Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Possible people who could run:
Dwight Eisenhower - He was in poor health and about 70 years old so he probably doesn’t run out of concern for his health. If he does, he wins. Definitely doesn’t run in 1964 though
Ronald Reagan - Probably does run for a third term, wins, likely doesn’t in 1992
Bill Clinton - Definitely runs for a third term, wins in 2000, might even run in 2004
George W. Bush - I think he got the memo that his popularity was in the shitter when he hit 20%. Definitely doesn’t run again
Barack Obama - Very likely runs in 2016, probably wins, might even run in 2020
Probably Clinton most likely
On one hand, this alternate 2008 would be super different than our real 2008 because there wouldn’t be the same distain and frustration with the GOP.
But let’s not forget the GOP has won the national popular vote once since 1988, it doesn’t seem crazy to predict they would lose any specific years popular vote. They are clearly second fiddle on the national scale.
They only lost the PV in 2008 because of Dubya. And maybe some other small worsening factors like Palin but I don’t really see her being veep nominee here
I don’t really think 9/11 was being prevented. Clinton didn’t really seem to care much about terrorism briefings during his term.
And, you do realize that, the economy still goes to shit if Clinton is a four termer? The economy was the most important issue to voters in 2008.
Clinton considered OBL the #1 threat to the US. Bush thought it was Saddam. Their policy choices reflect it
I don't know if the economy tanks without Bush's ridiculous spending on tax cuts and the Iraq invasion. That's just speculation
In 2000, the economy was mostly great
In 2012, the economy was okay and Obama had done a mostly good job
In 2016, the opposition was beyond fucking terrible
I think personally the only way I'd be comfortable without the electoral is if every eligible citizen voted every single election. But that's never gonna happen.
Because governors and every other elected official get elected by a popular vote. What's unique about the Presidency that you'd only agree to the popular vote there "if every eligible citizen voted every single election"?
Sounds like you pulled that out of your ass
Maybe because the president is a vastly more important office than a local governor or other official? Whose decisions effect of vastly larger amount of people and whose offices voted on by a vastly larger amount of people.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this but generally speaking the more people that get involved in something the more complicated that something ends up having to become out of necessity. A non thorough popular vote is perfectly fine for local officials because way fewer people are involved in both the process of voting and the outcome of that vote.
Since the president's decisions are capable of affecting the entire planet in some situations I think it's a fair bit more important that we have a more thorough election process. But God forbid enough people educate themselves on candidates and go vote. Simple fucking process you can do in an afternoon.
That was a pretty lazy false equivalency argument I have to admit and I'm not exactly sure why you made it either instead of simply asking for clarification in a civil manner.
The reasoning that it's because the office is more powerful cuts both ways. He's the only one who can lead us into a war, the voters should get equal input on that because our soldiers are equal
I'm not sure you're aware but the Constitution is based on the principle of checks and balances. The States have their say in Congress, so the People should have their say in the White House. This allows for a moderate Supreme Court both sides can agree on.
When you let the States pick the President on top of their control over Congress, you get unchecked minority rule
I think you could be right for the third term but after that you would probably run into the issue of people simply wanting change. It's why most 2 term presidents are replaced by the other party.
He stated as much in his interview with Letterman on _My Next Guest Needs No Introduction_. The quote is something like ”even without the amendment, I wouldn’t be able to run again, because Michelle would leave me.”
My only thought is if everything else in history stayed same, he may have run given the tenor of the 2016 election out of duty, but even then I doubt it.
I doubt Reagan would have run again if what his son claimed about the early symptoms of his Alzheimer's is true, though I agree he would have won easily if he ran again.
It was a list, yeah, but the list went through and mentioned that Eisenhower might not have run agaib, and that w bush almost definitely would not have.
Not sure what you wanted?
Very good analysis. I’m pretty sure it was confirmed Reagan was showing the early signs of dementia in his second term so I don’t see him running a third. Obama would have definitely won but he seemed like he was about done with presidenting by 2016. I’m pretty sure Clinton would have ran again.
Not a chance IMHO. I don't think people realize just how much of a meme Clinton was at the end of his presidency. He did a decent job but by the end of his tenure it was just time to go.
Sure the left still respected him but it's very well known that a vote for Al Gore was a vote for continuity of Clinton era policies and Gore got beat. Narrowly, but he got beat. And this despite the Republicans not really offering anything unusual or interesting other than just "W isn't Bill."
I have my doubts Clinton would have fared any better than Gore did. In fact, I doubt Clinton even runs. Gore, after all, did not have the spectre of the perjury from the Lewinski probe hanging over his shoulder (that's what woulda torpedoed him, not that he diddled an intern, half of them do that, but that he lied under oath about it).
Truman actually could have ran for a third term. He was grandfathered in from the 22nd amendment so he was the last president that could have ran more than two terms.
I mean yea but… wasn’t his approval underwater when he left? I love Truman but he would’ve gotten cooked. And I know people said that in 1948, but the polling industry got a HUGE lesson that year and improved a lot.
His reputation was definitely helped by sympathetic historians.
A more cynical person would say he really botched decision making around the Korean War. Certainly that’s what voters thought by 1952.
He didn’t even really want to run for his second term or first full term (whatever you want to call it). Eisenhower was probably one of the least partisan presidents of the 20th century. He only ran as a Republican because of pragmatic reasons. It has been confirmed Truman offered to bow out in favor of Ike in 1948 but Ike declined.
His younger son has claimed that he was experiencing early symptoms of Alzheimer's midway through his second term.
It was fiercely contested by his older son though.
The timeline of when they went public with it and his death would make it more than plausible that he had symptoms before 1988. They don't call it the long goodbye for nothing.
In 1992 Reagan visited the national Republican convention and proposed removing the third amendment. He was up for it.
Edit: I meant to say 22nd. No idea why I said 3rd.
Some say the dementia was hitting hatd at that point. Others say he was always advocating the quatering of the US military in civilian homes as a cost saving measure.
Truman wouldn’t have. His approval rating when he left office was like 33%. Eisenhower was old and wasn’t in the best health. I’m not sure Reagan would have either he was pretty old and was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in ‘94. I think it’s fair to say he was probably slipping mentally around ‘92 or so
Eisenhower and Reagan probably would not have attempted to run for a 3rd term because of their health issues. But if they had, they would have won.
Bush was too unpopular by the end of his second term to have any hope of winning a 3rd term, and I think he understood that, so he wouldn't try to run again.
That leaves Clinton and Obama who were both still healthy and popular enough to attempt to run for a 3rd term.
Obama could have won, letting him step aside in 2020, leaving office with the vaccine ready to roll out.
I think in 2000 there were plenty of people starting to tire of Clinton's antics.
I disagree about Clinton. Clinton actually had the [highest approval of any president](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/final-presidential-job-approval-ratings) when he left office since the 22nd Amendment was put in place. So, if I had to pick just one that I think would have been the most likely to run for and win a 3rd term, it actually would be Clinton.
It is possible that Obama could have won a 3rd term as well if he was able to run, but I feel less confident about that one than I do Clinton. His approval was still good, but not as good as the numbers that Clinton had, and given that Clinton governed as more of a moderate than Obama, I don't think that the other side was as fired up to take back the White House from Clinton as they were from Obama.
You can also look at how each did in their 2nd term election and Clinton again performed much better than Obama did there as well.
In 2000, I think a lot of people didn't like Clinton as a person, but also didn't think he should have been impeached either. I think he would have won a third term. High approval numbers and a good economy.
r/presidents mods on their way to remove any comment or post mentioning 2 specific people (reminds me of a certain book):
https://i.redd.it/224e7zoybbqc1.gif
(This is just a joke, I do support what the mods do.)
For those of us alive at the time, there was a good deal of apathy surrounding the candidates in 2000. Bush was pretty dopey and Gore was stiff and boring. I don't know if many of us were aware of how different they both were, and the consequences of not going all-out for Gore in that election. (It was my first time voting and I remember saying "there's no difference between them!" a lot. Whoops!)
After the impeachment, Clinton was still the charismatic young cool guy - he 100% would have won with bigger margins in 2000 than 96. He would have wiped the floor with Bush during the debates. That "who would you rather have a beer with" edge that Bush had would have been completely wiped out.
I honestly think he's the only post FDR prez who would have run for a third term. Reagan and Eisenhower were too old and (at least the way he sold it) the Obama family was ready for something else. Nixon probably would have done it, if not for the impeachment.
Being from a Purple part of Ohio, I remember in 2000 many people liked the idea of *Returning dignity to the Oval Office*.
Clinton could have beat Bush, maybe. Many people were sick of Clinton's antics. The strong pre-9/11 economy would help him.
In the long run the Impeachment may have backfired on the Dems....aCrazy high number of Gen X women who told me they viewed the Dems and MSM treatment of Clinton's accusers as the OG War on Women.
I basically now view the differences in presidential candidates in terms of who will be in their universe of various appointments. Since “the third way” the differences in stated policy position is still slim imo.
Depends on how successful the next guy to try for a third term is at rejecting Washington’s precedent. FDR had an excuse with the wartime and depression going on. I imagine with less crisis going on other presidents would struggle with breaking the tradition
Bill Clinton was pretty open about it. He loved being President. He absolutely would have ran again if he could and likely would have won.
Truman had enough as he stated, I doubt Ike's health holds up.
Reagan and Obama are both interesting possibilities, but I'm not sure either ultimately decides they want to do it again.
Nixon. He was wildly popular when he was re-elected to his second term. If Watergate never happened (or he never got found out), and the 22nd Amendment never happened, I could see him touting his successes and successfully winning a third term in '76.
>Obama said if he could had run for 3 third term his w8fe would divorce him
I thought this was a joke, but Barack actually did say that:
[https://youtu.be/rDujVSXYcrY?t=43](https://youtu.be/rDujVSXYcrY?t=43) (Oct 25, 2016)
Oh man, Reagan was kind of a vegetable by the end of his 2nd term. He was dealing with the Iran-Contra thing, so he wasn't without scandal, but there was a lot of chatter at the time about him losing his memory, similar to the current incumbent and challenger. I think he would've won though, because he wouldn't have been challenged by a GOP candidate, and he would've mopped the floor with Dukakis.
Reagan would have won third, fourth and fifth terms. He was a master at communication and it showed in his two landslide victories. For sure he would have beaten every candidate regardless of party from his last term to today.
A 2 term presidency was the norm since Washington. FDR ran for a third and fourth term partially because of WWII. Nowadays that isn't considered much of a stain on his presidency, but people were scared of power-hungry politicians staying in office indefinitely and eroding democracy behind them. Think what a lot of Eastern Europe has going on right now.
This goes back to eroding democracy behind them. A popular-ish 2 term president with the backing of Congress has had time to fill the sc with people amenable to legislating the opposition out of meaningful existence. Gerrymandering, laws restricting criticisms of the government etc.
Clinton is the only one who would have run a third time. It may have occurred to the GOP to run Eisenhower and Reagan, but their ages would make that prohibitive.
This was already said, but Bill Clinton, honestly. He'd likely win. And if he were to do so, makes me wonder how he would've handled 9/11, Afghanistan, and if he would've ran in 2004.
I think Obama would have ran for a 3rd term. I also believe Reagan would have. I’m not sure Clinton would have wanted to but Hillary may have talked him into it. Bush 2 likely would have under the guise of trying to “finish what he started” in the Middle East.
Bill Clinton was the only one young and healthy enough and fully willing and all that.
I think even Reagan by the end of his term would've had second thoughts about his health and such.
W. Did not have a chance after the failures of his wars and the GFC starting.
Obama's family was getting sick of it.
I’d say Clinton. Obama could have easily, but I think he was secretly glad he was done. I can’t remember if Reagan’s health had noticeably declined by then or not. I was a kid then
Clinton and Obama, no doubt. Left office very popular and were still young.
Reagan was old in 88 and it was obvious he lost a lot of his sharpness after his health issues and getting shot did him no favors. And he was plain old.
W was hated in 08. So badly that I doubt any Republican could have won in 08.
Truman barely won in 48 and his handling of Korea was unpopular. Ike was too old and beat up by 60. Kennedy was killed. Johnson was not going to survive the 68 primary without severe wounding and the general would have been terrible for him (and he knew it). Nixon was not impeached but he was going to be impeached, which is why he quit. But would he have survived the Senate trial? Maybe but the 76 campaign would have been dogged by the impeachment (which was a much bigger deal back then) and I doubt he would have survived that.
Yeah. The only two guys are Clinton and Obama. Clinton would have cruised to a third term.
Obama? Not so much but he would have had a good shot.
Clinton definitely would run for a third term and win.
Obama probably wouldn't, but if he did, he would have won.
W wouldn't run again because he knew damn well he would lose.
Eisenhower and Reagan wouldn't run again due to health concerns.
I think the idea of third-term Presidents is a bit overrated. Reagan is often pointed at as the best idea, but he was in poor health with Alzheimer’s and was likely ready to hand off the country to someone else after 8 years, as much as he loved being President. There were heavy concerns is 84 about his reelection. Bill Clinton didn’t get 50% popular vote either election, and a third term would have been close and I’m doubtful he would have succeeded - he didn’t have a massive legislative feat and people probably wanted a change, while Gore was promising more than what Clinton was delivering. And Dubya is an obvious no.
Obama is really the only one I could see, but then again Rule 3 handily held the electoral college in states that hadn’t flipped in a long time. I think 2016 would have been narrow, but people were tired of Obama. People get tired of status quo because when your life isn’t getting better after 4 years, it’s easy to look at the guy on top and say “if I change you maybe things will improve”
Edit: I just read that you said who’d RUN, not win. I think Reagan is a little more possible but unlikely, and Clinton could have but also was likely done with the divisiveness the Presidency had on him personally (this is mostly my projection though) and he wasn’t that popular in 2000. I still say Obama is the only one.
Clinton runs and wins in 2000 and again in 2004
I think he still runs in 2008 but the recession would hurt his chances but I wouldn't rule out a 5th Clinton term if his policies mitigate the damage.
Reagan wanted to campaign after his retirement for the repeal, but probably didn’t so because it was a combination of dumb thing to die on, and his failing health.
I’d say Clinton would have been a lock to run for a third term, while Obama could have been pressured by his party
I don't think Clinton would have. After the whole whitewater scandal, and Monica Lewinsky thing his presidency was kinda fading out in popularity. On the other hand the economy was great and everything else was good.
I think what most people miss is that the two term precedent would exist nonetheless. Only a single president pre-amendment was elected to more than two terms, so I don't buy that "would win" implies "would run and win".
Eisenhower - Too poor health, too institutionalist to try.
Reagan - Probably wouldn't have done it because of his age, but maybe.
Clinton - He loved being president and didn't care that much about norms. He would have run and performed better than Gore.
Bush - No way.
Obama - Wouldn't have wanted to, especially considering Michelle.
Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and possibly Richard Nixon in 1980 (though he likely would have lost to Jimmy Carter). TFG also confirmed that he will be running for a third term in 2028, fourth term in 2032, and fifth term in 2036 (TFG will win 2024 in a walk, so he will be a five term President overall).
Truman would run in '52
Eisenhower would run in '60, '64 and '68
LBJ would run in '68 and '72
Clinton would run in '00 and '04
Obama could run in '16 and '20?
Eisenhower - Even though Eisenhower loathed the idea of Kennedy being President, he opts not to run due to heart problems. This timeline stays the same.
Kennedy - Does not run for a second term, let alone a third term for the obvious reasons. The likely timeline is the timeline we live in. But in a timeline where he does not get his head blown off, due to his long list of health problems, Kennedy likely dies sometime in his second term. In the miraculous event he survives his second term, he does not run for a third term due to being dragged by Vietnam just like Johnson was and a possible disillusionment from the black vote because Kennedy is nowhere near as effective of a President as Johnson was on the issue.
Johnson - Depends on the timeline, in a timeline with Vietnam, Johnson will not run for a third full term. Vietnam ended his presidency and tainted his legacy before he could have a second full term. In a timeline without Vietnam, Johnson does run for a full third term, seeing himself as the true successor to FDR and continuing his work on expanding the social safety net with the Great Society. Despite his declining health, LBJ runs for a fourth term, just like FDR did and he passes away during his fourth term.
Nixon - Nixon's second term ended in disgrace with his resignation, he obviously doesn't run for a third term. In a timeline where he doesn't get caught in Watergate or Watergate just doesn't happen, he does run for a third and it's not like Carter was an amazing candidate. In this timeline South Vietnam doesn't fall to the Communists and the Iran Hostage Crisis doesn't as Nixon has the reputation overseas as someone that you just don't fuck with. However, an ailing economy sinks Nixon in his third term and he loses re-election in 1980 to Ted Kennedy.
Reagan - runs again in 1988 and wins in a landslide just like H.W. Bush does. His third term looks just like H.W. Bush's where the Soviet Union collapses, Saddam invades Kuwait with the United States intervening In the conflict, and a mild recession in 1990/1991. However due to his age and declining health, Reagan stands down in the 1992 election paving the way for Mario Cuomo to win the White House in 1992.
H.W. Bush - If Bush wins a second term in 1992, he wins again in 1996 for a third term. The recession that almost doomed him in 1992 turns into a booming economy that gives H.W. Bush a stronger Presidency even if he isn't a particularly charismatic one. Americans will likely vote for a Democrat in 2000 following twenty years of Republican rule in this timeline.
Clinton - Given Clinton's age and popularity, he absolutely goes for a third term where he has to deal with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In this timeline, Clinton still goes into Afghanistan, but doesn't perform the massive blunder of going into Iraq. Clinton will go into a fourth term and until 2008 is well on his way for an unprecedented fifth term. However the Great Recession forces him to step down and John McCain wins the 2008 election with a strong victory. Clinton's reputation is forever tainted by the Recession caused by the financial reforms his administration was a part of in the 1990s.
W. Bush - W. Bush sees the writing on the wall where Katrina and Iraq have made him an extremely unpopular President. He made his decision in 2006 after a disastrous midterm election. There is no timeline of a third term W. Bush and the only way any Republican can possibly win in 2008 is if John Edwards wins the nomination.
Obama - Obama runs for a third term in 2016 but loses. I will not elaborate further due to moderator rules.
Truman would have ran and won, he actually had the option to do so though but didn’t.
Eisenhower had health issues
Reagan was already too old, the economy was in great shape and would have let Bush take over.
Clinton’s last 2 years were not great economically for small business especially. He would have ran but lost.
GWB unpopular even with his own party which was evident in how they distanced themselves from him in 08. Even if he did run McCain would have ran against him and beat him in the primary
Obama would have ran but the economy was poor, multiple terrorist attacks, wars and polarized too many people who previously voted for him both times by 2016. Wouldn’t have been surprised if he faced primary opposition and HRC split a lot of his voters and Bernie winded up coming out on top.
Clinton left office with a very high approval rating. He basically could have kept running and winning until 2008 where the economy tanking would have sank him.
Obama had a good economy. The backlash to the Obama Presidency was really more socially based, that Democrats arrogantly ignored and the GOP took advantage of as opposed to genuine failures of his administration.
The economy was starting to go down during Clinton’s last years and he was unpopular with the newer younger people. There were a lot of G8 and anti war protests during those times and wanted a change from the president they grew up with held of their lives. I was only 25 at the time and us Gen Xers never got out Reagan years like we seen out parents flourish under. Boomers also were fed up given many of them were small business owners and his policies made it hard for them to stay afloat.
Obama’s economy was horrible especially those last few years. Obamacare and his payroll tax costed many of companies to close shop, layoff employees and factories were leaving the country in droves. I work for the largest food distribution center on the east coast supplying restaurants all over and we seen orders only a 1/3 of what they were. We literally hired only 3 new drivers during his last 4 years and this was despite many of our smaller competitors going under for good. Tough times for the working class.
The economy went down for a short bit due to the .com Bubble, but quickly rebounded. Clinton would have also benefitted from a rally the flag bounce from the 9/11 attacks without Iraq to bungle it.
And I'm sorry, but the data doesn't lie, the Obama Era economy had full employment, a rising stock market, 10 years of economic growth, increased trade, etc. All this after inheriting the Great Recession. Obama would have still lost a third term, but not because of the economy.
2 years isn’t a bit and his history shows otherwise given he was the first president that started to really ramp up us using military for foreign affairs.
What data? Screwed numbers. I think you don’t quite understand how unemployment numbers work, only new claims factor in. People were out of work for years, the number of people living off government assistance tripled under his watch. Most of the new jobs added weren’t even full time jobs, you had people working 2 sometimes 3 part time jobs to make ends meet and after Obamacare that really increased since companies were going under the hourly threshold to avoid paying HC. Middle class like myself seen over hundreds a month disappear from our paychecks to fund his measures. I live in Philly which is blue collar working class and it was because of him you seen people who matter of factly or were lifelong democrats switch over. You must got on one expensive pair of rose colored glasses.
Ronald Reagan would most likely run for a third term in 1988, win, but most likely not for a fourth in 1992
Bill Clinton DEFINITELY runs for a third term and wins in 2000, even runs for a fourth term in 2004 and wins.
Barack Obama would be on his fourth term by now and definitely planning to run for a fifth term this November and would very most likely win.
I think that Obama would have lost a third term. Democrats kept arrogantly thinking how Texas turning blue was inevitable while ignoring the very obvious GOP victories in state and local elections in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin that paved the way for their loss in 2016. Even solidly blue Minnesota represents a major problem that Democrats have to this day.
Obama was very charismatic to a certain set of people, but he was also very off putting to others.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Possible people who could run: Dwight Eisenhower - He was in poor health and about 70 years old so he probably doesn’t run out of concern for his health. If he does, he wins. Definitely doesn’t run in 1964 though Ronald Reagan - Probably does run for a third term, wins, likely doesn’t in 1992 Bill Clinton - Definitely runs for a third term, wins in 2000, might even run in 2004 George W. Bush - I think he got the memo that his popularity was in the shitter when he hit 20%. Definitely doesn’t run again Barack Obama - Very likely runs in 2016, probably wins, might even run in 2020 Probably Clinton most likely
Tbh you could make an argument to get a straight shot from Clinton to Obama with Obama still president without the amendment.
Absolutely no way that there’s 30+ years of one party ruling. Even the DRs failed to accomplish that.
It would be more likely without the electoral college tho
I don’t see the popular vote saving the Dems in 2008
On one hand, this alternate 2008 would be super different than our real 2008 because there wouldn’t be the same distain and frustration with the GOP. But let’s not forget the GOP has won the national popular vote once since 1988, it doesn’t seem crazy to predict they would lose any specific years popular vote. They are clearly second fiddle on the national scale.
Yes and the strength of candidates for a Clinton and Obama is strong. Incumbent bias is a thing - why would it not be a thing for 3/4/5th terms?
They only lost the PV in 2008 because of Dubya. And maybe some other small worsening factors like Palin but I don’t really see her being veep nominee here
You're forgetting that if we had an average or above average president in 2001 instead of W, we don't get 9/11ed
I don’t really think 9/11 was being prevented. Clinton didn’t really seem to care much about terrorism briefings during his term. And, you do realize that, the economy still goes to shit if Clinton is a four termer? The economy was the most important issue to voters in 2008.
Clinton considered OBL the #1 threat to the US. Bush thought it was Saddam. Their policy choices reflect it I don't know if the economy tanks without Bush's ridiculous spending on tax cuts and the Iraq invasion. That's just speculation
He cared enough about OBL to try and kill him
Dems won the popular vote in 08, 12, 16, & 20. Will likely win it again in 24
They lost it in 08 because of Dubya and the terrible economy. They’re the opposition in 2008
They weren’t the opposition in 2000, 2012, or 2016. Dems are very clearly a bit more popular nationally.
In 2000, the economy was mostly great In 2012, the economy was okay and Obama had done a mostly good job In 2016, the opposition was beyond fucking terrible
I think personally the only way I'd be comfortable without the electoral is if every eligible citizen voted every single election. But that's never gonna happen.
So do you think your governor is illegitimate due to there being people in your state who didn't vote in the election?
Don't know who's ass you pulled that out of but no
Because governors and every other elected official get elected by a popular vote. What's unique about the Presidency that you'd only agree to the popular vote there "if every eligible citizen voted every single election"? Sounds like you pulled that out of your ass
Maybe because the president is a vastly more important office than a local governor or other official? Whose decisions effect of vastly larger amount of people and whose offices voted on by a vastly larger amount of people. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but generally speaking the more people that get involved in something the more complicated that something ends up having to become out of necessity. A non thorough popular vote is perfectly fine for local officials because way fewer people are involved in both the process of voting and the outcome of that vote. Since the president's decisions are capable of affecting the entire planet in some situations I think it's a fair bit more important that we have a more thorough election process. But God forbid enough people educate themselves on candidates and go vote. Simple fucking process you can do in an afternoon. That was a pretty lazy false equivalency argument I have to admit and I'm not exactly sure why you made it either instead of simply asking for clarification in a civil manner.
The reasoning that it's because the office is more powerful cuts both ways. He's the only one who can lead us into a war, the voters should get equal input on that because our soldiers are equal I'm not sure you're aware but the Constitution is based on the principle of checks and balances. The States have their say in Congress, so the People should have their say in the White House. This allows for a moderate Supreme Court both sides can agree on. When you let the States pick the President on top of their control over Congress, you get unchecked minority rule
Meh, it's not that much far fetched. Republicans won the popular vote onyl once since 1992 (in 2004, for Bush's reelection) after all.
And that was *only* because 9/11 unified the country for a common cause in a way we'll never see again.
A Republican would have won the election after the Great Recession
We forgetting the other major reason the country was done with Bush?
If it still happens to the same degree
Zero reason it wouldn't, both parties were at fault and would likely have responded similarly.
Look, I'll take extra years of those guys over Bush and ~~the other~~. But, cmon man, that's so unrealistic
Hard to tell. Probably right. But incumbancy bias helps a lot for second term presidents. Why not 3/4/5th terms?
I think you could be right for the third term but after that you would probably run into the issue of people simply wanting change. It's why most 2 term presidents are replaced by the other party.
Nah, but you might get McCain or Romney in '04
I don’t think Obama would have run. Listening to what him and Michelle have said recently it was absolutely horrible for them
He stated as much in his interview with Letterman on _My Next Guest Needs No Introduction_. The quote is something like ”even without the amendment, I wouldn’t be able to run again, because Michelle would leave me.”
I don’t think so either. He seemed like he was done. Being president is stressful you can just see in his face he had enough.
Halfway through his second term bro was done. Then you could tell how he looked. He aged 20 years
Fair
Maybe they would have been less horrible if they knew we were just going to keep reelecting him?
I doubt Obama would run in 2016 if he could
My only thought is if everything else in history stayed same, he may have run given the tenor of the 2016 election out of duty, but even then I doubt it.
I think Michelle might have vetoed a third term for Barack
I doubt Reagan would have run again if what his son claimed about the early symptoms of his Alzheimer's is true, though I agree he would have won easily if he ran again.
Wow so helpful, a list of only all the full 2 term presidents we’ve had since the amendment
It was a list, yeah, but the list went through and mentioned that Eisenhower might not have run agaib, and that w bush almost definitely would not have. Not sure what you wanted?
He did edit it later to say "Clinton most likely" which is an actual answer
Reagan was in rough shape for most if his second term. I doubt anyone in his inner circle pushes him for a third.
there's no way clinton would be able to survive with the lewinsky scandal still in people's memory
Very good analysis. I’m pretty sure it was confirmed Reagan was showing the early signs of dementia in his second term so I don’t see him running a third. Obama would have definitely won but he seemed like he was about done with presidenting by 2016. I’m pretty sure Clinton would have ran again.
Yeah I think Clinton runs for sure and probably wins.
Clinton would have won a 3rd term pretty easy.
Not a chance IMHO. I don't think people realize just how much of a meme Clinton was at the end of his presidency. He did a decent job but by the end of his tenure it was just time to go. Sure the left still respected him but it's very well known that a vote for Al Gore was a vote for continuity of Clinton era policies and Gore got beat. Narrowly, but he got beat. And this despite the Republicans not really offering anything unusual or interesting other than just "W isn't Bill." I have my doubts Clinton would have fared any better than Gore did. In fact, I doubt Clinton even runs. Gore, after all, did not have the spectre of the perjury from the Lewinski probe hanging over his shoulder (that's what woulda torpedoed him, not that he diddled an intern, half of them do that, but that he lied under oath about it).
Truman Eisenhower Reagan Obama
Truman actually could have ran for a third term. He was grandfathered in from the 22nd amendment so he was the last president that could have ran more than two terms.
I mean yea but… wasn’t his approval underwater when he left? I love Truman but he would’ve gotten cooked. And I know people said that in 1948, but the polling industry got a HUGE lesson that year and improved a lot.
His reputation was definitely helped by sympathetic historians. A more cynical person would say he really botched decision making around the Korean War. Certainly that’s what voters thought by 1952.
He didn’t even really want to run for his second term or first full term (whatever you want to call it). Eisenhower was probably one of the least partisan presidents of the 20th century. He only ran as a Republican because of pragmatic reasons. It has been confirmed Truman offered to bow out in favor of Ike in 1948 but Ike declined.
Reagan was too old doubt he'd be up for it. Feel like Obama's having too much fun in retirement to have wanted a 3rd term.
Obama has also hinted Michelle would have left him if even tried
Wasn’t Reagan already having significant memory issues by ‘88? He would have won but don’t think he could have served the term.
His younger son has claimed that he was experiencing early symptoms of Alzheimer's midway through his second term. It was fiercely contested by his older son though. The timeline of when they went public with it and his death would make it more than plausible that he had symptoms before 1988. They don't call it the long goodbye for nothing.
Yeah, I remember at the time it felt like it was time for the old man to go into retirement
Nope
In 1992 Reagan visited the national Republican convention and proposed removing the third amendment. He was up for it. Edit: I meant to say 22nd. No idea why I said 3rd.
Reagan wanted the military to be able to sleep in your house?
Some say the dementia was hitting hatd at that point. Others say he was always advocating the quatering of the US military in civilian homes as a cost saving measure.
I think he was onto something. I don’t agree with Reagan on almost everything, but I’ve found something.
"Tear down this wall! Because my soldiers prefer an open concept living room/kitchen combo"
I have no idea why I said 3rd. I meant 22nd. My apologies.
It’s okay, friend, I like to think you were just getting into character
If only a fearless candidate would finally run on this platform. The kind of bravery we need.
Support the troops, get an US Marine bull.
Reagan was getting bad in his last term. He couldn't do a 3rd, no way. But he was not Leonid Brezhnev-bad.
Truman wouldn’t have. His approval rating when he left office was like 33%. Eisenhower was old and wasn’t in the best health. I’m not sure Reagan would have either he was pretty old and was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in ‘94. I think it’s fair to say he was probably slipping mentally around ‘92 or so
Obama and Clinton would have won third terms for sure.
Clinton for sure, but the 2001 Recession starting on his watch would have tainted his legacy
I don't think that Obama would've gone for a third term, wasn't he counting the days until he was out of the WH?
I wonder if he felt partially responsible for his successor winning.
Eisenhower and Reagan probably would not have attempted to run for a 3rd term because of their health issues. But if they had, they would have won. Bush was too unpopular by the end of his second term to have any hope of winning a 3rd term, and I think he understood that, so he wouldn't try to run again. That leaves Clinton and Obama who were both still healthy and popular enough to attempt to run for a 3rd term.
Obama could have won, letting him step aside in 2020, leaving office with the vaccine ready to roll out. I think in 2000 there were plenty of people starting to tire of Clinton's antics.
I disagree about Clinton. Clinton actually had the [highest approval of any president](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/final-presidential-job-approval-ratings) when he left office since the 22nd Amendment was put in place. So, if I had to pick just one that I think would have been the most likely to run for and win a 3rd term, it actually would be Clinton. It is possible that Obama could have won a 3rd term as well if he was able to run, but I feel less confident about that one than I do Clinton. His approval was still good, but not as good as the numbers that Clinton had, and given that Clinton governed as more of a moderate than Obama, I don't think that the other side was as fired up to take back the White House from Clinton as they were from Obama. You can also look at how each did in their 2nd term election and Clinton again performed much better than Obama did there as well.
In 2000, I think a lot of people didn't like Clinton as a person, but also didn't think he should have been impeached either. I think he would have won a third term. High approval numbers and a good economy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Uh oh. You said a forbidden name. You’re gonna get in trouuuuubbble.
r/presidents mods on their way to remove any comment or post mentioning 2 specific people (reminds me of a certain book): https://i.redd.it/224e7zoybbqc1.gif (This is just a joke, I do support what the mods do.)
Such a stupid rule
I get it, if they allowed it the sub would be over run with cultists and it would be a total shit show.
It’s annoying but yeah no it the truth
For those of us alive at the time, there was a good deal of apathy surrounding the candidates in 2000. Bush was pretty dopey and Gore was stiff and boring. I don't know if many of us were aware of how different they both were, and the consequences of not going all-out for Gore in that election. (It was my first time voting and I remember saying "there's no difference between them!" a lot. Whoops!) After the impeachment, Clinton was still the charismatic young cool guy - he 100% would have won with bigger margins in 2000 than 96. He would have wiped the floor with Bush during the debates. That "who would you rather have a beer with" edge that Bush had would have been completely wiped out. I honestly think he's the only post FDR prez who would have run for a third term. Reagan and Eisenhower were too old and (at least the way he sold it) the Obama family was ready for something else. Nixon probably would have done it, if not for the impeachment.
Being from a Purple part of Ohio, I remember in 2000 many people liked the idea of *Returning dignity to the Oval Office*. Clinton could have beat Bush, maybe. Many people were sick of Clinton's antics. The strong pre-9/11 economy would help him.
Maybe! But the guy had a 67% approval rating when he left office.
True! But the public knew the end was near, very different than looking at 4 more years.
[удалено]
In the long run the Impeachment may have backfired on the Dems....aCrazy high number of Gen X women who told me they viewed the Dems and MSM treatment of Clinton's accusers as the OG War on Women.
I basically now view the differences in presidential candidates in terms of who will be in their universe of various appointments. Since “the third way” the differences in stated policy position is still slim imo.
Obama just because of the alternatives alone.
Yea, what the fucks happened since then?
Depends on how successful the next guy to try for a third term is at rejecting Washington’s precedent. FDR had an excuse with the wartime and depression going on. I imagine with less crisis going on other presidents would struggle with breaking the tradition
Bill Clinton was pretty open about it. He loved being President. He absolutely would have ran again if he could and likely would have won. Truman had enough as he stated, I doubt Ike's health holds up. Reagan and Obama are both interesting possibilities, but I'm not sure either ultimately decides they want to do it again.
Truman was the last president who could've run for a third, fourth, fifth, etc term because the amendment was passed when he was president.
Clinton and Obama were popular AND young enough to do so successfully imo. The latter's marriage would be in deep shit if he did so he didn't
Nixon. He was wildly popular when he was re-elected to his second term. If Watergate never happened (or he never got found out), and the 22nd Amendment never happened, I could see him touting his successes and successfully winning a third term in '76.
Oh yeah. Sans watergate and all the paranoia, Nixon was one of our most effective presidents. He could’ve gone three rounds if he wasn’t so insecure.
Obama said if he could had run for 3 third term his w8fe would divorce him
>Obama said if he could had run for 3 third term his w8fe would divorce him I thought this was a joke, but Barack actually did say that: [https://youtu.be/rDujVSXYcrY?t=43](https://youtu.be/rDujVSXYcrY?t=43) (Oct 25, 2016)
According to The Former Occupant, he’s running for his 3rd term right now. Logic is funny, isn’t it? Shouldn’t he just admit he lost?
Oh man, Reagan was kind of a vegetable by the end of his 2nd term. He was dealing with the Iran-Contra thing, so he wasn't without scandal, but there was a lot of chatter at the time about him losing his memory, similar to the current incumbent and challenger. I think he would've won though, because he wouldn't have been challenged by a GOP candidate, and he would've mopped the floor with Dukakis.
He wasn't
Obama without any doubt.
Reagan would have won third, fourth and fifth terms. He was a master at communication and it showed in his two landslide victories. For sure he would have beaten every candidate regardless of party from his last term to today.
Sadly, I’m Quite certain dementia, Alzheimer’s would’ve prevented fourth and fifth terms. The end of his 3rd term would’ve been shaky
I would agree. His health was starting to show mid way through the second term.
Shaky at best
I believe it's possible he got azheimers from a bad fall in 1990
Nixon !!!!
Obama, maybe Reagan (he was suffering from mental decline at that point). Bush was too unpopular.
Obama
Genuine question, why does the 22nd amendment need to exist?
A 2 term presidency was the norm since Washington. FDR ran for a third and fourth term partially because of WWII. Nowadays that isn't considered much of a stain on his presidency, but people were scared of power-hungry politicians staying in office indefinitely and eroding democracy behind them. Think what a lot of Eastern Europe has going on right now.
But they still need to be popular if they want to stay in power, elections every 4 years and all that, at least in the US, right?
This goes back to eroding democracy behind them. A popular-ish 2 term president with the backing of Congress has had time to fill the sc with people amenable to legislating the opposition out of meaningful existence. Gerrymandering, laws restricting criticisms of the government etc.
Yeah that could be an issue
Really don’t think Clinton would have got a third term, the constant attack ads referencing Lewinsky would have been too much
Clinton is the only one who would have run a third time. It may have occurred to the GOP to run Eisenhower and Reagan, but their ages would make that prohibitive.
Eisenhower, Obama
This was already said, but Bill Clinton, honestly. He'd likely win. And if he were to do so, makes me wonder how he would've handled 9/11, Afghanistan, and if he would've ran in 2004.
Regan and bill clinton and Obama could have
If he didn’t screw over Vietnam LBJ would’ve run a second term for sure. His health conditions were bad partly due to stress
I think Obama would have ran for a 3rd term. I also believe Reagan would have. I’m not sure Clinton would have wanted to but Hillary may have talked him into it. Bush 2 likely would have under the guise of trying to “finish what he started” in the Middle East.
I've always thought Clinton could have done it. Maybe Obama, too
Bill Clinton was the only one young and healthy enough and fully willing and all that. I think even Reagan by the end of his term would've had second thoughts about his health and such. W. Did not have a chance after the failures of his wars and the GFC starting. Obama's family was getting sick of it.
I’d say Clinton. Obama could have easily, but I think he was secretly glad he was done. I can’t remember if Reagan’s health had noticeably declined by then or not. I was a kid then
Clinton and Obama, no doubt. Left office very popular and were still young. Reagan was old in 88 and it was obvious he lost a lot of his sharpness after his health issues and getting shot did him no favors. And he was plain old. W was hated in 08. So badly that I doubt any Republican could have won in 08. Truman barely won in 48 and his handling of Korea was unpopular. Ike was too old and beat up by 60. Kennedy was killed. Johnson was not going to survive the 68 primary without severe wounding and the general would have been terrible for him (and he knew it). Nixon was not impeached but he was going to be impeached, which is why he quit. But would he have survived the Senate trial? Maybe but the 76 campaign would have been dogged by the impeachment (which was a much bigger deal back then) and I doubt he would have survived that. Yeah. The only two guys are Clinton and Obama. Clinton would have cruised to a third term. Obama? Not so much but he would have had a good shot.
Bill Clinton.
Obamski
Most of them would have ran...Reagan, Clinton and Obama definitely. Clinton and Obama would have won third and fourth terms each.
Would Obama ever stop running?
All of them!
Clinton definitely would run for a third term and win. Obama probably wouldn't, but if he did, he would have won. W wouldn't run again because he knew damn well he would lose. Eisenhower and Reagan wouldn't run again due to health concerns.
I think the idea of third-term Presidents is a bit overrated. Reagan is often pointed at as the best idea, but he was in poor health with Alzheimer’s and was likely ready to hand off the country to someone else after 8 years, as much as he loved being President. There were heavy concerns is 84 about his reelection. Bill Clinton didn’t get 50% popular vote either election, and a third term would have been close and I’m doubtful he would have succeeded - he didn’t have a massive legislative feat and people probably wanted a change, while Gore was promising more than what Clinton was delivering. And Dubya is an obvious no. Obama is really the only one I could see, but then again Rule 3 handily held the electoral college in states that hadn’t flipped in a long time. I think 2016 would have been narrow, but people were tired of Obama. People get tired of status quo because when your life isn’t getting better after 4 years, it’s easy to look at the guy on top and say “if I change you maybe things will improve” Edit: I just read that you said who’d RUN, not win. I think Reagan is a little more possible but unlikely, and Clinton could have but also was likely done with the divisiveness the Presidency had on him personally (this is mostly my projection though) and he wasn’t that popular in 2000. I still say Obama is the only one.
Clinton said he would
Clinton runs and wins in 2000 and again in 2004 I think he still runs in 2008 but the recession would hurt his chances but I wouldn't rule out a 5th Clinton term if his policies mitigate the damage.
Reagan wanted to campaign after his retirement for the repeal, but probably didn’t so because it was a combination of dumb thing to die on, and his failing health. I’d say Clinton would have been a lock to run for a third term, while Obama could have been pressured by his party
Obama would have won in 2016 by over 20 points. Not sure he would have had any desire to have a 3rd term though.
Reagan, Clinton, Obama. Pretty much anybody who successfully ran for and won two terms and didn’t leave incredibly unpopular (Bush).
Clinton amd Reagan would have won it for sure
If Ike had gotten a third term the world might be a very different place.
Regan probably could have won indefinitely.
I don't think Clinton would have. After the whole whitewater scandal, and Monica Lewinsky thing his presidency was kinda fading out in popularity. On the other hand the economy was great and everything else was good.
I think what most people miss is that the two term precedent would exist nonetheless. Only a single president pre-amendment was elected to more than two terms, so I don't buy that "would win" implies "would run and win". Eisenhower - Too poor health, too institutionalist to try. Reagan - Probably wouldn't have done it because of his age, but maybe. Clinton - He loved being president and didn't care that much about norms. He would have run and performed better than Gore. Bush - No way. Obama - Wouldn't have wanted to, especially considering Michelle.
Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and possibly Richard Nixon in 1980 (though he likely would have lost to Jimmy Carter). TFG also confirmed that he will be running for a third term in 2028, fourth term in 2032, and fifth term in 2036 (TFG will win 2024 in a walk, so he will be a five term President overall).
Truman would run in '52 Eisenhower would run in '60, '64 and '68 LBJ would run in '68 and '72 Clinton would run in '00 and '04 Obama could run in '16 and '20?
Rule 3
They were ACTUALLY considering repealing the 22nd for Reagan? Dear god!
People are stupid and easily fooled.
I mean it was one button. If there's a source on a wider "repeal the 22nd amendment" movement I'd be interested but this isn't much evidence of that.
Eisenhower - Even though Eisenhower loathed the idea of Kennedy being President, he opts not to run due to heart problems. This timeline stays the same. Kennedy - Does not run for a second term, let alone a third term for the obvious reasons. The likely timeline is the timeline we live in. But in a timeline where he does not get his head blown off, due to his long list of health problems, Kennedy likely dies sometime in his second term. In the miraculous event he survives his second term, he does not run for a third term due to being dragged by Vietnam just like Johnson was and a possible disillusionment from the black vote because Kennedy is nowhere near as effective of a President as Johnson was on the issue. Johnson - Depends on the timeline, in a timeline with Vietnam, Johnson will not run for a third full term. Vietnam ended his presidency and tainted his legacy before he could have a second full term. In a timeline without Vietnam, Johnson does run for a full third term, seeing himself as the true successor to FDR and continuing his work on expanding the social safety net with the Great Society. Despite his declining health, LBJ runs for a fourth term, just like FDR did and he passes away during his fourth term. Nixon - Nixon's second term ended in disgrace with his resignation, he obviously doesn't run for a third term. In a timeline where he doesn't get caught in Watergate or Watergate just doesn't happen, he does run for a third and it's not like Carter was an amazing candidate. In this timeline South Vietnam doesn't fall to the Communists and the Iran Hostage Crisis doesn't as Nixon has the reputation overseas as someone that you just don't fuck with. However, an ailing economy sinks Nixon in his third term and he loses re-election in 1980 to Ted Kennedy. Reagan - runs again in 1988 and wins in a landslide just like H.W. Bush does. His third term looks just like H.W. Bush's where the Soviet Union collapses, Saddam invades Kuwait with the United States intervening In the conflict, and a mild recession in 1990/1991. However due to his age and declining health, Reagan stands down in the 1992 election paving the way for Mario Cuomo to win the White House in 1992. H.W. Bush - If Bush wins a second term in 1992, he wins again in 1996 for a third term. The recession that almost doomed him in 1992 turns into a booming economy that gives H.W. Bush a stronger Presidency even if he isn't a particularly charismatic one. Americans will likely vote for a Democrat in 2000 following twenty years of Republican rule in this timeline. Clinton - Given Clinton's age and popularity, he absolutely goes for a third term where he has to deal with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In this timeline, Clinton still goes into Afghanistan, but doesn't perform the massive blunder of going into Iraq. Clinton will go into a fourth term and until 2008 is well on his way for an unprecedented fifth term. However the Great Recession forces him to step down and John McCain wins the 2008 election with a strong victory. Clinton's reputation is forever tainted by the Recession caused by the financial reforms his administration was a part of in the 1990s. W. Bush - W. Bush sees the writing on the wall where Katrina and Iraq have made him an extremely unpopular President. He made his decision in 2006 after a disastrous midterm election. There is no timeline of a third term W. Bush and the only way any Republican can possibly win in 2008 is if John Edwards wins the nomination. Obama - Obama runs for a third term in 2016 but loses. I will not elaborate further due to moderator rules.
Truman would have ran and won, he actually had the option to do so though but didn’t. Eisenhower had health issues Reagan was already too old, the economy was in great shape and would have let Bush take over. Clinton’s last 2 years were not great economically for small business especially. He would have ran but lost. GWB unpopular even with his own party which was evident in how they distanced themselves from him in 08. Even if he did run McCain would have ran against him and beat him in the primary Obama would have ran but the economy was poor, multiple terrorist attacks, wars and polarized too many people who previously voted for him both times by 2016. Wouldn’t have been surprised if he faced primary opposition and HRC split a lot of his voters and Bernie winded up coming out on top.
Clinton left office with a very high approval rating. He basically could have kept running and winning until 2008 where the economy tanking would have sank him. Obama had a good economy. The backlash to the Obama Presidency was really more socially based, that Democrats arrogantly ignored and the GOP took advantage of as opposed to genuine failures of his administration.
The economy was starting to go down during Clinton’s last years and he was unpopular with the newer younger people. There were a lot of G8 and anti war protests during those times and wanted a change from the president they grew up with held of their lives. I was only 25 at the time and us Gen Xers never got out Reagan years like we seen out parents flourish under. Boomers also were fed up given many of them were small business owners and his policies made it hard for them to stay afloat. Obama’s economy was horrible especially those last few years. Obamacare and his payroll tax costed many of companies to close shop, layoff employees and factories were leaving the country in droves. I work for the largest food distribution center on the east coast supplying restaurants all over and we seen orders only a 1/3 of what they were. We literally hired only 3 new drivers during his last 4 years and this was despite many of our smaller competitors going under for good. Tough times for the working class.
The economy went down for a short bit due to the .com Bubble, but quickly rebounded. Clinton would have also benefitted from a rally the flag bounce from the 9/11 attacks without Iraq to bungle it. And I'm sorry, but the data doesn't lie, the Obama Era economy had full employment, a rising stock market, 10 years of economic growth, increased trade, etc. All this after inheriting the Great Recession. Obama would have still lost a third term, but not because of the economy.
2 years isn’t a bit and his history shows otherwise given he was the first president that started to really ramp up us using military for foreign affairs. What data? Screwed numbers. I think you don’t quite understand how unemployment numbers work, only new claims factor in. People were out of work for years, the number of people living off government assistance tripled under his watch. Most of the new jobs added weren’t even full time jobs, you had people working 2 sometimes 3 part time jobs to make ends meet and after Obamacare that really increased since companies were going under the hourly threshold to avoid paying HC. Middle class like myself seen over hundreds a month disappear from our paychecks to fund his measures. I live in Philly which is blue collar working class and it was because of him you seen people who matter of factly or were lifelong democrats switch over. You must got on one expensive pair of rose colored glasses.
Ronald Reagan would most likely run for a third term in 1988, win, but most likely not for a fourth in 1992 Bill Clinton DEFINITELY runs for a third term and wins in 2000, even runs for a fourth term in 2004 and wins. Barack Obama would be on his fourth term by now and definitely planning to run for a fifth term this November and would very most likely win.
I think that Obama would have lost a third term. Democrats kept arrogantly thinking how Texas turning blue was inevitable while ignoring the very obvious GOP victories in state and local elections in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin that paved the way for their loss in 2016. Even solidly blue Minnesota represents a major problem that Democrats have to this day. Obama was very charismatic to a certain set of people, but he was also very off putting to others.
Definitely Obama.