Will Barack Obama be remembered as the Democrats' Nixon?

[Indy Texas]

Nixon assembled a winning political coalition based on what was at the time the fastest growing voting bloc (middle class suburban whites) and picking up new coalition groups (Southerners, blue collar whites), and began the long-term dismantling of the New Deal Coalition. Later on, Reagan articulated a vision to keep that coalition together and more or less dealt a death blow to the New Deal Coalition.

Like Nixon, Obama's coalition relies heavily on fast-growing groups (Hispanics, immigrants) and has made inroads in groups that were once the province of Republicans (the Rocky Mountain states, northern Whites). He will likely continue to use fiscal and national security issues in a way that will pit members of the GOP's three-legged stool (social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and hawks) against each other. Like Nixon, he has an antagonistic relationship with a radicalized opposition party and Americans have a somewhat polarized view of him. Is some other Democrat going to come along in a decade or so who will be the Reagan to Obama's Nixon, who crystallizes that coalition, becomes a near-universally liked figure and kills off Reagan's own long-term coalition?

[Mehmentum]

Very possibly, or rather Obama could be the Democrat's Nixon if Nixon hadn't completely destroyed his reputation with Watergate.

[Blackacre]

Very possibly, or rather Obama could be the Democrat's Nixon if Nixon hadn't completely destroyed his reputation with Watergate.

Benghazi fetishists really want to complete the analogy.

Obama could very well be The Democrats' "Nixon done right".

[All Along The Watchtower]

The difference between the liberal/Democratic opposition to Nixon and the Republican/conservative opposition to Obama is that the former had an actua case against Nixon that wasn't based on paranoid conspiracy theories. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's what I have been thinking for a while now. Really, the parallel Reagan-Bush41=FDR-Truman, Clinton=Ike, Dubya=JFK/LBJ, Obama=Nixon works impressively well. Following that logic, a moderate Republican should win in 2016 and then be defeated in 2020 by a progressive Democrat who would achieve the realignment. That's going to be pretty fun if it happens.

[Blackacre]

That's what I have been thinking for a while now. Really, the parallel Reagan-Bush41=FDR-Truman, Clinton=Ike, Dubya=JFK/LBJ, Obama=Nixon works impressively well. Following that logic, a moderate Republican should win in 2016 and then be defeated in 2020 by a progressive Democrat who would achieve the realignment. That's going to be pretty fun if it happens.

Only if Obama is convicted of something and Biden becomes President.

Plus, Obama's 2012 win is no 1972.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

That's what I have been thinking for a while now. Really, the parallel Reagan-Bush41=FDR-Truman, Clinton=Ike, Dubya=JFK/LBJ, Obama=Nixon works impressively well. Following that logic, a moderate Republican should win in 2016 and then be defeated in 2020 by a progressive Democrat who would achieve the realignment. That's going to be pretty fun if it happens.

Christie, then Warren? That'd be goooooooooooood.

[Blackacre]

That's what I have been thinking for a while now. Really, the parallel Reagan-Bush41=FDR-Truman, Clinton=Ike, Dubya=JFK/LBJ, Obama=Nixon works impressively well. Following that logic, a moderate Republican should win in 2016 and then be defeated in 2020 by a progressive Democrat who would achieve the realignment. That's going to be pretty fun if it happens.

Christie, then Warren? That'd be goooooooooooood.

Or Huntsman, then Warren. Or, let's be crazy here: Huntsman, then Bernie Sanders.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

That's what I have been thinking for a while now. Really, the parallel Reagan-Bush41=FDR-Truman, Clinton=Ike, Dubya=JFK/LBJ, Obama=Nixon works impressively well. Following that logic, a moderate Republican should win in 2016 and then be defeated in 2020 by a progressive Democrat who would achieve the realignment. That's going to be pretty fun if it happens.

Christie, then Warren? That'd be goooooooooooood.

Or Huntsman, then Warren. Or, let's be crazy here: Huntsman, then Bernie Sanders.

I'd like a Democratic Party that worships Bernie Sanders as a god.

[Napoleon]

The difference between the liberal/Democratic opposition to Nixon and the Republican/conservative opposition to Obama is that the former had an actua case against Nixon that wasn't based on paranoid conspiracy theories. 

The common thread is that in both cases the Republicans acted on paranoid conspiracy theories.

[Blackacre]

That's what I have been thinking for a while now. Really, the parallel Reagan-Bush41=FDR-Truman, Clinton=Ike, Dubya=JFK/LBJ, Obama=Nixon works impressively well. Following that logic, a moderate Republican should win in 2016 and then be defeated in 2020 by a progressive Democrat who would achieve the realignment. That's going to be pretty fun if it happens.

Christie, then Warren? That'd be goooooooooooood.

Or Huntsman, then Warren. Or, let's be crazy here: Huntsman, then Bernie Sanders.

I'd like a Democratic Party that worships Bernie Sanders as a god.

He's not my favorite Democratic Senator, but I'd support a Sanders Campaign in any way I can.

[Dakota Robertson]

No because the GOP is pushing Minorities to Obama

[Frodo]

I am glad I am not the only noticing the similarities between our decade and the 1970s. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's what I have been thinking for a while now. Really, the parallel Reagan-Bush41=FDR-Truman, Clinton=Ike, Dubya=JFK/LBJ, Obama=Nixon works impressively well. Following that logic, a moderate Republican should win in 2016 and then be defeated in 2020 by a progressive Democrat who would achieve the realignment. That's going to be pretty fun if it happens.

Only if Obama is convicted of something and Biden becomes President.

Plus, Obama's 2012 win is no 1972.

I think you missed the point. Dubya wasn't assassinated in 2003 and replaced by Cheney, in the case you didn't notice.

[old timey villain]

That's what I have been thinking for a while now. Really, the parallel Reagan-Bush41=FDR-Truman, Clinton=Ike, Dubya=JFK/LBJ, Obama=Nixon works impressively well. Following that logic, a moderate Republican should win in 2016 and then be defeated in 2020 by a progressive Democrat who would achieve the realignment. That's going to be pretty fun if it happens.

Yes, I've thought about that comparison a lot. It's eerily similar, especially the Ike/Clinton comparison. Both were popular moderates who broke up a period of presidential dominance from the other side. They both presided over happy times in our nation's history and didn't rock the boat, but set the stage for their party's comeback in the near future.

[Indy Prez]

Chris Christie will be the Republican Jimmy Carter.

[Skill and Chance]

Hmmm... to me 2008-2016 feels like 1932-1940, but with the economic crisis delayed until fall 1932.  It also feels a bit like a Bryan win in 1896. 

I think there is a better case for Obama being in the Reagan/FDR/McKinley-T.R. role.  Universal heath care and the banking reforms+finally being able to raise taxes is probably on par with the Reagan and T. Roosevelt economic reforms (although it falls short of the New Deal).  Clinton fits the Nixon or especially the Wilson role better- an economically moderate Democrat breaks a long Republican streak with help from a split field and has a major 2nd term scandal.  W. Bush fits the 1920's Republican mold with lots of scandals and a speculative bubble.   

It all comes down to whether the economy is in a boom by 2016.  If it is, that sets Obama up as FDR.  If the stagnation continues, it points down the Nixon path, but it's going to be a lot harder to bring down a Republican incumbent in 2020 based on the economy, considering what Obama got away with last year.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Chris Christie will be the Republican Jimmy Carter.

The Democratic Reagan...?

[Blackacre]

Chris Christie will be the Republican Jimmy Carter.

The Democratic Reagan...?

Oh, anybody. My liberal fantasy is Al Franken or Bernie Sanders

[Asian Nazi]

You are not the first to make such an analogy.  The language of the OP implies a belief in Six-Step Cycle Theory.

[Asian Nazi]

There's even been a book written on this subject.  I'd include a link if this site let me.

[Peter the Lefty]

Sanders will be 79 in 2020, just throwing that out there.  Unfortunately, I think he might be a bit like the Goldwater of this analogy, except that he'll most likely never be a nominee.  I think the Democratic Reagan will be someone like Warren or hopefully maybe Baldwin, though the latter might be a tad bit far-fetched for 2020.

[BaldEagle1991]

Barack Obama would be no doubt be remembered as the Ronald Reagan of the left. 

Bill Clinton is more like the D's Nixon.

[hopper]

Barack Obama would be no doubt be remembered as the Ronald Reagan of the left. 

Bill Clinton is more like the D's Nixon.

.....with alot better economy!!

[hopper]

The difference between the liberal/Democratic opposition to Nixon and the Republican/conservative opposition to Obama is that the former had an actua case against Nixon that wasn't based on paranoid conspiracy theories. 

You have to admit though if the facts about "Fast and Furious" came out it would have been an issue.