WI No 22nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NapoleonXIV

Banned
I believe this has been done before, and if it has been explored thoroughly I would apologize and ask to be directed to it.

If, however, you wish to use this thread then what would happen. Would it start with Eisenhower's third term? And what would be butterflied out of existence as time went on?
 
If Eisenhower goes for the third term, as he might, he'd beat JFK. Simple as that. JFK would likely still get the Democratic nomination, but he might not want it if he had to face Eisenhower. Which leaves Johnson or Humphrey, I imagine.

No Viet Nam? I doubt Eisenhower wants another war in Asia and I can't see him doing what Johnson did. Cuban Missile Crisis? That's a tough one but Eisenhower was a known quantity to the Russians, I doubt they'd screw with him.

In '64 I doubt Eisenhower goes for a fourth term so Nixon/JFK? Heh. JFK wins, probably easier then OTL. Now Goldwater or Rockefeller or Lindsay (NY Mayor) may run and may defeat Nixon in the primaries but again, I'd say JFK would beat them.

On the Democratic side… Johnson, perhaps. McCarthy but I doubt it. Humphrey again is quite possible. Regardless I think JFK could get the nomination, but it's been a few years. Maybe some of those rumours are out now and he's politically damaged.

No Viet Nam is changing the political culture quite a bit.

The Republican Party is quite different too. No Goldwater changes things. No exodus of Goldwater operatives to Reagan changes things.

So. Let's say JFK over someone in 1964. Civil rights? Might be the right time, might not. A later Cuban Missile Crisis isn't likely as ranges have improved. No Viet Nam to get involved in.

Gets murky after that, but I could probably muddle on for a bit.
 
I think that Eisenhower is unlikely, he was pretty old and the tradition would still be there.

I am also not 100% certain that Eisenhower would have won. There would still be the third term thing. The issue of his age and health would have come up. I think JFK might have won by a slightly larger margin than in OTL.

The next possibility is Reagan. I think he would have won rather easily in 1988. However his alzheimer's and the issue of the 25th amendment would become very uncomfortable. I suspect he would eventually have been persuaded to resign but that GH Bush would have been very damaged goods and lost heavily in 1992.

If Reagan were to run in 88 and Bush took the Presidency in tricky circumstances I think Democrats would think that the 92 nomination was worth having (although I expect Gulf War 1 to have gone as in OTL.)

I think that a President Cuomo is a real possibility.


If Eisenhower had run and lost in 60 (thus weakening the third term issue) and Clinton still won in 1992 I think he could have been a real candidate in 2000. I have little doubt that he would have defeated GW Bush.
 
Eisenhower was popular enough that trotting him out faster would brought Nixon a win. Does that mean he can win on his own? I think so. Nixon almost won, with a pretty bad campaign and saddled with Rockefeller's civil rights platform from the convention. Failing that and with Eisenhower the guy being more popular then Nixon, and the Eisenhower years being pretty good ones I think he does win.

Also? Hold on there, we never got to '84, let alone any year before that. Butterflies may (will, I think) take out Clinton, let alone either Bush or Reagan. Heck without Goldwater winning the nomination Reagan may not be the guy for the Republicans. I don't see how you can pull Reagan winning in 1988 out of anywhere, frankly.

By '68 or '72 the landscape is pretty different: Rockefeller hasn't been wrecked by Goldwater. Goldwater hasn't won the nomination. The Republican Party hasn't been wrecked by the above pair. Lindsay may feel he can run. Romney likely doesn't have Rockefeller's support. Nixon didn't have his taste of East Coast money and a few years off to change himself. Reagan hasn't benifited from the exodus of Goldwater's young turks.

On the Democratic side: JFK didn't win in '60 so is still alive. RFK isn't going to run for the presidency. Viet Nam is a way different issue. McCarthy won't run without Viet Nam. Neither will McGovern. Carter isn't (and may not be) governor. Jerry Brown may not become Governor. Humphrey isn't the establishment alternative against McCarthy/McGovern.

Anyway. Things are different enough that projecting out to 2000 and Clinton's third term is, well, impossible. Too many butterflies, too much different political development.
 
My guess
1960 Eisenhower wins third term against Stevenson/Kennedy. Castro taken out, troops sent into Laos, perhaps no Berlin wall.
1964 Kennedy-still alive-beats Nixon/Goldwater ticket.
1968 JFK assassinated rather than RFK. President Johnson and VP Humphrey lose election; less commitment to Vietnam.
Nixon elected, same until
2000 Clinton gets third term.
2004 McCain beats Gore
2008 Reelected over Kerry
2012 Obama elected
2016 Reelected.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top