WI: Term Limits Are Never Established?

I actually believe that neither JFK nor LBJ would have ran in in this timeline, as they both suffered from severe health problems that would eventually catch up to them.
Well, just because there's no term limit doesn't mean they need to try to go on and on and on (or that they'd even be successful); you need only look at the presidents before the term limits were put in place, and how only a scant few attempted a third term. Both JFK and LBJ saw themselves as able to serve eight years IOTL and I don't see why that would change here.
 
U serious? I don't think anyone apart from his wife and a few Republicans really cared about his affair. Hell, he ended his presidency with approval ratings over 65%!

But that was partly because everyone knew he couldn't serve as president after 2000, so expressing approval of him was "safe" (and a way of showing disapproval of the impeachment effort). If he were actually running for president again, I doubt the numbers would be anything like that.

More important, Clinton would probably have pledged in 1992 not to seek more than two terms, as Reagan would have in 1980, JFK and Nixon in 1960, and Ike and Stevenson in 1952. The fact is that even if the Amendment had fallen short, the *idea* that no president should ordinarily serve more than two terms (at least consecutive ones) was widespread--even Democrats merely said there should be leeway for emergencies like World War II. (Note Truman's refusal to run in 1952 even though the Amendment specifically allowed him to.) And note that there was no war or national emergency that would justify a third term in 1988 or 2000.
 
But that was partly because everyone knew he couldn't serve as president after 2000, so expressing approval of him was "safe" (and a way of showing disapproval of the impeachment effort). If he were actually running for president again, I doubt the numbers would be anything like that.

More important, Clinton would probably have pledged in 1992 not to seek more than two terms, as Reagan would have in 1980, JFK and Nixon in 1960, and Ike and Stevenson in 1952. The fact is that even if the Amendment had fallen short, the *idea* that no president should ordinarily serve more than two terms (at least consecutive ones) was widespread--even Democrats merely said there should be leeway for emergencies like World War II. (Note Truman's refusal to run in 1952 even though the Amendment specifically allowed him to.) And note that there was no war or national emergency that would justify a third term in 1988 or 2000.

People completely forget the Clinton fatigue that existed at the end of the campaign. Hell, it was bad enough that Gore distanced himself from Clinton. That it was a bad strategy doesnt undermine the perception of how Clinton was viewed in 2000.
 
U serious? I don't think anyone apart from his wife and a few Republicans really cared about his affair. Hell, he ended his presidency with approval ratings over 65%!

So did Reagan after Iran-Contra, more or less. Lots of people called for his resignation in the middle of it, including The Economist, for what that's worth. It wouldn't have stopped him getting elected again, but it got pretty ugly.
 
None of the OTL presidents could possibly have won a 3rd term until Reagan (who was too old, would surely not have run). So, in practice, that comes to Clinton. But by that time butterflies have flapped enough it's highly unlikely he'd have BEEN president.

Remember that Amendment was very popular. Getting it to not pass is a MAJOR change in history. Enough to seriously change the course of US politics.
 
I think that this a POD that does not change anything. As has been mentioned, Eisenhower won't run because of age and health. During Reagan's second term there was discussion of repealing the 22nd Amendment but it came out that Nancy did not want a third term. In 2000 there was Clinton fatigue and it was Hillary's turn to run for office. I have read that Michelle Obama is opposed to a third term. I also think that the two term tradition would have come back. None of these presidents had a world war to deal with.
 
So did Reagan after Iran-Contra, more or less. Lots of people called for his resignation in the middle of it, including The Economist, for what that's worth. It wouldn't have stopped him getting elected again, but it got pretty ugly.

But for the timing. The Lewinsky Scandal (and even Watergate for that matter) hit critical mass in the middle of their respective presidents' terms. Iran Contra would have blown up right in the middle of the 88 election season.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
Clinton because Monica Lewinsky
Actually it's a bit more complicated. Without the 22nd, even after Lewinsky, Clinton could run and win a narrow victory. The impeachment damaged him, without a doubt, but given the budget surplus and high approval rating, he could have had a shot regardless. His own personal fatigue of the job would have put a stop, though.

Really though, this is a man who will potentialy die in his hypothetical third term. When you factor in his awful diet and the stress that will come with the third term, you have a ticking time bomb that will come earlier and harder than IoTL.
 
More important, Clinton would probably have pledged in 1992 not to seek more than two terms, as Reagan would have in 1980, JFK and Nixon in 1960, and Ike and Stevenson in 1952. The fact is that even if the Amendment had fallen short, the *idea* that no president should ordinarily serve more than two terms (at least consecutive ones) was widespread--even Democrats merely said there should be leeway for emergencies like World War II. (Note Truman's refusal to run in 1952 even though the Amendment specifically allowed him to.) And note that there was no war or national emergency that would justify a third term in 1988 or 2000.

Yeah, I can see a lot of politicians nevertheless pledging to stick to two terms in the wake of FDR (though I imagine Truman's decision owes more to political reality and optics than any kind of principled stand), but would that stick through to present day? After all, FDR wasn't the first to attempt a third term-- just the first to win it.

Actually, here's another possibility: what if Clinton pledges to two terms, but attempts a comeback? Say Gore loses in 2000, and Clinton returns for 2004? Given the speculation and hope Gore received in 04, 08 and even 16... I could easily see people looking to Clinton for these cycles, and maybe he'd jump in.
 
Really though, this is a man who will potentialy die in his hypothetical third term. When you factor in his awful diet and the stress that will come with the third term, you have a ticking time bomb that will come earlier and harder than IoTL.
This. Look at pictures of him at the end of his second term, vs now, years later. He was not well, and had to clean up his (health) act in ways he surely could not have done under the stresses of being in office.
 
Top