r/HistoryWhatIf • u/Ok-Treat-8309 • 1d ago
What if the 22nd amendment limited presidents to three terms instead of two?
What Presidents, if any, would make a run for a third term after 1947 if this was the case. I could imagine Clinton and maybe Reagan, although his mental state was deteriorating by his second term. Potentially Obama as well. How would these third attempts have gone and how would they shift the political situation in America?
38
u/IntrepidAd2478 1d ago
Regan was tired and would stand down. Clinton would run and win a third term most likely, and after that we do not know what the landscape looks like.
18
u/canman7373 1d ago
Man people rarely give up that kinda power. Biden was fucking tired, we all saw that. He is still pissed they forced him out.
5
u/Kai3137 1d ago
In all fairness they had no choice biden would've lost worse than kamala
15
u/canman7373 1d ago
Shoulda had an open primary, let people get excited about someone even if was Harris that won it.
12
u/Amockdfw89 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think amongst other things, the democrats screwed themselves over a lot by timing. They HAD to have known Joe wasn’t going to run again way earlier than they announced it. Would not shock me if they were talking about it even halfway through his presidency.
I think if they had a frank and honest discussion with the American people earlier and explained the situation, and set up a primary they would have been a lot better off. Hell they could have given it earlier to Kamala even and worked with it. Instead it was a shock announcement and then Kamala inherited the ticket months before the election. It almost felt like some sort of internal self Coup d’état.
Even if you like the democrats, that shows a very concerning amount of disorganization and lack of planning. It’s like you spend all semester at school dilly dallying on a group project that will pass or fail you, and then deciding a week before the project is due that it isn’t good, scrap all your work, change your thesis and scramble to finish it before the deadline.
Whether you like Trump or not, he had a team who had a plan and platform and stuck with it and stayed consistent. Sure his policies suck, but his campaign was very deliberate. I think that’s why a lot of swing voters went with Trump, because it seemed as if the democrats did not know what they were doing
4
u/ithappenedone234 1d ago
They screwed themselves by not enforcing the law and allowing Trump to even be part of the discussion. Biden failed in his duty as Commander in Chief to suppress the insurrection and now that dereliction of his duty has not just allowed, but then supported Trump’s illegal inauguration.
-3
u/JustDontBeFat_GodDam 1d ago
They screwed themselves by not enforcing the law
Agreed, had the Democrats taken care of the border, Trump likely would not have ever become a thing. Especially foolish to not do anything after he already had a first term and was gunning for another.
7
u/hellhound39 1d ago
I remember when Dems and Republicans had a bi-partisan border bill to fix the issues there. I also remember that Trump pretty much ordered congressional Republicans to kill the bill.
0
u/JustDontBeFat_GodDam 1d ago
That would be my biggest secret if I were a democrat. Trump said fuck your bill with strings attached, Ill just resolve the issue directly. And people see its clearly possible, and not even difficult to do. It’s very important to note that the democrats and republicans were both on board to do what the people didnt want.
2
u/CuterThanYourCousin 14h ago
I mean, he "resolved" (in quotations, because it's not a long-term solution) the issue by committing huge human rights violations without proper procedures and completely disrupting the balance of power between Congress and the President.
2
u/hellhound39 1d ago
Trump will do what he did last year and put bandaids on the issue with cruel executive action like he did the first time, and like the other 3 presidents in this century did because we need actual legislation. Not to mention Republican complaining about the border is insanely disproportionate to the issue. Biden deported more people than Trump did the first time, Obama deported more than both of them. If we are so worried about illegal immigration, we need to try and solve the issue at its roots. A lot of the Central American political instability that is causing the bulk of these people to come is because of US meddling during the Cold War. So we need to stop destabilizing other countries because they have governments we disapprove of and we need to properly fund and staff the court system to address the backlog that causes people to be in legal limbo for years. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are here because they want a better life for their families. If we fix the system and process them with the adequate credentials (work permits and green cards when appropriate) it will make sifting out bad actors a lot easier. (Separate the people who come here to lead honest lives from the criminals so the former will be more willing to aid in catching the latter since they won’t have to worry about deportation) building a wall and letting ice violate people’s rights is a shitty bandaid solution.
→ More replies (0)0
u/EmergencyRace7158 1d ago
This. The dems screwed everyone by not doing whatever it took to bar Trump from running again. They clung to institutional norms (not laws) like they were in some West Wing remake over pure power politics. The dems will always leave the Republicans at least an even chance at the presidency because they're still focused on winning policy arguments while the other side only cares about winning power and changes its policies to whatever they need to be to win it.
2
u/Kai3137 1d ago
The problem is republicans listen to trump and follows what he says so it's very easy for them to stay organised and so long as their main voter base stays the same they're usually fine
With democrats they don't have a clear leader and their voters are split between liberals far leftists progressives and probably a few more to boot not to mention the growing frustration with Democrat's support of Israel and the fact they have time and again chosen to be center too scared to go too far left which upsets some of their base
They definitely need someone new to lead their party
0
u/Ragnarsworld 6h ago
They had a plan; run Biden again and have his handlers run the country. It was working until even they couldn't hide his decline. At that point, plan B was Kamala.
2
u/tombuazit 14h ago
This, like Harris did relatively well for someone that had to lay the tracks while the train was moving. Given the time and support a normal candidate gets and she likely would have won.
-1
u/Kai3137 1d ago
There's no way she would've won especially being part of an administration that was unpopular as it is
1
u/canman7373 1d ago
I agree, but I think a primary coulda shown her weaknesses if someone like Newsome or Pete wanted to step up, hell throw Bernie in there I think he would lost but not as bad as she did, he woulda got voters out, which she couldn't do.
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Way9468 1d ago
That poor man was trying his best during the debate. But he was still terrible.
0
u/Do__Math__Not__Meth 17h ago
I mean I also think he probably only did it because he felt like there was no one else ready, and he was right, I don’t think the party was really prepared
4
u/Brewguy86 1d ago
Obama would have won a third term against Trump.
-2
u/UtahBrian 23h ago
Against Trump maybe, but Obama wouldn’t have survived another primary against Hillary in 2016.
5
2
u/UnpricedToaster 18h ago
Clinton or Gore as President in 2001 and the decisions post-9/11 would have made the world a very different place.
18
u/lockezun01 1d ago edited 1d ago
These discussions always make me roll my eyes. because the butterfly effect would most likely mean different Presidents to our timeline.
For example, the ripple effect could change any number of small variables to tip the 1960 election for Nixon. Or it could spare JFK's life, allowing him to serve two terms (probably not longer than that, given his health). Shit, maybe for whatever reason this change prompts Eisenhower to not run.
Sticking to the existing presidential timeline, though? Eisenhower wasn't in good shape by the end of his 2nd term, and neither was Reagan. Clinton and Obama would've been entirely capable and decently popular, but there was no pressing need for them to violate the norm at the end of their second term. Put them down as 'maybes' (moreso Obama, whose popularity floated in the 40s-50s by the end of term two).
To answer your question - the butterfly effect makes this an interesting discussion, but also quite conjectural. Sticking to the events of our timeline, though, the resulting changes likely don't amount to much.
12
u/lcsulla87gmail 1d ago
I think in the universe Obama could have run again we might have seen him run 2020
7
2
u/BigBlueMan118 1d ago
If they law were to be changed now before the 2028 election (assuming there is a free and fair election) you dont see Obama thinking about it?
5
u/Bigc12689 1d ago
If the law gets changed, they'll change it to non-sequential, aka Putin style, so Trump can run again but Obama can't. I'd bet every dollar I have that Obama has had the conversation already
2
2
u/Particular_Top_7764 1d ago
Putin served for two and had to swap out, but I don't think that's the law anymore.
1
u/AkogwuOnuogwu 22h ago
That’s not really Putin style that was just one random Republican that wanted to write a constitutional amendment that would basically make Trump the only living former /current president that could run for a their term since his first and second were none sequential if I remember correctly for Russia the law was that the president was limited to only 2 sequential terms at a time so Putin was always able to come back before he just couldn’t do 3 terms as president in one go now as far as I know that’s no longer the case
6
u/TriTri14 1d ago
If Trump is running in 2028, there’s zero chance it’ll be a free and fair election.
2
u/BigBlueMan118 1d ago
Yeah I tacked that snippet on there to make sure I had that base covered because I unfortunately have my suspicions to agree with you. Have also heard people sugest one way around it might be that JD Vance runs and then if he wins he just cedes power to Trump or one of the oligarchs and/or essentialyl acts their puppet.
1
u/InTheOtherGutter 17h ago
Plenty of the same people who are influential over Trump would be influential over Vance but Vance absolutely would not be a puppet. He's a mad fascist all in his own.
6
u/scharity77 1d ago
The first president to take advantage of it would have been Bill Clinton - he loved the back and forth of politics, and you can see him come to life on the trail when campaigning for others. Reagan likely would have opted not to run, because of his mental state.
In that scenario, there may not be a President Obama, at least not in 2008, especially if Bill won.
9
u/visitor987 1d ago edited 1d ago
Reagan would of sounded like Biden did at the debate. Three Clinton terms might mean no 2nd Bush or Obama terms
5
u/Ok-Treat-8309 1d ago
That’s what I was thinking too. Probably McCain secures the win in 2004 against Gore? Then he could have potentially served until 2016, although the Great Recession wouldn’t have done his popularity any wonders.
1
u/Whysong823 1d ago
The Democrats likely would have won in 2004 had 9/11 still happened. 9/11 and the War on Terror was a guarantee that the incumbent party would win the next election; voters don’t like to change horses mid-stream.
1
u/Own_Pop_9711 1d ago
The Democrat response would be so much more mild the war would be considered over. Without Iraq, Afghanistan is occupied but probably considered done other than finding bin laden. I think they would be rewarded for such a resounding victory though. On the other hand if the Democrats don't even take Afghanistan and just stick to air strikes they might get crushed
3
u/Whysong823 1d ago
Under Clinton or Gore, the War on Terror would be confined to Afghanistan, at least in terms of direct military action. Afghanistan would be invaded, but the US would make no attempt at nation-building in a country that already barely exists. Osama bin Laden would probably be killed during the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, as there’s evidence that the Bush Administration let him get away to prolong the war to benefit the military-industrial complex. The US would evacuate Afghanistan sometime in 2002, and while the Taliban would immediately retake control, nobody in the US would care—they would just celebrate the recent death of bin Laden, and the President would be able to spin the entire war as a victory despite the Taliban retaking control.
-1
u/Ok_Chipmunk_6059 1d ago
This might be some of the worst fanfiction I’ve read in a while. Iraq is still on the table. The USA bombed it repeatedly during the Clinton administration and post 9/11 USA was utterly paranoid. The intervention had support from the majority in Congress. As for Clinton/Gore killing Bin Laden in 02 that’s the biggest fantasy you have here. You have zero evidence anyone letting Bin Laden go and clearly don’t have the faintest clue about the area of you think there’s an easy solution during 02.
3
u/Whysong823 1d ago
Th invasion of Iraq was a uniquely Bush Administration idea, specifically a Dick Cheney idea. It almost certainly would not have happened if Clinton or Gore had been in charge. Yes, Clinton bombed Iraq to enforce UNSC resolutions, but that is an entirely different ball game compared to launching a full-scale invasion. Also, recall that the bombings were in support of and thus backed by the UN, while the invasion of Iraq was in flagrant violation of international law.
I will admit that the Battle of Tora Bora going differently is a bit of a conspiracy theory on my part, but let’s not pretend that Bush and Cheney weren’t deep in the pockets of the MIC to an extent Clinton and Gore never were. Regardless, I hope you can agree Clinton was a better commander-in-chief than Bush. In 2009, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a report titled “Tora Bora Revisited: How We Failed to Get Bin Laden and Why It Matters Today.” It criticized Bush’s decision to rely on Afghan militias during the battle, concluding that this approach allowed bin Laden to elude capture and stating that he was “within our grasp” but escaped due to insufficient US troop deployment. Military and intelligence officials have also expressed concerns about the operational decisions made during the battle. Gary Berntsen, the CIA team leader on the ground, reportedly requested additional US troops to assault Tora Bora and block escape routes. His request was denied, which definitely led to bin Laden’s escape. Any way you slice it, in my opinion, if Clinton or Gore had been in charge, bin Laden wouldn’t have escaped.
Also, I really don’t appreciate the hostile language. It’s unnecessary and immature.
-1
u/UtahBrian 23h ago
Osama was never in Tora Bora after 9-11. He was relaxing as a honored guest of Pakistan’s military.
And Clinton never would have invaded Afghanistan.
1
u/Whysong823 23h ago
bin Laden was absolutely in Tora Bora in December 2001. He didn’t flee to Pakistan until after. No idea where you’re getting that idea from,
1
0
u/UtahBrian 23h ago
9/11 wouldn’t have happened with anyone but Bush in office, though. Arrogant and incompetent hubris at national security riddled with aggressive corruption is a potent combination.
Maybe Biden, I guess. Even with Biden fully asleep at the wheel, I think it’s 50-50 at worst.
1
u/Whysong823 23h ago
9/11 had been planned since 1996, originally under the scrapped Bojinka Plot. The attack was going to happen, and the Clinton Administration failed just as much as Bush in detecting it.
1
u/UtahBrian 22h ago
It’s true 9-11 was not a sudden idea; there were already two WTC bombings by the same Saudi-Pakistani sponsored terrorists before then.
They might have tried under Clinton, but basic competence would have stopped them. It took Bush level failure to allow them to succeed.
3
u/Gemnist 1d ago
Reagan probably still would have won because America was so high on him, but because he couldn’t they settled for the next best thing (his VP). As for Clinton, it would probably depend on his reaction to 9/11 while in office. If he still starts Afghanistan, I could see the American people rallying behind whoever he supports.
1
u/lyonhawk 11h ago
9/11 was in 01, so for Clinton to respond he would’ve already been elected to a third term
1
u/Gemnist 11h ago
I know. OC was wondering what the implications of a third Clinton term would be on other presidential terms, so I highlighted what would have been the deciding factor in a third consecutive term.
1
u/lyonhawk 10h ago
Gotcha. I thought you were saying whether Clinton would win a third would depend on his response to 9/11.
1
u/Longjumping_Film9749 1d ago
Obama could very well happen, it would be delayed.
1
u/Educational-Cup869 22h ago
Obama still happens
Reagan would not run for a third term.
the timeline does not change until Clinton is elected .
Clinton wins a third term.
Bush probably wins in 2004
Barack wins 2008 and wins 2012 and 2016
Trump Wins 2020 but might not win 2024 depending on how he handles covid.
6
u/Swanpai 1d ago
There's only one President since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment who would have both a) ran for a third term and b) won a third term: Barack Obama.
Eisenhower: old and in not-fantastic health. He probably wouldn't have run for a third term, but if he had, he would have lost to Kennedy. His favorabillity was not particularly high for an outgoing President, and the recession of 1958 (which delivered a staggering landslide win to Democrats), Sputnik, and Cuba were all still useful weapons. While Eisenhower was far more personally popular than Nixon, Kennedy's key campaign narrative of youthful leadership for a new era would have contrasted against the aging Eisenhower even more sharply.
Reagan: even older and in worse health. Reagan actually did want to run for a third term and often bemoaned the 22nd Amendment. However, he was simply far too old, and his Alzheimer's was far more apparent and unavoidable. Plus, his administration had been pretty severely damaged by Iran-Contra in ways we forget about today because of Bush's win interrupting the traditional two term transfer of power. Bush had a cutting edge campaign that would not have been possible with a candidate like 1988 Reagan. He would have lost, even to an embarassing campaign like Dukakis's.
Clinton: everyone acts like Clinton would have won here, but he probably would have gotten pasted by Bush. Clinton's appeal was that he was a charismatic Southern good ol boy who had moved to capture the center, with the downside that the public was exhausted by his personal character and scandals. His opponent would have been a charismatic Southern good ol boy who had moved to capture the center, without any of the personal scandals. There's just no reason for the public to vote for Clinton over Clinton w/ no scandals. Gore was behind Bush by ~20 points for most of the election, and only closed the gap with a populist campaign that separated himself from Clinton.
Dubya: he gets nuclearly obliterated in 2008, I don't think anyone disagrees. McCain was the best candidate they could have fielded - a moderate maverick with no connection to the most unpopular administration since Carter who ran AGAINST Bush in 2000. And he lost in a 7 pt landslide. The only person who does worse is Cheney.
Obama: It would have been a landslide against Trump. But even ignoring that, all he has to do is make up 40,000 votes in states he already comfortably won twice, among voters who have already voted for him twice. That's all, 2016 was insanely close, and Obama was lightyears more popular than Clinton. And then you pit him against the guy who started the Birther conspiracy? Take how motivated liberals were to vote against Trump without their reservations about Clinton. Trump gets obliterated, >400 EVs for Obama. This election isn't a referendum on Obama's popularity as much as it is suicide by the GOP.
5
u/Ok-Treat-8309 1d ago
Just the small mention of a Cheney run made me chuckle a little. Especially a Cheney run against Obama. Anyone who’s favourite colour is blue would’ve had a great night watching the electoral map the night of that election
4
u/skunkachunks 1d ago
Add to this that Obama would have had a moral reason to run for a third term - stand up to trumpism.
Also I was too young to realize that Al Gore didn’t just campaign as “VP of beloved but term limited Pres.” if what you’re saying is accurate, that is another datapoint that supports the idea that Dem voters actually want populist (or populist sounding) platforms. Obama, as centrist as he seems now, ran on a platform that seemed populist for sure.
3
u/Longjumping_Film9749 1d ago
Can't agree with your assessment on Bush beating Clinton in 2000, nothing from real life points to this possibility. Remember, Bush lost the popular vote and barely won the electoral college against Gore. Clinton would perform better than Gore. In 2004 real life, Bush won narrowly against John Kerry, it came down to one state. He won his two terms with the skin of his teeth. Clinton would smoke him in 2000.
-1
u/UtahBrian 23h ago
Obama may or may not have beaten Trump, but he wouldn’t have made it through another primary against Hillary in 2016. She had consolidated the party elites entirely behind her and her family spent the previous 16 years building up favors to call in and viciously undermining anyone who backed her opponents. She even used Foggy Bottom to eliminate and destroy Obama’s supporters while Obama was president. Obama wasn’t strong enough to protect them even from the oval office and he would have wilted in another contest with Hillary at her most ruthless.
2
u/sokonek04 11h ago
I get it “Hillary Bad” but god damn do you know nothing about politics.
Hillary is smart enough to know that attempting to primary a super popular incumbent is career suicide. The only reason she was able to call in those favors was because she knew that Obama couldn’t run.
But let your Hillary hate continue to cloud everything in your life
1
u/UtahBrian 8h ago
Sounds like you should learn a lot more about politics. The reason Andrew Jackson, TR, Grover Cleveland, Coolidge, Johnson, Grant, and Truman didn’t run for a third term is that parties don’t fall in line behind incumbents after the second term. They all made efforts to return to the presidency and failed. The only president who ever succeeded at getting a third nomination was Roosevelt.
1
u/sokonek04 8h ago
And the last one was ~75 years ago. A lot has changed since then.
1
u/UtahBrian 5h ago
It’s 75 years ago because of Amendment XXII.
1
u/sokonek04 5h ago
That doesn’t change the fact that politics is very very different than it was then. For purposes of argument the 22nd doesn’t pass, so everyone would have a chance to run for more terms.
1) We have actual primaries and a process that involves the voters and not just suits in a smoke filled back room. The voters would be much less likely to support a primary challenger than those suits would be considering most of them had ambitions as well.
2) This would be not the norm but a unique situation. Truman would be the last person to really have a shot to try for more than 2 terms. (Ike and Reagan had health issues, Clinton had the sex scandals)
3) look at how hard it was with Biden, a less than popular incumbent with a wide spread perception that he was failing health wise, and yet NOT ONE serious contender came forward to challenge him in the primaries. Now project that forward to a young (for a president) popular incumbent with a wide base of support. You really think he would receive any kind of serious primary challenge.
1
u/Swanpai 23h ago
The party would not have consolidated around anyone other than the incumbent in 2016. They consolidated around Hillary because Obama was term limited.
And he would have very easily beaten Trump.
0
u/UtahBrian 22h ago
That’s not at all how it happened historically. After two terms, parties don’t remain loyal. They kicked Grant and Teddy Roosevelt out when they wanted to run. And the Clinton Machine would have just dominated Obama in 2016.
1
u/Swanpai 22h ago
Both Grant and Teddy sought third non consecutive terms (1880 and 1912) after they’d been out of power. Grant left office deeply unpopular and Teddy was hated by the conservative party elite. They also already had an incumbent.
As for Clinton challenging an incumbent Obama in 2016, sorry, it’s just not a serious idea worth entertaining. I’d recommend Shattered by Parnes and Allen for a history of her shambolic 2016 campaign.
As for parties stopping at renominating candidates for third terms, I recommend the election of 1940 and/or the person in my profile picture.
3
u/Comediorologist 1d ago
I'll add that the Vice Presidency would be a drastically different job.
Who wants to sign up for a potentially 12 year gig where you have little power or influence?
With FDR's: Nance Garner left after 8 years. Wallace after just 4 because he was too left wing. Truman was a purely political choice.
3
2
u/Great-Drak-Lord 1d ago
If such an amendment is real, will it increased Ulysses Grant's chance of running for the third term? I remembered that he actually attempted to ran for the third term at the Republican National Convention at Chicago in 1880 before after he returned from the world tour if my memory served me right.
1
u/marktayloruk 1d ago
That was long before the.Amendment - which I oppose on principle..Can see Ike being persuaded to run again and Clinton and Obama at least winning. third terms or even more What about Dubya?
2
u/Ok_Chipmunk_6059 1d ago
Obama defeats trump and the US is way better off. Ike might get a third term. Clinton has an outside chance.
2
u/gabbidog 1d ago
Honestly, I'd prefer that to be a thing. Except make it 12 years serving total. For any of the elected positions. So senate, house of reps, and president all get a limited amount of time to be in positions like that. It would get rid of career politicians which is concerning to me that it's even a thing. The reason I pick 12 is because all 3 potential positions has that as the lowest common denominator. So it can be enforced across all of them. Judicial is different though, by nature it's different and not being elected but appointed is something that if we needed change for id say needs more time to think of a solution. Also make it so only the top level of the different branches can only effect each other's orders. So you get away from random judges deciding to arbitrarily nullify decisions from the president or congress. Must be supreme court as its one head of a branch directly interfering with the head of another
2
u/pauleide 1d ago
I don't think any would run for a 3rd term that job ages you. I know Obama said Michelle would kill him if tried to run. I think Laura Bush was over it too. Not exactly relevant but the two never got a chance. Nixon probably wanted a 3rd term. Maybe Carter had a passion for serving.
2
u/brantman19 1d ago
Eisenhower wasn't likely to run for another term as his health was starting to affect his stamina in a major way by the end of his second term but I honestly think he would have been the best to serve a third term out of those possible since.
Reagan was already a backseat president by 1988 and it was Nancy and his staff propping him up similar to what we hear was going on in the Biden White House. He might win an election but it'll be Nancy or GWB running the country for the most part with Reagan as a figurehead.
Clinton was popular but I wonder how the American public would have viewed him as the incumbent with the Dot-com bubble bursting right in the heat of the primaries. He might have won but it would have been a very narrow victory. This is ultimately what would have sunk a third term opportunity for Bush Jr too so there is that analysis.
Obama might have been one to pull it off without a health issue or economic problem. Assuming Trump for an opponent, I can't see Obama being beat. By early 2015, Obama was starting to be more "tolerated" than "well liked" as he was in 2008-2012 by independents but with Trump being the opposition, I can see independents swaying back to Obama for a third term. The only positive outcome from this would have been the complete removal of Trump's effects on the Republican party and the country. This would mean less polarization and the ability to work together as a country more in politics and diplomacy. Something that has been hard to find since 2015 from both sides.
2
u/Educational-Cup869 22h ago
Clinton and Obama would win a third term.
Reagan probably would as well but he would not be able to finish as third term as he was running on fumes during the end of his second term as it is
2
u/PoopSmith87 12h ago
It would create a more long-term outlook for incoming administrations... might actually have been a good thing going back.
Honestly, I would say more ideal would be to stick to two terms, but make them 5 years.
2
u/Kingbritigan 7h ago
Clinton would have won in a landslide. Say what you want about Bill Clinton (and I will) but he knew how to run a country. Obama probably would’ve beat Trump. How we picked the most despised candidate to run against Trump is just baffling.
2
u/SquallkLeon 7h ago
Clinton and Obama are the only two since the passage of the amendment who would have a realistic chance of winning a third term.
Reagan was popular, but his mind was going, and while he may have won another election, I don't think his party was prepared to support him in that endeavor. There's a story that Democrats in Congress were prepared to remove him towards the end of his second term, but were persuaded not to because he was going to leave office soon and the country was on autopilot anyway.
Ike might have won, except that his heart troubles were so bad that he likely would have died sooner if he'd tried.
W. was never going to win anything after Iraq, and especially not after the 2008 financial meltdown.
Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and HW all failed to make it to 2 full terms, so they couldn't have gone for 3.
1
u/Upnorthsomeguy 1d ago
I honestly don't not believe that much would change. American political cycles are around 6 years or so. This often results in two term presidents facing the opposing party controlling Congress. And while there are a limited number of cases when a party controlled the Presidency for 3 terms; in practice shifting political trends generally result in the dominant party losing control of the Presidency.
If you have presidents running for 3 terms... that wouldn't change the dynamics. The electorate generally sour on the party in power after 6 years or so. So the most likely affect is that unless a president is exceptionally popular... the president would be defeated in that third term election.
1
u/lyonhawk 11h ago
Reagan to HW Bush already carried 3 terms for the same party. And in the case of Clinton and Obama, both elections saw their party win the popular vote, but lose razor thin margins in swing states to tip the electoral college. And both outgoing presidents were far more popular than the nominees that followed them. Have to think more popular candidate plus the power of incumbency probably tips those elections.
1
1
u/TwistedPepperCan 1d ago
I don’t think the 22nd amendment would change much but if Washington sought a third term then that would have set the precedent that would see three terms become the norm.
If you compare America against countries with parliamentary democracy. i.e. a prime minister leads the executive branch for as long as have the backing of their political party or coalition. E.g. the UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland. Terms greater than 8-10 years are exceptional and only really achieved by prime ministers who have broad support with a few notable exceptions such as Margaret Thatcher who was deeply polarising.
So a president like Eisenhower might get a third term if he wants it and Reagan could also get one if he sought it, but in likelihood due to their age neither would.
Clinton or Obama could go for one but it’s also doubtful if they would win because in all honesty, electorates get bored of their leaders and change is good.
2
u/Ok-Treat-8309 1d ago
I was considering asking the question without the 22nd amendment and just going off the idea that 3 terms was always the norm but I can’t imagine how confusing and different that would be to OTL. even this alternate 22nd amendment could’ve had huge changes for the political environment of America, and the list of Presidents, had people like Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton or Obama sought a third term. a three-term Washington presidency could’ve had crazy implications. Jefferson serving a third term. Jackson? Would Teddy Roosevelt been more comfortable running a third consecutive term? Honestly maybe a more interesting (and perhaps realistic) idea
1
u/SideEmbarrassed1611 1d ago
What if there was no 22nd AMendment and good Presidents could stay as long as the people wished to exercise their democratic right to vote?
The Amendment is an unnecessary restraint and has fixed nothing.
1
u/Ok-Treat-8309 1d ago
I disagree. It limits Presidents with the knowledge they aren’t kings and never can be. Any progress they wish to achieve has to be achieved in max 8 years of being in power, and if they can’t, well it shows them reforms either aren’t popular with Americans or they aren’t the right person to set them up. Maybe not a prefect system, sure, but nothing ever is
1
u/SideEmbarrassed1611 16h ago
FDR is America's greatest President and he did just fine with 3 terms and a 4th he served a few months of. I vehemently think this is small minded thinking.
1
u/LordSouth 1d ago
The only president to have 4 terms was universal loved. Imo the ammendment was dumb. If we get an excellent leader we should be able to continue to elect them or chose jot to elect them if they become less og a leader.
1
u/TrueScallion4440 1d ago
I've been reading a lot of online hate for FDR lately. A bunch of he's overrated stuff. I see a ton of it from the "conservative" echo sphere. Even from the left because of Japanese internment. Historians and academics always rate him as one of the top three Presidents to which I definitely personally agree. There's an argument to be made that he saved our economy and quite possibly our country with one single fire side chat.
1
u/stevenmacarthur 1d ago
I would only predict what happens after each president; following the chain of one going for three then the next one not running is exhausting to think about.
1960: Ike might have run, but by 1960 I think he was getting tired; decades of chain smoking didn't do much for his health. If he does run, he wins.
1988: Reagan might run for one more, and he'd win - but I could see in that scenario him delegating more to Bush.
2000: Clinton definitely would - he said as much after he stepped down. He'd win in a landslide; look at where the economy was at the end of his time in office.
2008: "W" Bush probably wouldn't; the Recession and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have made it unlikely he'd win - in the real timeline, this was the first election since 1952 in which neither the incumbent president nor vice president was on the ballot, and the first since 1928 in which neither ran for the nomination. Heck, nobody even connected to his administration even dipped their toe in.
2016: I think Obama reluctantly declines to run for a third term, unless the GOP nominee looks to be Trump, Sarah Palin, or some other far-right reactionary candidate - in that case, I think he stays in to protect the country.
1
1
u/JustAAnormalDude 23h ago
Not many would even succeed in primaries even popular Presidents who tried failed to get the nomination. FDR was only allowed due to disastrous economic circumstances and the war, if those didn't happen he'd have just been a regular 2 term president imo.
1
1
u/Mysterious-End-2185 15h ago
I doubt many would run for a third term, but it does open the door for more substantive legislative agendas in second terms.
1
u/oldmancornelious 12h ago
I doesn't. This is not Tucker Carlson and you are not just asking questions. This is a pointed propaganda post to normalize the elimination of our constitution. You are trying to normalize a traitors coup and you should be imprisoned for being a part of this traitorous administration and it's attempts at traitorous motivations.
1
u/Ok-Treat-8309 8h ago
- I’m not even American 2. I’m as left wing as Bernie. You think I like Trump?
1
u/oldmancornelious 8h ago
Say what you will but this is not up for debate and whatever you are doing it is in fact providing a platform to misguide the young minds of reddit into believing that it would be ok to not impeach and imprison this president for all of eternity.
The fact that you aren't even American settled it. You are practicing a tried and true method of advertising. Establishing the idea. Putting a bug in a delicate ear. This act was transparent and any pleas from you fall in deaf ears. You are doing the work of the enemy and I hope you fear hell.
1
u/Ok-Treat-8309 8h ago
I HOPE you’re joking. I was asking a silly little question because I saw a meme about Bill Clinton still being president in 2025. By your logic, is any alt history post asking about a Nazi victory in WW2 written by a neo-nazi? Or a confederate victory? Not everything is a dog whistle
1
u/oldmancornelious 8h ago
In this day of age it would be wise to assume everything is a dog whistle. As an American who cares about children and animals and the elderly, Trump asked when he could start marshall law after inauguration. Did you know this? Your alternate history and this whole sub are a breeding ground for inseminating impressionable minds with non facts and historical fallacy. If not a dog whistle. Incredibly irresponsible for someone who say they support humans in any way.
1
u/DaddyCatALSO 12h ago
Neither of the Bush administrations would happen as they did. Ronnie and Big Bill each would have gone on for a third and probably won.
1
u/ReactionAble7945 10h ago
Reagan probably had the beginning stages of Alzheimer's. Not sure they knew, but they knew he was spent.
Clinton maybe, but I think he had used up credibility.
Obama is the one I would think would have wanted it and had a chance. Then again, would Hillary and the party done him like they did Bernie.
1
u/phydaux4242 10h ago
Eisenhower would have had a 3rd term
Reagan, Clinton, Obama. Maybe W, maybe not.
1
•
u/Ghostlyshado 3h ago
I think Obama would have had a third term.
Regan had Alzheimer’s that was becoming more advanced. I don’t think he would have been nominated. The GOP wasn’t the Republican Party of today back then. If he had been nominated, I think he would have lost.
•
u/Burnsey111 2h ago
Washington set the pattern by declining to run for a third. Those who wrote it might have felt Washington’s choice was wise.
0
u/NutzNBoltz369 1d ago
More Presidents dying in office. Also more time ( and money) wasted campaigning. Still, I can't see any one President really having the staying power to go for a third. Reagan more than likely. Clinton might have won a 3rd. The rest? Who knows. If the economy was good at the end of the second term and no major wars being badly prosecuted, a third term is not a tough sell.
Would rather an amendment be ratified that gave the President one and only one 8 year term. Run once. Win once. Go home. Same for every other public office. You get one term and then you go home.
-15
u/hedcannon 1d ago
Thanks to arrogant narcissistic FDR breaking that norm there would have been pressure by parties and administrations to keep presidents in office until death.
FDR was too infirm to serve but he ran anyway. Truman would have. Probably Eisenhower. Maybe Reagan and GWB. Definitely Clinton and Obama and Trump.
10
u/Colforbin_43 1d ago
Truman would not have. He could have run in 1952 because he was exempt from the amendment, but he chose not to because his poll numbers weren’t good.
Read your history.
-14
1d ago
[deleted]
7
u/Colforbin_43 1d ago
That’s your response to being dead wrong about something? Trying to insult someone instead of just saying “my bad”?
I’m gonna copy a page from your playbook.
(Whisper) here we meet a Trump supporter behaving naturally in his habitat.
-8
1d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Colforbin_43 1d ago
Well, you certainly take criticism as well as Donald Trump, and you make up some dumb bullshit just like he does.
Have a good day, magat!
2
93
u/MuttJunior 1d ago
First of all, the 22nd Amendment wasn't ratified until 1951. And it also excepted the current President in office at the time it was ratified, so Truman could have run for a third term if he wanted even after the 22nd Amendment was ratified (very doubtful he would have won, though).
With the Presidents that served 2 full terms after it was ratified, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama would be the most likely ones to win a third term, if they decided to run. They all had high approval ratings at the end of their second term. But even that is a long shot. Only 5 Presidents have sought a third term before the 22nd Amendment was ratified, with only one being successful. The other 4 didn't have their party's support for a third term. Theodore Roosevelt was the closest, but he formed a new political party to run under and came in second in the election.