A different Amendment XXII

[buritobr]

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.

[buritobr]

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, Piñera, Bachelet, Piñera.
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.