How will Barack Obama be remembered in 2067?

[Technocracy Timmy]

I think he'll be looked at as almost a JFK figure. The first black (catholic for Kennedy) President. His youth and charismatic is what older people and the history books will remember most about him. He will also seem sort of Nixonian based on his opposition to Iraq on the campaign trail (similar to Nixon's opposition to Vietnam during his campaign) and being a forefrontal figure in the cultural zeitgeist of an emerging multiracial, socially liberal, and urban America (whereas Nixon was that figure in 1968 that saw the rise of white suburbia, law and order, and rising evangelical Christianity at the forefront).

[Technocracy Timmy]

Truthfully: A weak and forgettable loser that decimated the Democratic Party on every level. The last of the DLC ''move to the center'' failed politicians.

He's the first and only Democrat since FDR to win two consecutive terms with popular vote majorities both times. He himself was a boost to a Party that hasn't found its footing but he certainly wasn't a detriment.

[Shadows]

The one whose poor performances led to the rise of Trump ! Possibly the worst Democratic President in the last 100 years (1967-2067 period) !  The one under whom the Democrats had the worst performances in State Legislature, governor races, Congressional, Senate races etc - Who led the Democrats to their worst performances in a 100 years!

But who will be remembered as a dignified & decent human being who inherited a mess & could have been a transformational president like FDR but instead turned out to be a big disappointment !

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A mediocre President notable only for being the first non white President.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Truthfully: A weak and forgettable loser that decimated the Democratic Party on every level. The last of the DLC ''move to the center'' failed politicians.

He's the first and only Democrat to win two consecutive terms with popular vote majorities both times. He himself was a boost to a Party that hasn't found its footing but he certainly wasn't a detriment.

Obama won because he was able to gin out minority turnout...but look at the bigger picture: Republicans dominate 33 state legislatures. Obama suffers from the same problems that all Democrats do these day: they think if they keep moving to the center that their going to win some kind of majority.  The problem with this failed theory (a theory that was made up of DNC stiffs) is that there is no center in American politics. In reality, Americans have differing opinions on many issues and how they vote on issues correlates with which politician dominates the narrative the most.

You can't just attribute Obama being the first Democratic President since FDR to actually win popular vote majorities both times solely to minority turnout...that's just silly. He was able to win over a substantial number of working class whites especially in the Midwest who also garnered him majorities both times he ran.

As for the rest of your statement, we still live in the Reagan era of politics. Baby boomers still dominate the voting booths and the political scene and that's unlikely to change until 2022/2024 when generational transfer of power will be ready.

Obama's problem was that he was incredibly weak with a constant deference to Republicans. In politics, what matters most is who has the narrative. Whenever, a Democrat runs, they have to repeat the Republican narrative: ''I won't touch the 2nd Amendment,'' or ''The government cant just give people free everything,' or ''I'll keep taxes low.'' Everytime they do this, they are enabling the Republican narrative while simultaneously depressing their base. It's sort of similar to how New Deal Republicans always repeated the Democrats talking points when they ran.

New Deal Republicans had to run as such or else turning sharply to the right would've gotten them Goldwater'd every time until 1980. That's the whole point of Obama moving to the center. 2010 was the largest congressional swing since the Great Depression. The Reagan era was alive and well all throughout obama's term in office and if he had gone further Left his Party would've suffered the consequences the GOP did with Goldwater in 1964 coming far ahead of his time.

Obama was totally on board with constantly repeating the Republican narrative and that's why he decimated the Democrats. I mean...you realize the Republicans are 5 legislature seats away from being able to call a Constitutional Convention? Obama was a total disaster who may very well have decimated the Democratic party to such an extent that the Constitution might end up getting re-written.

There's not gonna be a constitutional convention called in such a hyperpartisan environment.

[Technocracy Timmy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Without minority turnout, he would of lost 2012. Hillary choked and lost because minority turnout dropped for the first time in 20 years in the 2016 election. Only a stiff like Hillary could cause minority turnout to drop 15% in Michigan.

He won in 2008 as well. And comparing him to Hillary Clinton isn't fair given that he's a very different kind of candidate from her. You could just as easily say that if he had only gotten the same support from WWC that Hillary got in 2016 then he would've also lost in 2012.[color]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is all an excuse. The Democrats don't want to take control of the narrative and that's why they keep losing. As long as clowns like Pelosi and Schumer are head of the party...their going to keep losing. The Democrats have to stop talking about Russia and start articulating serious policy proposals that offer a stark alternative to the opposing party

It is not an excuse. Look at the exit polls. Trump's strongest base of support came firmly from baby boomers. They're still the ones defining the direction of this country and they aren't dying off quickly either or changing their views anytime soon. Generational shifts take awhile..

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is fundamentally not true...as late as 1976...50% of Americans, according to Gallup, considered themselves Conservative (though only 25% considered themselves Republican). The majority of people (including many Democrats) did not approve of many policies of the New Deal liberalism that was so dominant at that time.

The Democrats have an advantage here. Most people side with their ideals but with dopes like Pelosi and Schumer at the top of the ticket, they can't bring themselves to trust the Democrats.

I don't disagree with your second point, but as to your first point, while Jimmy Carter was certainly a different kind of Democrat that broke from the traditional mold of FDR's New Dealism, the congress and senate were stacked full of New Deal Democrats that were reelected by and large even as late as 1978 by the American electorate. As late as 1978, the American voters were still largely aligned with the Party of FDR.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know , I know...and Trump will never win the primary or presidency or repeal ACA, or.

For the love of all that is good and pure, "but Trump!" is not, and nor will it ever will be, a legitimate argument.

[heatcharger]

Probably in the top 10. He'll be remembered for many things, but probably most notably for moving this country in favor of some form of socialized medicine, which following Democratic presidents will attempt to act on.

And LOL at the idea that Bill Clinton campaigned as a left-wing populist either election.

[RINO Tom]

Probably in the top 10. He'll be remembered for many things, but probably most notably for moving this country in favor of some form of socialized medicine, which following Democratic presidents will attempt to act on.

And LOL at the idea that Bill Clinton campaigned as a left-wing populist either election.

I was but one at the time, but my parents seem to tell it that he certainly moved WAY to the center once elected on fiscal issues and explicitly campaigned against NAFTA, painting it as a Reagan/Bush 41 baby.

Anyway, it's so hard to tell with Obama ... I think he'll be remembered somewhere along the lines of Grant, in that his progress and accomplishments with civil rights and promoting social equality won't go unnoticed but might be drowned out by a not-so-lasting legacy in "more important" (read: memorable to historians) areas.

[pbrower2a]

It depends upon what sort of America we (referring to people now young, for they will be old in 2067, and middle-aged-to-elderly people of our time will be gone) then have. If we have a stable order in which Donald Trump is the equivalent of Vladimir Lenin as founder of the new (and inequitable, hierarchical, repressive) order, then he will be seen as the last stand of a discredited ideology to be mocked and vilified. Such an America is one in which America is Great Again -- if you like the world's most polluted environments, life expectancies for the working class in the forties, children working in factories and mines, seventy-hour workweeks, and fear of a secret police and of an employer who can cart one off to a labor camp where you work to exhaustion on starvation rations and probably die).

Yes, I hate Donald Trump.

If things go catastrophically badly under Trump, then we might see Obama as a portent of a better world that we have either attained or were somehow denied.  If things go back to normal after Trump, then he will be compared to other Presidents of the past for temperament and achievements. A better world? It will be Donald Trump who will be seen as the aberration.

[pbrower2a]

Even if the partisan identities of the states are almost opposite in the elections involving Eisenhower and Obama, the blocks of states involved suggest that Ike and Obama got (and lost) many of the key constituencies in their elections. This, if you are aware of my posting history, is one of my favorite contrasts.

..........................

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both had practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

It is simply amazing. Eisenhower won states that were unusually difficult wins for a Republican --
Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island... and won them twice. Massachusetts and Rhode Island were the two non-Southern states that Hoover lost in 1928 (when politics of the 1920s were still in the memories of many Americans). I'm guessing that Ike did very well with the Catholic vote.  Neither Nixon nor Reagan won all three of those states in 49-state landslides -- but Eisenhower won them twice. Both flipped Virginia which had usually belonged to the other Party for three subsequent elections. In 2008, Obama won Indiana, an unusually-tough state for a Democrat to win, even if that is only a one-time win.

In 2008, Obama won only one state that Eisenhower never won. In 2012, even with a decisive win of the Electoral College, Obama did not win a single state that Eisenhower didn't win twice.

Neither really built the strength of their parties. The big difference is that the successor of Eisenhower is the well-honored John Fitzgerald Kennedy who was able to win a bare victory in the Presidential election and build credibility.  President Obama has what may be the worst President in American history following him -- and I know about Dubya, Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, Fillmore, A. Johnson, and Nixon.  

Despite vast differences in their curriculum vitae, Eisenhower and Obama will be seen as good analogues.

  

[Devout Centrist]

Probably in the top 10. He'll be remembered for many things, but probably most notably for moving this country in favor of some form of socialized medicine, which following Democratic presidents will attempt to act on.

And LOL at the idea that Bill Clinton campaigned as a left-wing populist either election.

I was but one at the time, but my parents seem to tell it that he certainly moved WAY to the center once elected on fiscal issues and explicitly campaigned against NAFTA, painting it as a Reagan/Bush 41 baby.

Anyway, it's so hard to tell with Obama ... I think he'll be remembered somewhere along the lines of Grant, in that his progress and accomplishments with civil rights and promoting social equality won't go unnoticed but might be drowned out by a not-so-lasting legacy in "more important" (read: memorable to historians) areas.

Grant is primarily remembered as a corrupt doormat, I don't see how that's comparable to Obama.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

A two term Carter. Broke down barriers but otherwise will be remembered of little consequence.

[Horsemask]

Even if the partisan identities of the states are almost opposite in the elections involving Eisenhower and Obama, the blocks of states involved suggest that Ike and Obama got (and lost) many of the key constituencies in their elections. This, if you are aware of my posting history, is one of my favorite contrasts.

..........................

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both had practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

It is simply amazing. Eisenhower won states that were unusually difficult wins for a Republican --
Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island... and won them twice. Neither Nixon nor Reagan won all three of those states in 49-state landslides -- but Eisenhower won them twice. Both flipped Virginia which had usually belonged to the other Party for three subsequent elections. In 2008, Obama won Indiana, an unusually-tough state for a Democrat to win, even if that is only a one-time win.

In 2008, Obama won only one state that Eisenhower never won. In 2016, even with a decisive win of the Electoral College, Obama did now tin a single state that Eisenhower didn't win twice.

Neither really built the strength of their parties. The big difference is that the successor of Eisenhower is the well-honored John Fitzgerald Kennedy who was able to win a bare victory in the Presidential election and build credibility.  President Obama has what may be the worst President in American history following him -- and I know about Dubya, Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, Fillmore, A. Johnson, and Nixon.   

Despite vast differences in their curriculum vitae, Eisenhower and Obama will be seen as good analogues.

   

Great analysis, interesting thoughts here. I would like to return to this after some studying.

[RINO Tom]

Probably in the top 10. He'll be remembered for many things, but probably most notably for moving this country in favor of some form of socialized medicine, which following Democratic presidents will attempt to act on.

And LOL at the idea that Bill Clinton campaigned as a left-wing populist either election.

I was but one at the time, but my parents seem to tell it that he certainly moved WAY to the center once elected on fiscal issues and explicitly campaigned against NAFTA, painting it as a Reagan/Bush 41 baby.

Anyway, it's so hard to tell with Obama ... I think he'll be remembered somewhere along the lines of Grant, in that his progress and accomplishments with civil rights and promoting social equality won't go unnoticed but might be drowned out by a not-so-lasting legacy in "more important" (read: memorable to historians) areas.

Grant is primarily remembered as a corrupt doormat, I don't see how that's comparable to Obama.

Not necessarily a similarity between the reasons they'll be less-than-stellar, just that they'll both be remembered in a "meh" way while having those who are more familiar with them pointing out very good civil rights strides made.

[Santander]

He will be remembered as "The Black One"

[RINO Tom]

Even if the partisan identities of the states are almost opposite in the elections involving Eisenhower and Obama, the blocks of states involved suggest that Ike and Obama got (and lost) many of the key constituencies in their elections. This, if you are aware of my posting history, is one of my favorite contrasts.

..........................

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both had practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

It is simply amazing. Eisenhower won states that were unusually difficult wins for a Republican --
Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island... and won them twice. Neither Nixon nor Reagan won all three of those states in 49-state landslides -- but Eisenhower won them twice. Both flipped Virginia which had usually belonged to the other Party for three subsequent elections. In 2008, Obama won Indiana, an unusually-tough state for a Democrat to win, even if that is only a one-time win.

In 2008, Obama won only one state that Eisenhower never won. In 2016, even with a decisive win of the Electoral College, Obama did now tin a single state that Eisenhower didn't win twice.

Neither really built the strength of their parties. The big difference is that the successor of Eisenhower is the well-honored John Fitzgerald Kennedy who was able to win a bare victory in the Presidential election and build credibility.  President Obama has what may be the worst President in American history following him -- and I know about Dubya, Buchanan, Harding, Pierce, Fillmore, A. Johnson, and Nixon.   

Despite vast differences in their curriculum vitae, Eisenhower and Obama will be seen as good analogues.

   

Great analysis, interesting thoughts here. I would like to return to this after some studying.

Same set of states =/= same electorates, decades and decades apart.  The Vermont that voted for Ike is more comparible to Wyoming than it is to the Vermont that voted for Obama.

[Green Line]

James Buchanan 2.0

[Technocracy Timmy]

Probably in the top 10. He'll be remembered for many things, but probably most notably for moving this country in favor of some form of socialized medicine, which following Democratic presidents will attempt to act on.

And LOL at the idea that Bill Clinton campaigned as a left-wing populist either election.

I was but one at the time, but my parents seem to tell it that he certainly moved WAY to the center once elected on fiscal issues and explicitly campaigned against NAFTA, painting it as a Reagan/Bush 41 baby.

Anyway, it's so hard to tell with Obama ... I think he'll be remembered somewhere along the lines of Grant, in that his progress and accomplishments with civil rights and promoting social equality won't go unnoticed but might be drowned out by a not-so-lasting legacy in "more important" (read: memorable to historians) areas.

I think this is likely. Obama is placed with Woodrow Wilson and Richard Nixon if you start political eras with Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan being the realigning Presidents. Like Wilson and Nixon, Obama is the second minority coalition President since the realigning President. Wilson is looked on as somebody with the ambition of FDR but was a relatively average President. Nixon would've been seen in the same light had it not been for Watergate. I think Obama will also be seen as being relatively average as well.

A two term Carter. Broke down barriers but otherwise will be remembered of little consequence.

Obama was far more successful than Carter. Obama will go down in the history books as an average President at worst whereas Carter will go down as a below average President at best.

[Maxwell]

Apart from Obamacare, the first black President, and the first black President to be mediocre at it.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Do people realize Saint Reagan left the GOP in a terrible level at the state an congressional levels? No most don't because only hardcore political sites like this care about issues like that so with that in mind he will be remembered fairly well seeing as he will most likely be credited with healthcare now being viewed as a right and rebuilding the country after Bush

[Maxwell]

Do people realize Saint Reagan left the GOP in a terrible level at the state an congressional levels? No most don't because only hardcore political sites like this care about issues like that so with that in mind he will be remembered fairly well seeing as he will most likely be credited with healthcare now being viewed as a right and rebuilding the country after Bush

They were in a horrible state before Reagan too. And then they bounced into a majority that has lasted since 1995 in every single year except 2007-2011.

[Virginiá]

Do people realize Saint Reagan left the GOP in a terrible level at the state an congressional levels? No most don't because only hardcore political sites like this care about issues like that so with that in mind he will be remembered fairly well seeing as he will most likely be credited with healthcare now being viewed as a right and rebuilding the country after Bush

Exactly. Obama could have done more for the party, but what happened to Democrats downballot wasn't entirely his fault. Democrats were greatly overextended and the floor was going to collapse at some point or another. Besides, as you said, it's not like other presidents who were of consequence didn't leave their parties decimated downballot as well.

[I Won - Get Over It]

Apart from Obamacare, the first black President, and the first black President to be mediocre at it.

This, if the history would be written by experts. But it is written by media, so I'd expect him having more glorified image in 2067.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Probably in the top 10. He'll be remembered for many things, but probably most notably for moving this country in favor of some form of socialized medicine, which following Democratic presidents will attempt to act on.

And LOL at the idea that Bill Clinton campaigned as a left-wing populist either election.

No, that was LBJ.

[pbrower2a]

Let's not forget: if Donald Trump has treated him as a pariah, an ex-President who has a largely-positive image and isn't incapacitated (Reagan after 1988) or a recluse (LBJ, Dubya) can have a huge role in history after his Presidency. I doubt that as President Emeritus he will have any role until the Democrats win back the Presidency (clueless as President Trump is so far, I expect a Democrat to win the Presidency in 2020) until 2021. He is a fine diplomat and has good relationships with the Armed Forces, the Intelligence Services, and even law enforcement.

Another: the second competent black Justice of the US Supreme Court.