No 22nd Amendment, No Term Limits.

Clinton would not have likely won a third term. There would have been too much Clinton fatigue for such a run to work and Bush would have been a fresh, relatively young face, with the advantage of running to keep peace and prosparity going without the embarassing stuff.

Of course if Clinton had gotten a third term, his reaction to 9/11 would have destroyed him. Judging how he behaved in previous crises, including the first WTC bombing, he would have had UBL indicted, launched a few cruise missiles at Afghanistan, and called it a day. No Patriot Act, of course, so every likelihood of further mass casualty attacks.
 
Clinton would have sent the troops into Afghanstan, If not he would have faced a second impeachment. The massive tax cuts for the top 2% would not have been given out and the huge deficts of the Bush years would not exist. No war in Iraq, it would be easy to keep Saadam under control. Heck Saadam hated Bin Laden. We were allies with Iraq in the Reagan years why not during the third Clinton term. pretty far fetched. But AH is like that. I just can't see Bush running against Clinton in 2000. But running against Gore in 2004.
 
Clinton would have sent the troops into Afghanstan, If not he would have faced a second impeachment. The massive tax cuts for the top 2% would not have been given out and the huge deficts of the Bush years would not exist. No war in Iraq, it would be easy to keep Saadam under control. Heck Saadam hated Bin Laden. We were allies with Iraq in the Reagan years why not during the third Clinton term. pretty far fetched. But AH is like that. I just can't see Bush running against Clinton in 2000. But running against Gore in 2004.

Clinton would have faced the bursting of the dot.com bubble. He would likely would have had to cave to some kind of tax cuts (remember Congress is still GOP). But his lack of action after 9/11 would have sunk him.
 
Clinton would have sent the troops into Afghanstan, If not he would have faced a second impeachment. The massive tax cuts for the top 2% would not have been given out and the huge deficts of the Bush years would not exist. No war in Iraq, it would be easy to keep Saadam under control. Heck Saadam hated Bin Laden. We were allies with Iraq in the Reagan years why not during the third Clinton term. pretty far fetched. But AH is like that. I just can't see Bush running against Clinton in 2000. But running against Gore in 2004.

Well, Clinton would receive plenty of fire from Republicans about how he could have dealt with Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 occurred, whether or not he deserves that criticism. What means for the Democratic Party at large is another thing.
 
Nixon in '80: absolutely not. Given Nixon's economic policies it would be suicide to even attempt it, and a Democrat would win after 12 years of Republican rule. Mostly likely a Jackson/Hart ticket IMO.

Clinton was still very popular at the end of his term, with approval ratings in the high 50s to low 60s. Plus the bubble will not burst until the spring of 2001, just a few months too late for the GOP. In 2002 they post a spectacular midterm victory, perhaps the OTL 2008 Dem majorities. In 2004 Clinton's health is shaky, so he probably retires and you get either McCain or Bush depending who ran and won the nomination in 2000. Assuming that there's still the housing crisis in 2007-8, then the Dems might win in 2008, though who said Dem it would be I have no idea. It would be nearly two decades of Clinton minus a 4-year GOP breather, so probably not Hillary, and Obama would definitely be butterflied.
 
Nixon in '80: absolutely not. Given Nixon's economic policies it would be suicide to even attempt it, and a Democrat would win after 12 years of Republican rule. Mostly likely a Jackson/Hart ticket IMO.

Clinton was still very popular at the end of his term, with approval ratings in the high 50s to low 60s. Plus the bubble will not burst until the spring of 2001, just a few months too late for the GOP. In 2002 they post a spectacular midterm victory, perhaps the OTL 2008 Dem majorities. In 2004 Clinton's health is shaky, so he probably retires and you get either McCain or Bush depending who ran and won the nomination in 2000. Assuming that there's still the housing crisis in 2007-8, then the Dems might win in 2008, though who said Dem it would be I have no idea. It would be nearly two decades of Clinton minus a 4-year GOP breather, so probably not Hillary, and Obama would definitely be butterflied.

ATL with Nixon not being a Keynesian anyone? :D
 
What about this list of presidents?
Dwight Eisenhower (R) 1953-1961
John Kennedy (D) 1961-1963
Lyndon Johnson (D) 1963-1969
Richard Nixon (R) 1969-1977*
Henry Jackson (D) 1977-1981*
George Bush (R) 1981-1993*
Bill Clinton (D) 1993-2005
John Engler (R) 2005-2013

*Butterflies.
 
Who would he replace Gore with? By the way, this also dooms Hillary's presidential hopes after her husband is in office 16 years. Chelsea probably won't go into politics, so Bill won't get his dynasty...

Gore was the most powerful VP of all time at that point. Clinton actually gave him stuff to do.

Bush one upped him with Cheney. Obama has thankfully bucked the trend with Biden.
 
I doubt a Dubya campaign in 2000 w/o the Lewinsky Scandal but do expect it to have happened w/ Lewinsky...he kept high popularity but right after it would've been a tough one...GWB would likely have seen his opportunity and ran in 2000 if Lewinsky happened as in OTL. Remember though Clinton only won b/c of Perot's vote-splitting in 92. Clinton would likely have known this and stepped down, perhaps waiting a few cycles before running again. Those southern states are big on family values and wouldn't have gone for more of these affairs right in the Oval Office.

Clinton enjoyed high numbers through Election Day 2000. Thanks in no small part to his enemies' fatally overreaching themselves by going all out for Impeachment, Trial, and Removal. Hillary's declared "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" stopped being a joke after Ken Starr and the House Impeachment managers were exposed as the fools they were. 9/11 throws too many butterflies to predict a 2004 outcome, but it's hard to see Clinton doing worse than Bush. If he runs and wins, GOP victory in 2008 is a metaphysical certainty. Unless they overreach AGAIN.

jerseyrules said:
A 2008 run for GWB if everything OTL happened as usual; he had his bags packed by primary season.

GWB running in 2008? After his 2006 "thumping"? With every poll in the country (except Karl Rove's:rolleyes:) pointing to a bad year for the GOP? By the time Election Day rolled around the financial crisis (thank you de-regulation) had already hit. Bush might have RUN, but he would have been crushed more thoroughly than McCain, against ANY Democrat. There was good reason why McCain didn't want Bush campaigning for him.

jerseyrules said:
However he would likely have been much more careful with Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. and his approval ratings* had there been no term limits and the reason he was so ready to leave was because of the constant attacks from both sides**, and he would've listened more*** if there were no term limits.****

*- 1) The Bush Administration operated in a full-time re-election mode from Election Day 2000 to the closing days of McCain's campaign. ALL decisions were made based on their POLITICAL effects. It's hard to imagine how anyone could possibly be MORE careful with his poll numbers than he (or Karl Rove) was.

**- 2) The first time I see a recording of a prominent Republican in-office politician making "constant attacks" on BUSH WHILE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE will be the first. And McCain doesn't count. If there was one thing Bush always had in his favor, it was the complete lockstep loyalty he had from his own party.

***- 3) Bush was the DECIDER. NOT the listener. The only person he listened to was Karl Rove, a man totally incapable of seeing any problem except in its political dimension. Donald Rumsfeld, and even Dick Cheney could find themselves SOMETIMES frozen out. Never Karl.

****- 4) Without term limits, it would have meant even MORE politicking by the Bush Administration, and even LESS attention paid to the day-to-day running of the government. Meaning a viscous cycle in which Bush faces an even sharper charge of being the "Campaigner-In-Chief".
 
Top