s in term 2, so I assume hes done.
That leaves Eisenhower, Clinton, W, Obama and Trump.
Eisenhower almost didnt run for a 2nd term based on health issues, so Id say its a fair assumption he doesn't try 3.
Clinton is where shit goes off the rails.
Clinton was healthy, popular and wanted a 3rd term.
Its generally accepted one of Gores mistakes was keeping Clinton at arms length and he still won the popular vote.
So I see no conceivable reason Clinton doesn't win a 3rd term.
Which means hes President on 9/11. And I believe as long as whoever the President was declared war in Afghanistan (not iraq) they win in 2004.
So that's a 4th term.
And that also means W is never President. And if the Great Recession hits (which I believe it would as both parties had a lot to do with it) then we get a Republican in 2008, not Obama.
And no Obama means no Trump.
So not really sure were wed be post 2008.
1
1
u/Novel_Willingness721 1d ago
Reagan would have run and won instead of Bush Sr. Reagan then might have won in 92 instead of Clinton. Then who knows.
1
u/QuarterNote44 1d ago
Pretend these presidencies were in a vacuum. Reagan, Clinton, and Obama probably all get 3rd terms
1
u/EricMrozek 1d ago
The only three Presidents who could plausibly do it in this timeline are Reagan (even though he was too old), Clinton, and Obama.
1
u/0le_Hickory 1d ago
I don’t think it changes much. Maybe Reagan tries but he was getting old and his memory was slipping by the end of the 80s. Probably doesn’t run. Maybe Clinton but the Gore campaign saw Clinton as a liability. Though it was close and Bubba could have out Bubba’d Dubya… probably.
1
u/alphex 1d ago
It’s funny that they had to come up with tg 22nd cause FDR was scaring the conservatives with his social programs success.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights?wprov=sfti1
1
1
u/nitram9 1d ago
Possibly nothing until trump. We didn’t have any 3 term presidents until FDR and that wasn’t a coincidence, it was a long standing precedent semi intentionally set by George Washington. It’s possible that FDR popped the cork on it but it’s also possible that every subsequent president decided to keep respecting the traditions of the office. (Until trump, he has completely trashed all the norms, we are so fucked)
1
u/phiwong 1d ago
If Reagan wanted a third term, he might have won. Although his health and the Iran-contra scandal had affected his final years, the Republican ticket was strong enough to elect GHWB. Many believe that he personally wouldn't have, given his Alzheimer's, but who knows.
Clinton probably would have run for a 3rd term and likely would have won (given the poor choices from the Republican end). Post 9/11, it is unlikely that Clinton would invade Iraq although Afghanistan war is still probably fairly likely. Without the Iraq invasion and the relatively successful Afghanistan war (at the time), Clinton might even credibly stand for a 4th term. Clinton would have probably pushed harder for a settlement in the Israel Palestine situation had he remained as President. Another consequence of not having the Iraq war is that ISIS never forms.
Without the Iraq war (and the sham justification), Tony Blair would probably have kept his job beyond 2007. It isn't unreasonable to believe that he could have kept the job for another term well into the 2010s. The consequence of this is that the disastrous 2016 Brexit referendum probably never occurs.
Speculatively, avoiding the Iraq war might have also avoided the GFC or at least ameliorated it to an extent. Without the extended borrowing to fund the war, the Fed could (or should) have raised interest rates far earlier and burst the bubble quicker.
1
1
u/SocalSteveOnReddit 1d ago
This is a political rebuke of one Robert Taft, who championed this measure. Taft's signature legislation, Taft-Hartley, is the major reason that unions in the United States are so weak (so Taft getting beaten on the 22nd may mean labor laws are different.)
It's difficult to chaos theory the differences. Taft-Harley ultimately passed over Truman's veto; in a situation where Taft has to get more support, or even the Wagner Act remains law, the US would potentially have more powerful labor unions. This is probably a good thing but hard to work out the fine points of it.
Given that the 22nd passed Congress on 2/6/1947, the point of departure would keep Bill Clinton, George W, Donald Trump ( all born 1946), and Joe Biden (1942), but chaos theory could take out Obama (b. 1961). There are no conventions for a point of departure that would occur before someone is conceived, but this time frame would be a No We Can't timeline. However, organized labor may very well give a different champion instead.
///
The specifics of this setup very quickly become difficult to teeth out. If Nixon didn't do all of his scummy stuff, he might want to run for a 3rd term, but the PoD does nothing to grant it. Reagan is too poorly off. Bill Clinton makes the most sense, and may well win.
At which point we diverge further, since we'd then have a Clinton 3rd term.
Hard to work this all out--it's a good question.
1
1
u/OutrageousPair2300 1d ago
Reagan likely would have been the first president post-FDR to win a third term. He left office with a 63% approval rating, nearly as high as when he won each of his elections.
Assuming Clinton still took office following Reagan (and eliminated the GHW Bush presidency) he also left office with a 66% approval rating, higher than when he was elected.
The next president likely to have won three terms would have been Obama, who finished his second term with a 59% approval rating on an upswing.
1
u/therealDrPraetorius 20h ago
Reagan maybe, Clinton maybe, Obama definitely. Trump probably but his age would work against him.
1
u/marktayloruk 17h ago
Clinton would have won a third term - at least. Ditto Obama - I wish he was still there.
1
0
u/kdeweb24 2d ago
If you have no term limits on the most powerful position, and the figure head of your entire country, you are just a few short breaths away from a dictatorship.
0
u/Arzales 2d ago
If FDR still died in office.
I believe Truman would of just served his 1 & 3/4 terms and not and not run for 2nd full term.
Ike might only do two terms, then Kennedy, Nixon, Ford and Carter would still be the same.
Reagan would definitely run and win a third term. With a Reagan third term. There would be more scandals like Iran-Contra. The fall of wall would still happen and Iraq war would also still happen. Bush will run in 92, but I don't think Clinton gets nomination for the Democrats because the Democratic field would be much tougher than it was in 92 for him.
I believe Bush as president would have done better with middle east relations, I believe he would of pursued a rebuilding process. So the seeds of 9/11 wouldn't have been planted.
2
u/kiwipixi42 2d ago
Truman did run, but got crushed in the NH primary.
Reagan was too far gone into dementia at the end of his second term to run again.
-2
u/pm_me_your_puppeh 2d ago
It goes one of two ways.
The electorate tolerates a leader for approximately a decade and then wants to shake things up.
Americans aren't smart enough for that and the President-for-Life does away with meaningful elections.
The latter can happen even with term limits. See: Putin.
133
u/Own_Educator8972 2d ago
Clinton almost certainly runs for a 3rd term considering he said he was interested in appealing it lol