More than two terms.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:17:29 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History
  Alternative History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  More than two terms.
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: More than two terms.  (Read 14762 times)
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,834


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 15, 2004, 03:10:35 PM »

If after Roosevelt, the two term limit wasn't imposed, then who whould have ran again? And would this have changed political history? We know of course that Nixon toyed with the idea, and Bill Clinton has voiced support for an amendment, so Cliton (if he had been elected twice in the first place) would have given it another shot. I doubt Truman would have run, but would Eisenhower went for a third term against say Kennedy? And Reagan, would he have run?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2004, 03:12:26 PM »

Reagan would have run, he didn't have all of his marbles at the end.

Clinton would have and would have won by a whisker-same with eisenhower.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2004, 05:48:31 PM »

Truman was allowed, since the term limit was stated not to affect him. He didn't really have the necessary popularity and decided against it after doing to badly in the New Hampshire primary.

Logged
NHPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2004, 03:22:59 PM »

Reagan would have run, he didn't have all of his marbles at the end.

Clinton would have and would have won by a whisker-same with eisenhower.

Reagan seemed perfectly alert in his 1992 Convention speech. I say he'd have run, too.
Logged
NHPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2004, 03:30:55 PM »

If after Roosevelt, the two term limit wasn't imposed, then who whould have ran again? And would this have changed political history? We know of course that Nixon toyed with the idea, and Bill Clinton has voiced support for an amendment, so Cliton (if he had been elected twice in the first place) would have given it another shot. I doubt Truman would have run, but would Eisenhower went for a third term against say Kennedy? And Reagan, would he have run?

You leave out the biggest blunder of presidential history by cutting it off with FDR (though I understand what you're doing).  TR loved being president. He'd have wanted to do it until he died if given the chance-- and he'd have easily served two full terms in addition to his partial term.  Alas, he announced that he would count the partial as a full term the night he won and regretted it every day thereafter. A very sad story.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2004, 03:47:28 PM »

Well TR tried for a third one and ended up messing things up even more for his party . . .
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2004, 03:58:41 PM »

Well TR tried for a third one and ended up messing things up even more for his party . . .

Yep, gave away a presidential election to the Dems in an era when GOP dominance was absolute. Grin
Logged
NHPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2004, 05:29:36 PM »

Well TR tried for a third one and ended up messing things up even more for his party . . .

Not really. He let Taft run in 1908 rather than running himself, which is what he wanted, in his heart, to do. He had to be true to himself and run in 1912, but there wouldn't have been chaos in the party had he just run again in 1908 as he wanted to.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2004, 05:34:28 PM »

Well TR tried for a third one and ended up messing things up even more for his party . . .

Not really. He let Taft run in 1908 rather than running himself, which is what he wanted, in his heart, to do. He had to be true to himself and run in 1912, but there wouldn't have been chaos in the party had he just run again in 1908 as he wanted to.

That's right, but is doesn't make the original statement untrue, does it? He DID trie for a 3rd term and thus lost the GOP the presidency after 4 consecutive wins. Though I agree that it might have been all avoided had he chosen to run in 1908.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2004, 06:14:17 PM »

TR tried to win at the Republican convention in 1912, and when he didn't, he formed the Bull Moose Party.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2004, 01:13:04 AM »

IIRC, the law states that they can't have two CONSECUTIVE terms.

Clinton (Bill) '04!
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2004, 09:28:15 AM »

Does "elected" stands only for president? if so it can be - say - Kerry/Clinton (Bill) in 04?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2004, 09:32:10 AM »

Does "elected" stands only for president? if so it can be - say - Kerry/Clinton (Bill) in 04?
Clinton wouldn't accept even if he could, taking hte VP slot would be a step down in power for him.
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2004, 09:40:05 AM »

Hey Lewis, where it's written? It's not in the constitution
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2004, 09:43:18 AM »

XII amendment, last sentence.
Logged
dunn
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2004, 09:47:07 AM »

Thanks, but would't you say that para. is just about election in the house and not general election?
Logged
Demrepdan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2004, 08:59:09 PM »

I thought it said no one can be "ELECTED" to the office of the President more than twice. Therefore....one can run for Vice President....and then IF the President-Elect refuses to serve after the general election....then the Vice President-Elect would become the next President. Remember.....it says no one shall be ELECTED to the OFFICE...of President....PRESIDENT (keywords...it doesn't say Vice...it says Pres)....more than twice. It doesn't say no one can SERVE as President more than twice.

So...conceivably...we could have a Kerry/Clinton ticket......and if Kerry were to be elected...and then state that he does NOT wish to serve as President the day after the election...then on January 20th...2005.....William J. Clinton will be sworn in for his THIRD term as President.

Of course.....if it said no one may SERVE as President more than twice.....then the scenario I just gave you could never happen. But it doesn't say SERVE...it says ELECTED. That's a Key word there folks.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2004, 09:08:11 PM »

The max is ten years.  So if say Bush died in 2003, Cheyney could come in for two more terms.  But if Bush died in 2002, then Cheyney could only be reelected once.
Like Johnson could run again in 1968 but chose not to.  If Ford had won, though, in 1976, he could NOT have run in 1980.
It's like more than ½ of a term counts as a term.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2004, 09:09:22 PM »

I think that Clinton is the only president post-Roosevelt who would have run for a third term in the absence of the 22nd amendment.

Be that as it may, the 22nd amendment has in reality been a godsend to any of the presidents we think of as having the potential for a third term.  There is something to be said for exiting at the right time.

The 22nd amendment did not apply to Truman, but he decided against running again because his popularity by 1952 was so low that he stood little chance of winning.

Eisenhower probably would not have run again in 1960 in any case.  He had had a heart attack and a stroke, and his interest in the job was fading, particularly after the U-2 crisis.  A third term would probably not have worked out well for him, and would have left his reputation diminished.

The same goes for Reagan.  I doubt at his age (77 in 1988) that he would have run for a third term, and it would have been a disaster for him if he had won a third term, for reasons of his health and the downturn in the economy.  He went out on top, rather than staying on the stage too long, and I think he would have done so regardless of the 22nd amendment.

Clinton would have run for a third term without the 22nd amendment, in my opinion, and probably would have narrowly won.  But he would not have performed well in the post-Sept. 11 atmosphere.  His appeal, and people's tolerance for his sleaziness, was dependent upon him keeping the party going.  He's not a man who can lead a nation in a time of war or sacrifice.  So he was better served by leaving office when he did.

I think that in all but the most extreme circumstances, two terms is enough.
Logged
Demrepdan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2004, 09:46:56 PM »

I think the only term limits that we should have in this country....is a little thing called elections.

Putting term limits on individuals......whether they be Governors...or Presidents...or Mayors....or what have you....makes the people look ignorant and STUPID.

It's pretty much like having the government step in and say..."ok ok...you've voted for this guy twice.....lets have someone knew...because this guy has too much power....and you people are too stupid to vote for someone new for a change.....so lets put term limits in place."

I think it should be left up to the will of the people....to decide if two terms is enough.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2004, 10:10:43 PM »

I think no more than two times in a row is good for president, but it should not be a total limit.  Like Clinton should be able to run again now, after sitting out a term.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2004, 10:42:36 PM »

Thanks, but would't you say that para. is just about election in the house and not general election?
No, I wouldn't say. The house cannot elect veeps at all. The senate can only choose between the two people who received the highest total of EVs for VP, so such an interpretation makes not a single bit of sense.
Basically, it seems they just forgot to start a new para for that last sentence.
Remember: Before the XII amendment each elector had two votes that both were for VP and prez, so it was obvious that only persons eligible as Prez were eligible as VP. If that last sentence of the XII weren't there, that would have been accidentally repealed. (Note that these requirements at the time did not include a term limit. They were actually talking about 35 years old, native born or immigrated before 1776, US citizen, that kind of thing)
Logged
Captain Chaos
GZ67
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 735
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2008, 11:51:15 AM »

Would JFK actually run against an incumbent President seeking a 3rd term? If not, I think Eisenhower would defeat any Democrat who ran in 1960.

Eisenhower then retires in 1964. Kennedy throws his hat into the ring, wins the Democratic nod, and selects Senator Fulbright as his running mate.

Vice President Nixon wins the GOP nod and picks either Barry Goldwater (if he needs to cement support from the conservative wing) or William Scranton (more acceptable alternative than the divorced and re-married Nelson Rockefeller). Henry Cabot Lodge would probably be Secretary of State in an Eisenhower 3rd term and not interested in seeking the Presidency.

Kennedy would capitalize on voter fatigue with 4 more years of a Republican presidency and run on a slogan of getting America moving again. Fulbright ensures Democrats hold most of the South (Kennedy overlooks his opposition to civil rights).
Logged
Albus Dumbledore
Havelock Vetinari
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,917
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the


Political Matrix
E: -0.71, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2008, 08:35:06 PM »

Haha oh wow.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,401
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2008, 06:43:44 AM »

Eisenhower/Nixon: 288 Elecotral Votes;50.60% of the popular vote
Kennedy/Johnson: 249 Electoral Votes; 50.20% of the popular vote


What causes 101.2% of voters to cast a ballot?

I know, math is hard.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 12 queries.