What if, the 22nd Amendment is not passed, but Bill Clinton is the first to try for a third term?

brunohusker

So lets say that the 22nd amendment isn't passed. I don't know if things would go as OTL, but lets say things do but no president tries for a third term until Bill Clinton? My reason is that Eisenhower is too old, Nixon says he would but Watergate stops that, Reagan is too old and in decline as well, but Clinton, well sure he has the Lewinsky scandal but he's still popular and I'm guessing the Democrats aren't going to oppose him, and I don't know if Al Gore would run against his former boss in a primary, though I do see him maybe leaving the Vice Presidency, but still supporting Clinton. So do you think this is possible? Also, if Clinton wins a third term, how does it go? I still see 9/11 happening, though I could see maybe one of the hijackings being stopped but not all. Also, do the Republicans attack Clinton for this as he's been President for almost a decade where as Bush had only been in office for just under nine months? Also, does Clinton even look into sending forces to Iraq or is he just focused on Afghanistan?

Also, in regards to the future, is Clinton healthy enough to try for a fourth if its even possible? Who runs for the Republicans? John McCain seems to be an obvious choice, but I could also see Republicans wanting someone more in the evangelical camp? Also, even if he's not VP does Al Gore run and does he run away with a future nomination, or do other Democrats have a better shot?
 
Last edited:

NOLAWildcat

Nivek said:
wouldn't reagan before him try it?
Click to expand...
I’d be surprised. He was nearly 78 when he left office and was allegedly starting to show very early signs of the Alzheimer’s that eventually killed him, with more overt symptoms by 1992. Nixon and Clinton or even George W Bush seem like more likely candidates with their relative youth. Assuming the butterflies don’t have too much of an impact on those 3 (Watergate and the Lewinsky scandal still happen for example), Obama might actually have the inside track for this question as the others had more troublesome second terms.
 

dw93

I think he goes for it and wins, though it's narrow and the campaign is more hard fought than either 1992 or especially 1996. Despite the narrowness though, I do think the Democrats would retake the Senate and possibly retake the house, given how close those were in 2000 OTL. As to who the GOP nominates it could be McCain, Bush could even give it a go in the name of getting revenge for Daddy. If not either one of them, it would likely be Elizabeth Dole, if polling from the time indicates anything, that gets the nomination, though she'd fair worse than either Bush or McCain. 50/50 chance Gore declines to run for a third term as VP.
 

Lalli

OP probably means first third term president since FDR?

Yes, assuming that nothing changes on politics, Clinton would be first to try third term after WW2. But why he would do that? There is not really such reasons like FDR had.

But if he runs and win the election (pretty plausible since Clinton was still pretty popular) his presidency would mean lesser chaos on CIA and FBI meaning that 9/11 perperators might are caught in time. And even more importantly no invasion to Afghanistan and no Iraq War at least not now. But his GOP successor might decide to do that.
 

jseidorf

Hayatgheibi said:
Why would Clinton want to break the tradition of stepping down after 2 terms though?
Click to expand...
Evidently, according to his biographer John Harris, he poured over the text of the amendment to see if there was any way he could run for a 3rd term. He was still barely 50 and didn't want to leave the White House.
 

brunohusker

Lalli said:
OP probably means first third term president since FDR?

Yes, assuming that nothing changes on politics, Clinton would be first to try third term after WW2. But why he would do that? There is not really such reasons like FDR had.

But if he runs and win the election (pretty plausible since Clinton was still pretty popular) his presidency would mean lesser chaos on CIA and FBI meaning that 9/11 perperators might are caught in time. And even more importantly no invasion to Afghanistan and no Iraq War at least not now. But his GOP successor might decide to do that.
Click to expand...
My reason was mostly because Clinton was still popular and I think maybe he’d have had another term in him. Granted with Gore seeming like such a leading front runner, he might step aside but if Clinton can get a third term, why get rid of a good thing?
 

brunohusker

Hayatgheibi said:
Why would Clinton want to break the tradition of stepping down after 2 terms though?
Click to expand...
I feel like he liked being president and still was popular. Plus he could argue he kept the United States as the premier power in the world and kept the economy strong and knew how to negotiate with a hostile Congress.

Not to change topics but honestly, after Clinton the only guy who might try it is Obama and if we still get Trump (sorry if this veers too close to current politics) I could see Obama making it a kind of crusade to preserve normalcy and civility and honestly if he can win, it might make for a better time and Trump might not be seen as popular and his base is more fringe.
 

dfl_90

An interesting consequence of this is that Clinton would be in office during the 9/11 attacks. In OTL that resulting surge in patriotic sentiment pushed Bush's approval rating sky high and took about two to three years to dissipate. If Clinton, who was already more popular than Bush when he left office in 2001, experiences a similar effect, he might very well be approaching the 2004 election season with approval ratings in the 70+ range. If he already went for three terms, why not four?
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

Donor
Clinton could beat Bush, He was a great orator, and the whole OTL 2001 thing was that Gore just didn't have "it", nor did Bush of course, but Bush did that typical right wing been out of power a while thing and promised to govern in a bipartisan fashion
 

Sabin

In 2000, Allan Lichtman gave the incumbent party (Democrats) five negative keys: -Incumbency, -No Policy Change, -Scandal, -No Major Foreign/Military Success, and -Lack of Charismatic Incumbent. Five negative keys point to a popular vote win. If Clinton is running, he shores up the Incumbency Key. I don't see how that results in a loss. Also, when was the last time an incumbent President lost the White House with a good economy? Cleveland? Lol, It's over.

If Bill Clinton runs for a third term, I don't think George W. Bush runs in 2000 tbh. Every politician knows the power of the incumbency (let alone in good financial times) which is why everyone and their mother comes out of the woodwork for their shot after the second term. Bush will wait around for his shot in 2004 or just move on to do other shit but there's no way he goes down in history as the second Bush to lose to a Clinton. A George W. Bush candidacy is not a fixed point in history.

My sense is that the Republican Party was going through a major identity crisis in 1996 (not unusual; all parties go through their out-of-power wilderness period) and they need to sort out their priorities regarding culture war, free trade vs. protectionism, etc. Like, in 1996, you'd be forgiven for not knowing what the hell the Republican Party stands for at all. I don't see that becoming totally clear in 2000. Just like in 1996, it'll probably be a mix of outsiders (Buchanan, Forbes, Keyes) and some insiders making a bid for it like Alexander, Graham, or Elizabeth Dole. I'm not sure John McCain's candidacy is a sure thing either but I could see him being as good an option as any. While he has his past with S&L, he can talk about campaign finance reform which is a dodgy subject for Clinton, he can talk about foreign affairs, and pull in a respectable showing. But I don't think Bill Clinton loses in 2000 against anyone.

I don't know if Al Gore stays on the ticket. He has to know that his only chance of becoming President is if Clinton dies. A fourth term is almost unprecedented. I bet Al Gore leaves the ticket and Clinton picks someone else. I could see someone like Paul Wellstone mounting a primary challenge against Clinton but probably doesn't result in a debate.
 

Jonah Carter

First off, I think Bill Clinton walks to reelection. People liked him personally, approved of his presidency, and *really* approved of the economic situation, it's practically everything you could dream of as an incumbent. People might be concerned about the third term, but FDR had already broken the seal on that, and I think Clinton was persuasive enough to be able to turn it into some New Democratic "leading the country into the new millennium" thing. Really, all he has to do to win in 2000 is keep all the OTL Gore voters and stop Bush from stealing Florida. Everything else is just a question of the margin of victory.

That said, I think people will perceive it as much closer than it actually is. Obviously the media always needs a horserace or people will tune out, but also I think people would way overstate the importance of the Monica Lewinsky issue. That was something people basically never cared about, but Republicans would perceive it as a serious weakness. If Clinton is running on substantive achievements and issues, while Republicans run on Lewinsky, that makes it even easier.

Whether 9/11 happens the exact same way, happens in an altered form, or doesn't happen at all is honestly anyone's guess. If it does, I don't see him going into Iraq. That was the result of a long-standing ideological project by basically everyone in Bush's inner circle. If anyone else were in the room, I don't think we would've done it. Clinton obviously has to invade Afghanistan though, and I don't see it going any better under him. By 2004, he could easily run and argue that we shouldn't change horses midstream. After all, a fourth term isn't any more unprecedented than a third term. If he runs, he probably wins, making him the longest serving president in history.

If 9/11 doesn't happen, 2000-2004 is mostly focused on domestic issues. There was a short recession in 2001, but the economic damage in the US would be much less bad without 9/11. Clinton probably spends down some of the surplus on mostly tax cuts, but a big part of his appeal is the balanced budget and I don't see him squandering that. I don't think he would run in 2004, and a Republican would almost certainly replace him.
 

oberdada

I doubt this is as much a walk in the park for Bill Clinton as people here make it out.

If there is no 22nd Amendment, then most likely because people believed it wasn't necessary, because only in very special circumstances would someone (like Roosevelt) break with the traditional term limit.

So a serious primary challenge is quite likely.
Even if he will probably win that.

There were certain expectations.
A government with s certain end date is more stable than one that could go on indefinitely, because the risk/gain calculation of going against the leadership is different.

His Vice President might go against him.

His wife might divorce him. Her planned political career couldn't take of as first lady.

Ralph Nader will include a "no 3rd term" slogan into his campaign and do a lot better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top