If there was no 22nd ammendment...

[GPORTER]

and Reagan had run again in 1988, would the senate have gone back to the republicans that year?

[Joe Republic]

Reagan's average Gallup approval rating through 1987 was 48%.  Through 1988 it was 53%.  Not bad, but not great either.  He probably would have won in 1988, but certainly not by such a landslide as before.  (And don't forget, the GOP actually lost Senate seats during Reagan's landslide re-election.)

To win back the Senate in 1988, the GOP had to win a net five seats.  There was really no way to avoid losing Nebraska and Virginia to the Dems, so that meant they had to win seven seats.  They might have been able to successfully defend Nevada and Connecticut due to the different circumstances, and for the sake of argument, let's say they did.  And as long as they kept both of their insanely close victories in Washington and Wyoming, that puts them back at a necessary five-seat pick up.

So where do we look for those?  Okay, they picked up Florida, Mississippi and Montana, as in real life.  That still means they needed another two seats.  Well, every other Democratic incumbent (except one) won re-election in our reality with at least 58% of the vote.  Reagan would have needed some extremely long coattails to have brought any of them down, and he wouldn't really have had any.

So, the only two seats left that the GOP could have feasibly won were Wisconsin's open seat, which the Dems won by just over 4%, and New Jersey, which the Dems won by over 8%.  Wisconsin, maybe, but New Jersey is still a stretch.

So the numbers just don't really add up.

Short answer:  No, the Senate would not have gone back to the Republicans that year.

[GPORTER]

Lets stay on the topic of what if Reagan ran again, would it change the way the race for the democratic nomination played out? Would a third Reagan candidacy change the way the race for the democratic nomination turned out? Discuss

[Jerseyrules]

Yes.  Little Boy Blue Mike Dukakis would've been crushed in the primaries by either Ted Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, or perhaps Bill Clinton or Lloyd Bensen (governor you're no Thomas Jefferson!).  But someone with more experience and likely another repeat of 1984 where Reagan crushes his opponent.  The reason why the GOP lost senate seats in 1984 and didn't take over congress in 1980 was because Reagan devoted all of his time on his own campaign and didn't bother barnstorming for the GOP in lower levels; this was because in 1980 the campaign was already all about him; all polls in 1979 showed him being creamed two-to-one by Ted Kennedy or Jimmy Carter, and he thought this would be his last campaign; he had already lost in 1976 and 68.  There was no way to predict the landslide that ensued.  So in 1988 he probably would've done more in the Congressional races, or at least dispatched his VP to campaign for them.

[Jay20]

Reagan would not have remembered to file his nomination papers...he was senile by then.

[Beet]

Reagan would not have remembered to file his nomination papers...he was senile by then.

No he wasn't. He remained a public figure until announcing to the public that he was diagnosed with alzheimer's in late 1994.

[mondale84]

Reagan would not have remembered to file his nomination papers...he was senile by then.

No he wasn't. He remained a public figure until announcing to the public that he was diagnosed with alzheimer's in late 1994.

Yeah, an incompetent one.

[Jerseyrules]

Reagan would not have remembered to file his nomination papers...he was senile by then.

No he wasn't. He remained a public figure until announcing to the public that he was diagnosed with alzheimer's in late 1994.

Yeah, an incompetent one.

He hit his 92 convention speech out of the park

[Jay20]

we see how much that helped Bush I.

(hint: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154559/US-Presidential-Election-Center.aspx check the 1992 link out, the GOP convention was in August)

[GPORTER]

Reagan would not have remembered to file his nomination papers...he was senile by then.

No he wasn't. He remained a public figure until announcing to the public that he was diagnosed with alzheimer's in late 1994.

Yeah, an incompetent one.

He hit his 92 convention speech out of the park

Thats very true about the 92 speech, thats one of my favorite speeches.

[Jerseyrules]

we see how much that helped Bush I.

(hint: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154559/US-Presidential-Election-Center.aspx check the 1992 link out, the GOP convention was in August)

Would you mind shooting me a PM of the link directly to the 92 page?  Sorry I can't see the link on the iPad.

[ask_not]

I think bill clinton would go for a third term.

[NHI]

If there was no 22nd Amendment Bill Clinton would be President today.

On a larger subject for discussion: Should the 22nd Amendment ever be repealed?

[Jay20]

If there was no 22nd Amendment Bill Clinton would be President today.

On a larger subject for discussion: Should the 22nd Amendment ever be repealed?

No it should not be repealed. Its enough that should Obama be re-elected, we will have had 24 years with only 3 presidents (assuming Obama completes a second term, which would only be precluded by unforeseeable circumstances). I love Bill Clinton, didn't like Bush on domestic policy at all (I only liked his support of Israel, the Jewish State), and while I agree with many of Obama's policies more than the prevailing GOP view, I hate the thing personally. He's a pity, a man who only cares about his image in history rather than governing.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If there was no 22nd Amendment Bill Clinton would be President today.

On a larger subject for discussion: Should the 22nd Amendment ever be repealed?

Agreed.  And no, it should not be repealed.  There was a reason we put that in the Constitution in the first place:  FDR had been president for so long (1933-1945) that it was almost like we'd had a king or emperor or dictator, and after all, we originally fought to gain our independence from a king.  There's probably no chance of it being repealed in real life.  But I do oppose term limits on Congress because I feel we need a decent balance of experienced legislators and new faces. 

[Jerseyrules]

No 22nd amendment means our list of president's is

35. JFK: 1961-1977
36. Ronald Reagan 1977-1993
37. Bill Clinton: 1993-2009
38. George W. Bush(?): 2009-?