Maybe Virginia has it correct, with a one-term limit for Governor. Not running for re-election the day after election and not doing your job worrying about the latest poll seems to have worked for them.
Howdy Linc, I don't know. I've always been the opposite. But if Virginia wants it that way, I'm fine with it. I have a problem just limiting the top executive and not other elected offices if a state decides to do that. One term for governor, then one term for every other elected office in the state. Fair is fair.
I've always been of a mind that if one likes his governor, likes his state representative, senator or even nationally, if one wants them for another term or two or three, they should have that choice or chance. Either limit the president to two terms along with every senator and representative or do away with the 22nd Amendment. If those in congress can serve unlimited terms, so too should the president be able to do the same.
Without limiting the president to two terms, only one president I can think of might have successfully ran for a third term and won, Obama. IKE, he had a couple of heart attacks, his health prohibited him, he wouldn't have ran. Reagan, Alzheimer, he wouldn't have ran either for a third term. Although, I sure if either ran for a third term, they would have won it. Bill Clinton, unlike IKE and Ronnie he was in good health. But his sexcapades among other things probably would have lead to defeat. Then again, perhaps he would have won against G.W. He certainly was popular enough. Even so, I think most Americans were tired of him and wanted someone new. Obama against Trump, no contest, Obama easily. I would have even voted for Obama.
And where would we have been without FDR if he had been term limited to two terms. 1940 would have been it for him. Can you imagine Wendell Wilkie assuming office in March of 1941? I haven't the faintest idea of who would have been the Democratic candidate. Garner, Farley? History certainly would have been different.