If presidents were allowed more than two terms, and Bush ran for a third term, would he win?
Based on the nature of the electorate, and the results of the last election, I assume he would win.
Has anything happened since Nov 2004 that would change the minds of enough people who voted for him to make a difference in the result?
I know some on both sides of my parents’ families who were disgusted enough by his role in the Theresa Schaivo case that they said they were feeling some buyer’s remorse for having voted for him last time. That amounts to about 10 votes he wouldn’t get that he got in '04.
It’s still too early to say.
Both Reagan and Clinton would have won a third term. Probably W too unless the economy takes a perceived dump.
Haj
Do we assume that events other than the election remain static? In other words, the Terry Sciavio debate and all the other issues that could have an effect on the election.
Essentially, are you asking if he would be seeking a third term six months after being elected to his second term? And who would his opponent be?
I personally don’t think that things have changed that much since November. GWB is still a polarizing figure. A charming midwestern or southern moderate might have a chance against him. At this point there are too many variables regarding your OP for me to make an educated guess.
For what it’s worth, my sister had a dream recently in which this happened, and Bill Clinton kicked his ass. Of course, it isn’t worth much 
I think he’d probably win if he ran again right now vs. Kerry with no campaign for either, but it’s hard to say. If a campaign started right now with Bush vs. Kerry, Kerry might be able to win. If a campaign started right now with Bush vs. some unknown other person, it’s completely beyond guessing to me.
Depends on how effectively our “liberal” media continues to cover up stuff like the Downing Street Memo, I’d think.
That’s impossible to conjecture without knowing who he’s running against. If against Kerry again or Dean or whoever, very probably. If against Hillary, that would be damned interesting. If against Gore… I think he would have lost this past time.
Knowing that the “liberal” media isn’t going to grow balls any time soon, don’t you think the election will go exactly as the last one did?
I don’t think it matters who he’s running against.
Bush’s team (including Karl “The Architect” Rove) will very soon find a few talking points against that person (e.g. Kerry’s “flip-flopper”, “threw his medals away”, “purple heart injury just needed a bandaid”, Gore’s “he invented the internet”, etc) that will be repeated ad nauseum in the media until that person is made to look ridiculous.
And once a person is made to look ridiculous, people won’t vote for him. (except for partisans, of course, who would vote for a loaf of bread if it were their party’s candidate)
Each party gets a large percentage of the vote from their base, and the rest comes from “undecideds”, and most of these people are swayed easily when one of the sides is made to look ridiculous.
And the Republicans, I think, have the edge in terms of being able to make their opponent look ridiculous.
Since it’s all about the economy, and it looks like this boom is going to continue, I’d say by November, 2008, he’d be looking like a safe bet.
Bartender! I’ll have three of whatever he’s having.
It’s funny that just about the only poll in the past year that showed Bush above 50% approval was the one taken on election day last November. Not that there’s anything funny about the way the votes were counted, mind you. Nope, nothing odd about that at all.
Nobody seemed very excited about Bush and Gore in 2000, but I think people were going through Clinton fatigue as well. There were so many scandals and the economy was not so hot at the end of his term. It’s my personal feeling that in the 24-hour news cycle environment, eight years is about the maximum that the public in can stand of any President. If Clinton had run again in 2000, he might have won, but voter turnout would’ve been something like 30% or less.
Even if my feelings there are way off, it’s much too soon to tell if Bush would be re-elected in '08 if that was possible. Would you have said in June 2001 that he was going to have a second term?
I think he would win, not necessarily because of anything he’s done, but because he’d be a two-time incumbent. People hate change, and they love voting for incumbents. It doesn’t matter what career politicians like Strom Thurmond or Robert Byrd do or did, they’ll get elected regardless. That’s why term limits are so important.
Incumbents don’t just get re-elected because people hate change. They enjoy some real advantages, like news coverage, franking, and having a record.
True. But psychological conservatism is part of it. Also, what is “franking”?
A third term for Bush!? A third term for BUSH!??
To your tents, oh Israel! Trostskyists to the barricades, DefCon One, Orc Status Red, No Pasaran!! We will fight them on the beaches…
Free mailing privilieges that the President, Senators and Representatives enjoy, while challengers have to pay to get messages out.
I like Jon the Geek’s sister’s dream.
If GWB can run for re-election, then the 22nd has been repealed and Bill Clinton can run again. That’s one race I’d pay to see. The main reason WJC might not run in 2008 in this scenario (apart from perhaps health reasons?) is that it might interfere with Hillary’s plans, and she is the one person who could really throw a wrench in the works.
I’d be interested to see what the Rove machine would try to do to discredit WJC that hasn’t already been dredged up years ago. Admittedly Rove is a master at this, but WJC has already had untold millions spent trying to discredit him, and the voting public would have little tolerance for too much more.
I’ve had the “GWB vs WJC” dream myself, and it’s a real doozy. There are a lot of people who are now thinking that a little oral sex in the Oval Office isn’t the worst abuse of the Presidency in the last decade.
Quick followup questions to the OP:
[ol]
[li]We’re assuming the election is in 2008, right, and we’re not in some West Wing alterniverse where elections are in 1998, 2002, etc?[/li].
[li]Have Presidential term limits (a) been eliminated, or (b) just extended to three terms?[/li][/ol]
One “idealized” scenario [which Hillary might go along with, especially if the OP’s answer to Question 2 is (b)] is for WJC to run in 2008, with a VP who steps aside in 2010 (after the Demos sweep Congress in the midterms due to the unprecedented prosperity) and Hillary moves up to VP – having completed her promised full term in the Senate for NY – with a front-runner position for the 2012 Presidential elections as a successful former Senator and Veep.
[size][Yes, I know it’s a pipedream, but so is the OP’s repeal of the 22nd.][/size]