No term limits

[2952-0-0]

I see:

Reagan runs for a third term on 1988, demolishing Dukakis in every state except MA. President Reagan continues his economics which creates a boom. Then, in 1990 Saddam invades Kuwait and after negotiation with the Iraqis the US leads a multinational task force into Iraq, freeing Kuwait. His approval rate soars into 70%. However, the economy starts to show its exhaustion and unemployment rises. Reagan, now 80, decides not to run again and so GHWB sweeps to GOP primaries. Meanwhile, the Dems pull out Governor Clinton and independent candidate Ross Perot also threatens to make inroads.

Who wins this one? Then what?

[M]

What if Reagan, always more ideological than Bush, decides to occupy Iraq? Also, does Reagan's Alzheimer's affect his third term at all?

[TheWildCard]

What if Reagan, always more ideological than Bush, decides to occupy Iraq? Also, does Reagan's Alzheimer's affect his third term at all?

Also is Reagan even President? Eisenhower may have been persuaded to run for more than 2 terms.

[Wakie]

While I agree that if he had run he would have won, I doubt Reagan would have gone for a third term.  Although the official announcement of his Alzheimer's came in 1994, there is speculation that he had already begun to feel the affects of it much sooner.

I see a more likely case for a post-FDR President going for a third term is Eisenhower in '60.  Despite the heart attack I think he would have wanted to stick around to deal with Cuba.  And if he stays, JFK doesn't run.  Eisenhower easily gets a third term.  This means better coordination of the Bay of Pigs invasion and a greater presence in Vietnam sooner.

Let's assume that Oswald, upset over the US intervention in Cuba, then assassinates Eisenhower in '63.  Now there is President Nixon.  Nixon wins reelection in '64 over LBJ (mainly because of a wave sympathy after Ike's murder).

There is no Civil Rights/Great Society legislation.  The war in Vietnam escalates.  In '68 JFK (w/ John Connally as his VP ... in this timeline Connally doesn't flip parties) defeats Nixon and begins serious peace talks.  Before his term is finished JFK has brokered peace with Vietnam and his brother, Bobby, is aggressively attacking organized crime.

In '72 JFK wins relection.  Kennedy presses on Congress and passes a watered down version of Civil Rights legislation.  As Attorney General Bobby Kennedy begins using it to bust up the KKK.

Someone else can figure out the rest.

[Wakie]

If Richard Nixon had been elected in 1960, Vietnam would never have gotten out of control.

Keep on dreaming.  Vietnam was a gigantic disaster.  The only way to avoid it getting out of hand would have been to pull out in '62.

[ATFFL]

If Richard Nixon had been elected in 1960, Vietnam would never have gotten out of control.

Agreed.  WIthout LBJ to give the ridiculous orders to not invade N. Vietnam the US military would have walked over the NVA.  The country would have been a blood bath and heavily depopulated in the end.

If the US had not fought a defensive war without ever trying to exploit the weknesses of the NVA the Vietnam war would have been very, very different.  A lot of people don't realize that the US military was never defeated by the NVA.  Militarily, the Tet Offensive was a disaster.  But it did achieve its political goal of driving up US casualties to unacceptable levels back home.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." - Ho Chi Minh

very bold statement, but turned out to be very true. The only acceptable action in Vietnam was a complete unconditional pullout of all American forces.

[Wakie]

Ok, the US forces in Vietnam won every battle and yet we lost the war.  The reason is because the enemy had no where to go.  Put simply,

If (Cost of Defeat) < (Cost of Victory - Spoils of Victory)
Then you will lose a war of attrition.

[M]

Well, the big problem was that we were at war with North Vietnam and wouldn't admit it, except to little too late. As it turns out, invading Hanoi would have been the appropriate course, even Chinese intervention and a Korea-like standoff by the mid-60s would have avoided much of the havoc the war wrought.

[ATFFL]

Ok, the US forces in Vietnam won every battle and yet we lost the war.  The reason is because the enemy had no where to go.  Put simply,

If (Cost of Defeat) < (Cost of Victory - Spoils of Victory)
Then you will lose a war of attrition.

The reason is the politicians in the US never let the Army fight to win.  You cannot win a purely defensive war.  North Vietnam would have collapsed with the capture of Hanoi and the death, capture or exile of Ho Chi Minh.

Actually, the situation would probably be a lot like Iraq is today.  Most areas of the country would be relative safe with a few exceptionally dangerous hot spots.  There would have probably been a lot of villages destroyed in order to save them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ok, the US forces in Vietnam won every battle and yet we lost the war.  The reason is because the enemy had no where to go.  Put simply,

If (Cost of Defeat) < (Cost of Victory - Spoils of Victory)
Then you will lose a war of attrition.

The reason is the politicians in the US never let the Army fight to win.  You cannot win a purely defensive war.  North Vietnam would have collapsed with the capture of Hanoi and the death, capture or exile of Ho Chi Minh.

Ho Chi Minh did die of natural causes before it ended.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This sounds like it's a problem to people named George Bush

1988. Reagan beats Dukakis
1992 Clinton beats George HW Bush
1996 Clinton beats Bob Dole
2000 Clinton beats George W Bush
If Clinton doesn't run again:
2004 McCain or Guilani beats Gore
If he does:
2004 Clinton beats McCain
Regean has bad alzheimer's when his Presidency ends.

[Josh]

Yeah, that looks about right.

[A18]

No. If the economy was going well, Clinton would not beat GHWB.

[ATFFL]

Ok, the US forces in Vietnam won every battle and yet we lost the war.  The reason is because the enemy had no where to go.  Put simply,

If (Cost of Defeat) < (Cost of Victory - Spoils of Victory)
Then you will lose a war of attrition.

The reason is the politicians in the US never let the Army fight to win.  You cannot win a purely defensive war.  North Vietnam would have collapsed with the capture of Hanoi and the death, capture or exile of Ho Chi Minh.

Ho Chi Minh did die of natural causes before it ended.

Big difference between the early 1960s and the late.  His cult of personality would have suffered a major blow if the US had invaded N. Vietnam.  A huge part of his image when fighting the US was that he was somehow keeping them out. 

[George W. Bush]

I think if he could Clinton would have ran untill he died. From what I could tell no president acted like they loved being president more than him.

[DanimalBr]

Looking at this thread, I sure am glad we have the 2 term limit law in the Constitution.   I think 8 years is long enough for any man to be president, whether you love the guy or hate his guts

[A18]

I would make it one six year term. No more failed presidencies.

[2952-0-0]

I would make it one six year term. No more failed presidencies.

Carter was a failed presidency. Two more years of him and *shudders*. Seriously Philip, when you cannot be reelected you won't have the will to make people happy.

[Josh]

I would make it one six year term. No more failed presidencies.

Carter was a failed presidency. Two more years of him and *shudders*. Seriously Philip, when you cannot be reelected you won't have the will to make people happy.

Two more years of Carter, and he would've solved the problems and taken the credit instead of Reagan.

[skybridge]

I think if he could Clinton would have ran untill he died. From what I could tell no president acted like they loved being president more than him.

I wish...

[The Vorlon]

Two more years of Carter, and he would've solved the problems and taken the credit instead of Reagan.

Carter's "energy policy" was the single stupidist piece of legislation every proposed and passed.  It made "Smoote-Hawley" look like inspired genius.

Carter was decent man, but his economics were just plain brain dead and wrong.

[12th Doctor]

I know that Dems love to parade Reagan's condition as proof that he was severly impared by the end of his term and he was losing it all through his second.   However, family and close family did not notice any problems until 1992-93.  Peggy Noonan sat down with him to help write his farewell speech at the end of his term and she said that he remebered everything as clearly as if it had happened yesterday.

[Beet]

I agree, I think he could have served until January 1993. If term limits had suddenly been revoked in 1980, Reagan would have been re-elected with a big margin, not as big as 1984, but probably bigger than H.W. Bush.

[DanimalBr]

I would make it one six year term. No more failed presidencies.

Carter was a failed presidency. Two more years of him and *shudders*. Seriously Philip, when you cannot be reelected you won't have the will to make people happy.

I honestly think the way that it's set up now is the best there is.  A president is elected.   During his first four years, he has to govern knowing that he has to run for re-election.   If people like the job he's done at the end of those four years, he gets a second term.   If not, he gets replaced by somebody else.   After 8 years, I think most people will agree that's long enough for any one man to be president.  If you go any longer than that, you run the danger of looking too much like a king.  George Washington knew all this when he became our first president.  He knew that whatever he did would set the precedent for all future presidents.  And I think it's the right thing.