WI the presidential term limit hadn’t been created?

I doubt Obama's presence changes the GOP Nomination. IMO They had essentially no control over it.
Having an incumbent on the ballot changes the nomination strategy. With an incumbent having two terms under his belt, it would have been more difficult to market an opponent with no public office experience and statements that contradicted the dignified image of the presidency.
 
I believe everyone here agrees that Daddy Bush will forever be viewed as Reagan's 3rd term: seems people weren't really voting for him, but voting for Reagan....
 
Even if the 22nd Amendment fails of ratification by a state or two, does that mean the no-third-term tradition will necessarily be dead? If for decades after FDR's death, one president after another (Truman, Ike, Reagan) decides not to run for a third term--and whatever their actual reasons each one says something like "no president should run for a third term except under exteme conditions like thise of World War II" (and some Republican presidents might even omit the last phrase!)--could that not make it more difficult for future presidents to do so? In fact, I can see some of them seeking to win difficult re-election contests by promising that their second term will be their last. (Yes, they know this will reduce their leverage with Congress, but to have any leverage they first have to win their second term...)
 
Even if the 22nd Amendment fails of ratification by a state or two, does that mean the no-third-term tradition will necessarily be dead? If for decades after FDR's death, one president after another (Truman, Ike, Reagan) decides not to run for a third term--and whatever their actual reasons each one says something like "no president should run for a third term except under exteme conditions like thise of World War II" (and some Republican presidents might even omit the last phrase!)--could that not make it more difficult for future presidents to do so? In fact, I can see some of them seeking to win difficult re-election contests by promising that their second term will be their last. (Yes, they know this will reduce their leverage with Congress, but to have any leverage they first have to win their second term...)

In the Philippines, the ONLY Presidents, who managed to win reelection were Manuel Quezon (1935, 1941) & Daddy Marcos (1965, 1969 & 1981). Since then, it's limited to just 6 years.
 
“I can’t keep it in my pants but you should let me run your country!”
Why not. The economy was in good shape, overall confidence in his policies was high and even the budget was under controll. All it needed was for All Gore to state "You're voting for the course we're on. Not for the Skipper's trousers" worked in every other country so far.

Of course, no idea how his future would look after 9-11. That third term could be all he's getting.
 
I believe everyone here agrees that Daddy Bush will forever be viewed as Reagan's 3rd term: seems people weren't really voting for him, but voting for Reagan....


I don't know if it's been said already, but without term limits, Ronald Reagan would probably die in office.
 
Of course, no idea how his future would look after 9-11. That third term could be all he's getting.
From what I heard, Clinton was much more oriented to watching out for Al Qaeda than Bush was. The attacks may have been foiled. After all, the FBI admitted they had word to "glance" at the perpetrators, but evidence was deemed too sparse.
 
Reagan.

Reagan would have been reelected until his illness kept him from giving a prepared speech and the occasional quip. Man had figured out how to reach the electorate. Then, assuming Reagan hasn't butterflied his Administration away, Clinton. Also found the direct line to the electorate. Hell, he might be President TODAY of he managed to keep that direct thread to the voters.


Agreed on both points. Reagan was probably the most charismatic President in U.S. history, despite the scandals that had emerged from his administration, the man was in touch with the electorate, was eloquent in his policy and is the most likely candidate for surviving even the worst of re-election scenarios. Clinton is in second place on all those points, he made the 90's seem warm and fuzzy despite all the scandals and terrorism.
 

JSchafer

Banned
Reagan is most likely to be elected again and again. He had that charisma and managed to create the second (or third) American golden age during his presidency.
 
Not after the Lewinsky scandal

FWIW, it doesn't seem to have hurt his job approval numbers.

pgrx6libduardcwevxqh8a.png


https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Age and the need to retire would have discouraged Ike. Reagan would have won but would have likely resigned after one year considering his health. Bush Sr. gets one less year and little changes except that the world does not hear "read my lips...no new taxes." So he could win in 1992 and 1996, given the strength of the economy. Obama on the ballot would have changed the GOP nomination.
I don't think Reagan is the kind of guy to resign just because the doctors tell him to. Having a President with Alzheimer's during the from 1988-1992 could have some rather "interesting" effects on Eastern Europe and the Middle East, especially if taxes are never raised to solve the deficit.
 
Reagan is most likely to be elected again and again. He had that charisma and managed to create the second (or third) American golden age during his presidency.

Hardly think ignoring the AIDS crisis is much ground for a golden age, not even getting into his other issues.
 

JSchafer

Banned
Hardly think ignoring the AIDS crisis is much ground for a golden age, not even getting into his other issues.

Oh I hardly think ignoring racism and lynchings is much ground for the first 16 presidents. I hardly think wanting to deport blacks to Africa is much ground for the Lincoln and the crew. Just because someone isn't a saint, walking on water and a picture perfect image of a man and god amongst men doesn't make them or their achievements any smaller
 
Oh I hardly think ignoring racism and lynchings is much ground for the first 16 presidents. I hardly think wanting to deport blacks to Africa is much ground for the Lincoln and the crew. Just because someone isn't a saint, walking on water and a picture perfect image of a man and god amongst men doesn't make them or their achievements any smaller

No one is saying any of those things. Reagan left thousands to suffer and die. His Administration was no golden age, even if you ignore his dog whistles, brinkmanship, corruption and support of dictators.
 

JSchafer

Banned
No one is saying any of those things. Reagan left thousands to suffer and die. His Administration was no golden age, even if you ignore his dog whistles, brinkmanship, corruption and support of dictators.

Understanding of aids in the 80s was such that people believed it couldn’t happen to straight people whatsoever. Dictators that served US interests. Love them or hate them they provided stability to vital regions.
Nothing wrong with brinkmanship. He alone is probably the most deserving for the destruction of Soviet Union by forcing them to overspend and ruin themselves. He will remain an icon
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
I don't think anyone is saying that a third term president needs to be a saint - the question is only which president could convince around half the electorate that he is better than the other guy.
 
The Vice Presidency would be less worth having.

Since the 22nd Amendment many VPs have run for the top job. Before then it was rare
 
Understanding of aids in the 80s was such that people believed it couldn’t happen to straight people whatsoever. Dictators that served US interests. Love them or hate them they provided stability to vital regions.
Nothing wrong with brinkmanship. He alone is probably the most deserving for the destruction of Soviet Union by forcing them to overspend and ruin themselves. He will remain an icon

Except that people knew the facts well enough that the epidemic that it was tackled much better by other governments, Thatcher handled it better and with more understanding. Reagan ignored it and people died because of his foolishness. And those dictators failed to provide stability to Iran, South Vietnam and Argentina (And those are the ones off the top of my head) despite American support. Instead, you got oppression which lead to a revolution and the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism, an oppressive government that failed in all basics and was overtaken by its enemy and a nation that launched an unprovoked attack on the UK (Which Reagan tried to get the UK to abandon the Falkland Islands, only to be told to fuck off by Thatcher). These are hardly the things that gave any stability to anyone and instead led to the opposite and thousands of needless deaths.

It wasn't Reagan that killed the Soviet Union, that was its already crappy economic situation and Gorbachev's missteps. His brinkmanship instead almost destroyed the world. Only when he turned against it by realising what a colossal fuck up it was did he manage to do some good. The Soviet Union was already faltering in the 80's, that was its own issues and Regan certainly didn't create them.
 
It wasn't Reagan that killed the Soviet Union, that was its already crappy economic situation and Gorbachev's missteps. His brinkmanship instead almost destroyed the world. Only when he turned against it by realising what a colossal fuck up it was did he manage to do some good. The Soviet Union was already faltering in the 80's, that was its own issues and Regan certainly didn't create them.
While I am not a full supporter of Reagan and especially Reaganomics, I do give him credit for forcing Gorbachev to open up the USSR. The biggest factor, IMO, is information technology. If the USSR tried to maintain its Orwellian control of the people, it would slip into third world status.

Back to the OP, since there is a good chance Ike would not run in 1960, Reagan might have been the first president after 1950 to run for a third term. He would have won, but I think the pressures would have been for him to step down in 1989, creating a Bush presidency that would almost snap back to OTL. Had he won in 1992, the match-up in 1996 would be difficult to predict.
 
Top