Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 21, 2020, 09:05:59 pm
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, Senator ON Progressive)
  A different Amendment XXII
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: A different Amendment XXII  (Read 286 times)
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,254


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 23, 2019, 09:26:38 pm »

In the other thread, we discussed what would happen if there was no Amendment XXII.

In this thread, let's consider another scenario: there is Amendment XXII, but different. Consider that this amendment forbids more than two terms in a sequence, but allows unlimited terms, if there were no more than two in a sequence. So, Eisenhower could run in 1964, Reagan could run in 1992, Clinton could run in 2004, Bush Jr could run in 2012, Obama could run in 2020.
Maybe, Eisenhower and Reagan would not have run because of their age and their health. Bush Jr would not run because he left the White House with very low approval rate. But maybe, Clinton would have run in 2004 and Obama in 2020.
Logged
Teflon Joe Biden 2020
swamiG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 607


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: 3.13


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2019, 02:51:38 am »

Eisenhower and Reagan definitely do not run again because of their advanced age. W would not run since he was still deeply unpopular in 2012, plus retirement suits him.

That said, Clinton probably runs in 2004 and Obama definitely runs in 2020 if this alternate 22A existed.
Logged
Epaminondas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 650


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2019, 10:00:12 am »

You answered your own question!

A more interesting speculation would be: consecutive terms are forbidden, but non-consecutive terms are not, like in Mexico.
That would change everything.
Logged
morgankingsley
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2019, 04:18:21 pm »

Bush might run in 2016
Logged
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,254


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2019, 08:56:10 am »

You answered your own question!

A more interesting speculation would be: consecutive terms are forbidden, but non-consecutive terms are not, like in Mexico.
That would change everything.

In Mexico, there is one and only one 6-year term, consecutive terms are forbidden, non-consecutive terms are forbidden too. Someone who was president is not allowed to run anymore.
In Chile, there is a 4-year term, consecutive terms are forbidden, but non-consecutive terms are not. That's why in recent years, the chilean president was Bachelet, Piņera, Bachelet, Piņera.
In Argentina and Brazil, there is a 4-year term, two consecutive terms are allowed, inlimited terms are allowed if there are not more than two consecutive, like the alternative 22A I told about this thread. Cristina Kirschner was elected in 2007 and 2011, could not run in 2015, considered the possibility of running in 2019, but decided to be the running mate of Alberto Fernandes. Lula was elected in 2002, reelected in 2006, was not allowed to run in 2010 because of the limit of 2 consecutive terms (but he would win), and could not run in 2018 because he was jailed and not because the limit of terms.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC