Which President defined their decade the most since the 1950s

[Del Tachi]

Clinton in the '90s for all the reasons previously mentioned.

[jdk]

Bill Clinton in the 90s.

Reagan is a close second, but there is one figure that truly dominated the 1980s, and that would be Nintendo.

Michael Jackson says hi

[dw93]

Most definitive to least:

1. Reagan in the 80's
2. Bush 43 in the 2000's
3. Nixon in the '70s (if only for Watergate)
4. Clinton in the '90s


I don't think JFK or LBJ were the most definitive people of the 1960s. LBJ's Presidency consisted of the events that would define the decade, but I don't consider him that definitive and JFK's presidency, culturally speaking was more '50s than it was '60s and as his tragic death fades, so to will his level of cultural/political impact. As for the 50's, I agree with Illiniwek that:

if you include the 1950s then I guess Eisenhower, but he was less of a cultural icon than a steady and honorable leader.

Now finally the 2010s. I honestly think it's too soon to say. Personally, I think Obama and Trump will be equally definitive for the decade, especially if the worst of Trump's ideas/policies get implemented.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The Reagan 80s were the best.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The Reagan 80s were the best.

They were certainly better than the Carter/Mondale 80's on Earth 2.

The Anderson 80's on Earth 47 were pretty good, though.

[Doimper]

It's going to be interesting, ten or twenty years from now, to see whether the 10's come to be remembered more for Trump or Obama.

[Orser67]

I take the question to mean, "which president best exemplified for their decade (for better or worse), regardless of how much their actions actually impacted the decade. In that case:

1)Reagan ('80s): the 1980s are perhaps more closely associated with Reagan than any decade is associated with any president in U.S. history
2)Clinton ('90s): to me he represents so many things about the 1990s: the post-Cold War foreign policy, the growing economy, the politics that were shifting to the right, etc.
3)Bush ('00s): He represents the fall from grace of the 2000s pretty well
4)LBJ ('60s): He's lower than the others because he shared the decade with two huge icons (JFK and Nixon), but he does represent most of the key points of the decade (the Great Society, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam War)

The 1970s is shared among Nixon, Ford, and Carter in almost equal measure, though I'm tempted to say that Carter best represents the feeling of "what the hell are we doing?" I think it's too early to say for the 2010s.

[Blackacre]

Bill Clinton in the 90s.

Reagan is a close second, but there is one figure that truly dominated the 1980s, and that would be Nintendo.

 I would argue Nintendo dominated the 1990s more than they did in the 1980s. Also in the 1990s you had Michael Jordan at his peak who I would argue was bigger than any celebrity or athlete from the 1980s. Lastly  in the 1990s you had Microsoft totally dominating the market in a way no buisness did in the 1980s.

Eh, the 90s weren't just dominated by Nintendo. By that decade you had the Nintendo vs Sega console wars and, in the latter half, the playstation. Meanwhile the NES came out in 1985 and the gaming world was pretty much owned by Nintendo.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bill Clinton in the 90s.

Reagan is a close second, but there is one figure that truly dominated the 1980s, and that would be Nintendo.

 I would argue Nintendo dominated the 1990s more than they did in the 1980s. Also in the 1990s you had Michael Jordan at his peak who I would argue was bigger than any celebrity or athlete from the 1980s. Lastly  in the 1990s you had Microsoft totally dominating the market in a way no buisness did in the 1980s.

Eh, the 90s weren't just dominated by Nintendo. By that decade you had the Nintendo vs Sega console wars and, in the latter half, the playstation. Meanwhile the NES came out in 1985 and the gaming world was pretty much owned by Nintendo.

Nintendo reached its peak in the 1990s in popularity , and the games were much more better in the 90s then 80s

[uti2]

Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton had the most public support of the listed options. You can say they defined their decades.

Nixon and Bush were very polarizing. Large swathes of the public hated them from the beginning to the end.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton had the most public support of the listed options. You can say they defined their decades.

Nixon and Bush were very polarizing. Large swathes of the public hated them from the beginning to the end.

Nixon had quite decent approval ratings (in the 60% range) until Watergate started unfolding.

[Lincoln Republican]

1960s Nixon definitely.  He epitomized the 60s.

How so?  Nixon was President for less than one year in the 1960s.

IMO the answer would be Reagan.

Nixon was one of the most famous and influential people throughout the 60's, in or out of office.

He never quit running for President between 1960 and 1968.

His run for California governor was just practice, then?

When Nixon ran for Governor in 1962, he promised not to run for President in 1964.

But he still never quit planning for his comeback to run for President in 1968.  

And I should clarify, Nixon epitomized the late 60s and early 70s.

[GeorgiaModerate]

1960s Nixon definitely.  He epitomized the 60s.

How so?  Nixon was President for less than one year in the 1960s.

IMO the answer would be Reagan.

Nixon was one of the most famous and influential people throughout the 60's, in or out of office.

He never quit running for President between 1960 and 1968.

His run for California governor was just practice, then?

When Nixon ran for Governor in 1962, he promised not to run for President in 1964.

But he still never quit planning for his comeback to run for President in 1968.  

And I should clarify, Nixon epitomized the late 60s and early 70s.

I can agree with that.

A problem with this question is that decades don't line up nicely with Presidential terms.  It's also true that a one-term President will almost certainly be less of a defining influence than a two-termer.  It's no surprise that the three that have been most commonly mentioned (Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton) were two-term Presidents whose tenures were mostly contained within a single decade.

[uti2]

Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton had the most public support of the listed options. You can say they defined their decades.

Nixon and Bush were very polarizing. Large swathes of the public hated them from the beginning to the end.

Nixon had quite decent approval ratings (in the 60% range) until Watergate started unfolding.

His 1968 margin of victory isn't in the same league as Eisenhower/Reagan/Clinton's consistent landslide wins.

[dw93]

Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton had the most public support of the listed options. You can say they defined their decades.

Nixon and Bush were very polarizing. Large swathes of the public hated them from the beginning to the end.

Nixon had quite decent approval ratings (in the 60% range) until Watergate started unfolding.

His 1968 margin of victory wasn't that great compared ti Eisenhower/Reagan/Clinton's landslide wins.

Wallace was the only thing keeping Nixon from a landslide win. Had Wallace not ran, Nixon would've won a landslide.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton had the most public support of the listed options. You can say they defined their decades.

Nixon and Bush were very polarizing. Large swathes of the public hated them from the beginning to the end.

Nixon had quite decent approval ratings (in the 60% range) until Watergate started unfolding.

His 1968 margin of victory wasn't that great compared ti Eisenhower/Reagan/Clinton's landslide wins.

True, but there's a middle ground here.  He wasn't overwhelming popular like those three were, but he was reasonably popular with the general populace until 1973.   Also, his '68 margin was respectable (in a complex three-way race), and while it wasn't as large as those of Eisenhower/Reagan/Clinton, neither was it a squeaker like Carter's or both of Bush 43's.

And of course, his '72 margin was rather impressive.   If large swathes of the population had hated him at that time, that margin wouldn't happened, despite McGovern's weakness as a candidate.

[Yank2133]

I don't get the Trump choice for the 2010s. Literally everything about politics since 2010 has been centered around Barack Obama.

I mean the GOP and Trump only governing philosophy is undo things Obama set up almost a decade ago.

[Lincoln Republican]

Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton had the most public support of the listed options. You can say they defined their decades.

Nixon and Bush were very polarizing. Large swathes of the public hated them from the beginning to the end.

Nixon had quite decent approval ratings (in the 60% range) until Watergate started unfolding.

His 1968 margin of victory wasn't that great compared ti Eisenhower/Reagan/Clinton's landslide wins.

True, but there's a middle ground here.  He wasn't overwhelming popular like those three were, but he was reasonably popular with the general populace until 1973.   Also, his '68 margin was respectable (in a complex three-way race), and while it wasn't as large as those of Eisenhower/Reagan/Clinton, neither was it a squeaker like Carter's or both of Bush 43's.

And of course, his '72 margin was rather impressive.   If large swathes of the population had hated him at that time, that margin wouldn't happened, despite McGovern's weakness as a candidate.

Yes, the Nixon win in 1968 was respectable, and don't forget, his margin in the popular vote, though razor thin, translated into a very impressive win in the Electoral College, 301 to 191 to 46.

[HisGrace]

Most definitive to least:

1. Reagan in the 80's
2. Bush 43 in the 2000's
3. Nixon in the '70s (if only for Watergate)
4. Clinton in the '90s

People are treating definitive as if that has to be a positive thing. Watergate is why Nixon is definitive and is probably the no. 1 definitive political event of the 70's.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

1960s Nixon definitely.  He epitomized the 60s.

How so?  Nixon was President for less than one year in the 1960s.

IMO the answer would be Reagan.

Nixon was one of the most famous and influential people throughout the 60's, in or out of office.

He never quit running for President between 1960 and 1968.

His run for California governor was just practice, then?

When Nixon ran for Governor in 1962, he promised not to run for President in 1964.

But he still never quit planning for his comeback to run for President in 1968.  

And I should clarify, Nixon epitomized the late 60s and early 70s.

I can agree with that.

A problem with this question is that decades don't line up nicely with Presidential terms.  It's also true that a one-term President will almost certainly be less of a defining influence than a two-termer.  It's no surprise that the three that have been most commonly mentioned (Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton) were two-term Presidents whose tenures were mostly contained within a single decade.

You almost have to feel bad for Bush Sr lol. If somebody asks who was president in the 80's,you would answer Reagan, or Clinton for the 90's. Because Bush Sr was president in the late 80's and early 90's, he is now mostly historical non entity to non political nerds. Interestingly enough, if Bush Sr had won in 1992, then he would be the 90's president as well serving from 1989-1997.