Predict the map if these presidents could run a 3rd term?

[Cyrusman]

Predict the maps if these presidents were allowed to run a 3rd term?

1988 Ronald Reagan runs against Michael Dukakis

2000 Bill Clinton runs against George W Bush

2008 George W Bush runs against Barack Obama

2016 Barack Obama runs against Donald Trump


Everything that was happening in the county/ world at that time stays the same

[zzz]

Predict the maps if these presidents were allowed to run a 3rd term?

1988 Ronald Reagan runs against Michael Dukakis

2000 Bill Clinton runs against George W Bush

2008 George W Bush runs against Barack Obama

2016 Barack Obama runs against Donald Trump


Everything that was happening in the county/ world at that time stays the same

1988:
Reagan picks up OR, WA, WI, NY (compared to real 1988 map).

2000: Clinton picks up AR, MO, WV, FL, OH, NH

2008: Obama picks up MO

2016: Obama picks up WI, MI, PA, FL, NC

[Redban]

Well firstly, I don’t think Dubya would win the nomination if he was allowed to go for a third term. I believe McCain or Romney would have taken it over the incumbent.

Assuming it was Bush vs Obama in 2008, then it would have been bad. Obama definitely takes Missouri. I think he makes a serious play for Alaska (he was going to campaign there before Palin), Arizona, and Georgia too. Maybe even South Carolina, Montana, and the 2 Dakotas too.

 We forget how much people disliked Bush that year. The McCain campaign hesitated to use Bush out of concern that it would affect him negatively. There was a hurricane or storm at the time of the RNC convention, so the RNC had cover for making Bush deliver his speech via video. But before the storm, there was talk of having Bush speak via video or skipping the convention entirely.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1988:

Reagan/Bush 454 55%
Dukakis/Bentsen 84 44%


2000:

Clinton/Gore 322 51%
Bush/Cheney 216 46%


2008:

Obama/Biden 389 55.5%
Bush/Rice 149 43.5%(I think he drops Cheney for Rice which allows him to narrowly carry Georgia)


2016:

Obama/Biden 293 51%
Trump/Pence 245 47%

[Adjective-Statement]

1988

President Ronald Reagan (R-CA) / Vice President George Bush (R-TX) ✓
Governor Michael Dukakis (D-MA) / Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX)

The Reagan cult rejoices.

2000

President Bill Clinton (D-AR) / Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) ✓
Governor George Bush (R-TX) / Fmr. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (R-WY)

The Clinton years were good times for many, but people underestimate the backlash against his conduct.

2008

President George Bush (R-TX) / Vice President Dick Cheney (R-WY)
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) / Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) ✓

Best case scenario, Obama is carrying the Dakotas. Bush is helped by stronger evangelical support but hurt by a stronger reaction from everyone else.

2016

President Barack Obama (D-IL) / Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE)
Businessman Donald Trump (R-NY) / Governor Mike Pence (R-IN) ✓

Obama gets primaried by Sanders. Trump wins by literally 1 electoral vote. The Obama charm had definitely eroded by the end of his second term.

[Redban]

It seems that most of you are claiming the Reagan in 1988 would have taken the election by a bigger margin than H.W. Bush did.

Would he really?

I know his approval ratings were high, as most departing presidents get high approval ratings. But Reagan was also vulnerable for the Iran-Contra affair. Some of his big cabinet members were getting served with indictments (and later convicted). Reagan himself even got hit with a subpoena in the North case.

For the last year or year-and-half of his presidency, the Democrat controlled Congress didn’t allow Reagan to do anything on the domestic agenda because they were angered with him. They also didn’t allow him to take real action with Nicaragua or the Middle East because of the Contra affair. So Reagan was confined to talking to Gorbachev about arms reduction.

Plus, Reagan was super old by 1988. His age was relevant because the Iran-Contra reports portrayed him as a passive, uninformed, disengaged President who gave his staff free rein, with literally no supervision.

During the Iran/Contra investigations, when the committee interviewed Reagan, he initially said that he authorized the transfer of guns to Iran. Then in the follow-up interview, he pulled out a piece of paper (that the White House counsel wrote) to explain that he misspoke and didn’t remember whether he authorized the transfer or noted, which is true. Stories like this feed the idea that he was getting senile.

[SevenEleven]

2016

[Orwell]

It seems that most of you are claiming the Reagan in 1988 would have taken the election by a bigger margin than H.W. Bush did.

Would he really?

I know his approval ratings were high, as most departing presidents get high approval ratings. But Reagan was also vulnerable for the Iran-Contra affair. Some of his big cabinet members were getting served with indictments (and later convicted). Reagan himself even got hit with a subpoena in the North case.

For the last year or year-and-half of his presidency, the Democrat controlled Congress didn’t allow Reagan to do anything on the domestic agenda because they were angered with him. They also didn’t allow him to take real action with Nicaragua or the Middle East because of the Contra affair. So Reagan was confined to talking to Gorbachev about arms reduction.

Plus, Reagan was super old by 1988. His age was relevant because the Iran-Contra reports portrayed him as a passive, uninformed, disengaged President who gave his staff free rein, with literally no supervision.

During the Iran/Contra investigations, when the committee interviewed Reagan, he initially said that he authorized the transfer of guns to Iran. Then in the follow-up interview, he pulled out a piece of paper (that the White House counsel wrote) to explain that he misspoke and didn’t remember whether he authorized the transfer or noted, which is true. Stories like this feed the idea that he was getting senile.

"getting senile" Reagan was already senile at this point

[538Electoral]

1988: Reagan picks up WI, WA, WV.

2000: Clinton picks up FL, AR, WV, OH.

2008: Obama picks up MO, MT.

2016: Obama picks up WI, MI, PA, FL.

[libertpaulian]

1988: Reagan picks up WA, OR, NY.
2000: Clinton picks up FL, AR, LA, WV, OH.
2008: Obama picks up MO and MT.
2016: Obama picks up WI, MI, PA, OH, FL.

[Mr. Smith]

1988: Reagan picks up WA, and OR, but loses VT, ME, and MD (Bush had a moderate appeal to hold those states.).

2000: Clinton holds TN, WV, AR, OH, NH, and MO.

2008: Obama picks up MO, GA, and MT.

2016: Obama holds WI, MI, PA, and IA.

[CookieDamage]

Hmm any possibility that Reagan does worse in 1988 than Bush? Maybe not enough to lose but maybe Dukakis picks up Pennsylvania, Vermont, maybe Michigan.

[dw93]

Reagan vs. Dukakis in 1988:

353
185

Clinton vs. W. Bush in 2000

339
199

W.Bush vs. Obama in 2008:

394
144

Obama vs. Trump 2016:

350
188

Some things to Note:

-Obama likely would've certainly lost to a Republican like Kasich or even Romney and even someone like Rubio would've had a shot.

-Bush in 2008 likely would've lost by the margin I had him losing by to any Democrat not named John Edwards, Mike Gravel, or Dennis Kucinich, and even one of them would've beaten him after Lehman collapsed.

-Clinton in 2000 would've beaten any Republican that ran that year, and only McCain would've fared better against him than Bush. Everyone else would've done worse, that's how bad that field was.

-1988 was the toughest scenario for me to craft. Against Gore or Gephardt, Reagan likely would've done even worse and if they played their cards right one of them could narrowly beat Reagan (and is true against Bush Sr. as well). I have him doing worse than HW solely because Reagan was clearly showing his age by then, but Dukakis was a dud candidate so I gave Reagan a solid win.

[Orser67]

I think that Reagan would have done worse than Bush; he took a real hit from Iran-Contra and his approval rating was in the 40s or low 50s until his final weeks in office. And his political opponents almost certainly would've pressed harder on Iran-Contra (and other issues) if Reagan had been seeking re-election; as it was they kinda let him off the hook to focus on lower-ranking officials within the administration. Reagan was also in fairly poor health by 1988; he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's six years later.

Clinton probably runs ahead of Gore, but, as with Reagan, I think his approval ratings would have been a bit lower than they were in real life if he was seeking election. I'd say pretty much the same thing about Obama.

With Bush, on the other hand, I think he suffers a blowout of massive proportions in the popular vote. His approval rating in November 2008 was about equal to Nixon's in 1974.

[Lechasseur]

1988: Reagan still wins but I'm not sure he would have been as popular as he was IRL for the reasons Orser67 gave. At best he does as well as Bush. I can see him doing a bit worse tbh but he still wins imo
My feeling is it would be roughly dw93's map (with CT flipping as well).
345 EVs for Reagan and 193 EVs for Dukakis imo

2000: Clinton beats Bush but loses ground compared to 1996. Clinton wins with the 96 map minus LA, TN, and KY imo
351 EVs for Clinton and 187 EVs for Bush I'd say

2008: Bush does a bit worse than McCain but I think it would have been hard for the GOP to do too much worse. I'd say Bush loses with McCain's map minus MT and MO
379 EVs for Obama and 159 EVs for Bush

2016: Obama probably still wins but it would been quite a bit worse than his 2012 result. he loses FL, OH and IA imo, along with ME-2
278 EVs for Obama and 260 EVs for Trump