What if JFK served a third term?

Is this draft of the timeline likely?

  • Yes

  • Yes,but needs work

  • Maybe

  • No but possible

  • What shit is this


Results are only viewable after voting.
Remember any successful third term President would change the political landscape for the future. As an example if Kennedy lost to Eisenhower I doubt if he would have been viable in 1964.
 
It is very unlikely that the 22nd Amendment would not be adopted. The 80th Congress was controlled by the Republicans, and a large share of the Democrats who survived 1946 were southern conservatives who didn't necessarily revere FDR's memory. The idea that the Republicans are going to abandon the idea of the Amendment because of one speech, however eloquent, IMO shows a misunderstanding of how Congress works.

However, let's assume the Amendment does somehow fail. In that case, my guess is that JFK will not be elected in 1960, because Eisenhower, despite his health problems, will run for a third term and win. No doubt he will be reluctant to do so, but he will be persuaded it is his duty--the Democratic "spenders" in Congress would be dangerous if not blocked by a presidential veto. Furthermore, he did not have a high opinion of JFK, whom he considered immature, and he had his doubts about Nixon as well...
I perfectly know how congress works. Thank you very much
 
I perfectly know how congress works. Thank you very much

I continue to find it implausible that a Congress completely dominated by Republicans and anti-FDR Democrats is going to be dissuaded from voting for the 22nd Amendment by a speech praising FDR and trying to shame Congress for taking a posthumous slap at him.. In fact there were many such speeches in OTL. "Adolph Sabath (D-IL) characterized the vote as a 'pitiful victory over a great man now sleeping on the banks of the Hudson.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=XO9nBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA677

If you think that's how Congress works--a vast majority of Congress is suddenly motivated to vote against their ideological and party program because of one speech, however eloquent--I would like to ask, Just when has this happened?
 
I continue to find it implausible that a Congress completely dominated by Republicans and anti-FDR Democrats is going to be dissuaded from voting for the 22nd Amendment by a speech praising FDR and trying to shame Congress for taking a posthumous slap at him.. In fact there were many such speeches in OTL. "Adolph Sabath (D-IL) characterized the vote as a 'pitiful victory over a great man now sleeping on the banks of the Hudson.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=XO9nBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA677

If you think that's how Congress works--a vast majority of Congress is suddenly motivated to vote against their ideological and party program because of one speech, however eloquent--I would like to ask, Just when has this happened?
Dude, its a "What If." scenario. No need to get offended
 
Just going off the OP here. If Ike somehow doesn't run for a third term, and Kennedy isn't assassinated, I find it doubtful he'd seek a third term. His health was such that I could see him stepping aside willingly. Most likely if things were going well, JFK would decline to run in '68 citing health concerns, and do all that he could to get his brother elected. Simply trading one Kennedy for another.
 
Not only would the 22nd Amendment need to be repealed but it would have to be repealed before the 1968 primaries. It took almost four years for the original amendment to become effective.
 
Well, hasn't that already been answered? No 22nd Am almost certainly means means (for good or ill) a third term for Ike, not JFK.
While I agree that Eisenhower would have been easily reelected if he ran I doubt that he would have run even if he could have. Ike and even more Mamie were ready to retire. The same applies to Reagan.
 
David T wrote:
I continue to find it implausible that a Congress completely dominated by Republicans and anti-FDR Democrats is going to be dissuaded from voting for the 22nd Amendment by a speech praising FDR and trying to shame Congress for taking a posthumous slap at him.. In fact there were many such speeches in OTL. "Adolph Sabath (D-IL) characterized the vote as a 'pitiful victory over a great man now sleeping on the banks of the Hudson.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=XO9nBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA677

If you think that's how Congress works--a vast majority of Congress is suddenly motivated to vote against their ideological and party program because of one speech, however eloquent--I would like to ask, Just when has this happened?

While admitting Congress can be arrogant, stuck up, B-tards with no sense of history or ability to see two seconds past the 'current' situation is it totally implausible that they MIGHT on occasion manage to catch a clue as to how "cutting off their nose to spite their face" legislation EXACTLY like the 22nd Amendment MIGHT in some future case come back to bit them on the arse?

Because the GOP senators who DID vote for this DID in fact regret it almost immediately and especially once they got in a "Republican" president that people actually liked. (Yes they DID in fact introduce a couple of half-hearted "repeal" or "replacement" bills that died horribly in Committee because the Democrats were having none of it)

As for Kennedy running for a third term I highly doubt it as while he PLANNED on doing two terms, (everyone after Truman did mostly due to this reason) if given a chance for a third it's unlikely because he was getting burned out. Eisenhower on the other hand fricking LOVED being President despite having to be 'drafted' into it in the first place. This was actually a problem because he was not open to advice and suggestions on alternatives to what HE wanted. Taking the Space Race as an example he was bound-and-determined NOT to play. Sputnik DID hurt him as did his constant disparagement of the 'effect' it had both domestically and internationally. He would have been in the same situation as Kennedy in 1961, (Kennedy btw would not have been run so as to avoid the stigma of loss) and while the pressure to "do" something about the Soviet "lead" in space would have been immense he would have done.... Nothing.

He would have continued to support the current (at that time) NASA Plan of finishing Mercury and then moving to Apollo which would initially be an orbital program with a 'possible' round-the-moon capability using the Saturn-1 booster which he would (rightly but non-obvious to a panicked public and leadership) claim would 'erase' the supposed Soviet lead in boosters and give America a vastly superior orbital capability. That is until Proton came along but he wouldn't let that take his attention away from the "important" things.

He was also enamored with the concept of fighting 'cheap' battles to "contain" Communism which were arguably NOT working despite the rhetoric being pumped in his ear from the CIA. So when the "exile" invasion started to go pear shaped in Cuba he'd have immediately ordered the US military in to assist which is what the planner expected Nixon to do, (and assumed they'd left Kennedy no choice) in OTL. (The last minute switch to the Bay of Pigs happened before the election as I recall so that instead of having the mountains to fall back into in case of failure the ONLY way the operation would work is if the US intervened)

Well at least that means no Cuban Missile Crisis right? Well no, but it also means the Soviets are getting more and more worried about the amount of atomic warheads surrounding their nation and frankly Ike had no issues with this as his "New Look" policy was to keep hemming them In till they either collapsed or twitched at which point Armageddon. Meanwhile the Army and Navy are being gutted again since all we need is the Air Force anyway because they have all the 'strategic' weapons...

Ignore the fact that they are the poster child for the whole "Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex" because hey Ike did! If any Communist lackey's make trouble we'll send in the CIA who will arrange a coup, assassinate someone, (maybe even the "right" someone, they can get lucky right?) or failing that arrange for the US military to stage an 'intervention' even though we can only bomb them flat, (probably with nuclear weapons since we've cut 'conventional' forces to about zero) and fly away but what are the Commies going to do? Threaten to nuke us when they are surrounded by enough firepower to sterilize half the planet? Sure Europe and Asia are going to be uninhabitable for millennia but that's a price, er chance, ya chance, that Ike seems willing to take after all.

Yep Eisenhower was pretty sharp about making Nixon into something OTHER than just a 'plug-in-replacement' for the POTUS but also didn't like or trust him that much and certainly didn't want HIM to become President. So if he runs for a third, (maybe fourth, fifth if they prop him up and animate his lips moving to "prove" he's not actually dead...) term who's he pick for VP? He's not going to chance Nixon actually taking over for him after all..

Randy
 
While I agree that Eisenhower would have been easily reelected if he ran I doubt that he would have run even if he could have. Ike and even more Mamie were ready to retire. The same applies to Reagan.


But that's in a situation where they have always known that he'll be retiring in 1961. That won't be true TTL, and between his low opinion of Nixon and the pressure he'd be under from his party (who'd be eager for a three-term POTUS of their own to "balance" FDR) I think he'd have answered the call of duty - though they might have had to offer him a different VP.
 
Top