That depends on the identity of the party. If Bernie Sanders is the future of the party then Barack Obama will have about as much in common with future Democrats as Andrew Jackson does today. They’ll find a way to honor him, but he won’t be invoked the way Republicans invoke Reagan. For all that Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections(I’m counting 2000), they have yet to elect their Reagan. The last guy to fit that bill was FDR. We’re still in the Reagan Revolution period. Obama wanted to be the guy that changed that, but the country isn’t ready yet and hopefully never will be. Hillary Clinton certainly won’t change that dynamic, so Democrats are still going to be looking for awhile. But once that person is found, Obama will be just a footnote.
If the ACA is built upon, and the Iran and Cuba deals pan out, then he’ll easily be the Democratic Reagan. If the Democratic candidate wins in 2016, he may be the Democratic Reagan no matter what – the only Democratic President to lead off 12-plus years of Democrats in the WH since FDR – quite an accomplishment.
He’ll be remembered as the first black president of course, and one with a beautiful wife and good girls (it’ll be interesting to see where THEY end up in the future). I can picture his smiling face on the new $1000 bill, which will buy you a good meal (or maybe a Big Mac) in 2116.
If politics continue going the way they are, he may be remembered as the last “decent” person to hold office, and we’ll look back at his great restraint in the face of the opposition, in that he didn’t give into emotions of hatred and anger. We’re going to say “remember Obama being one cool guy?”
That’s right up there with Carter’s overrated decency. What I will say for Obama is that he has brought dignity to the White House after the last two ridiculous people who inhabited it.
Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that the only reason that Obama won the Nobel Prize was because of his race?
I don’t want to presume to know your mind on this issue.
Which part of “He was the first black President… he got a Nobel prize for it” was unclear?
Regards,
Shodan
Glad you seem to have gotten past the fiction that Obama increased the deficit, when he actually massively lowered it from the colossal value from his predecessor’s final budget. 
As I said, I wanted to make sure I wasn’t projecting a context to your comment, so I figured it better to ask.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Regards,
Shodan
I love fortune cookies.
I’ll take this as the rarest of the rare: Shodan admitting that he may have actually made a mistake! Is this the greatest jewel of all?
Feel free to make up whatever you like.
Regards,
Shodan
Apologies if I misunderstood – I assume you had checked the (very easily found) facts again and realized that it’s actually wholly untrue that Obama increased the deficit, since the easily obtainable facts demonstrate that the deficit was absolutely enormous in Bush’s last budget, and decreased significantly in every budget Obama presided over (except for a tiny tic up from '10 to '11), such that it is now much, much lower than it was in Bush’s last budget.
The only person making things up in this thread is you, since you are apparently continuing to claim that Obama did not reduce the deficit left by Bush. That claim is untrue, both as a percentage of GDP (second from last colum):
… and in absolute terms.
(Second from last column again). These figures come from CBO historical budget data which you can access here.
I want to humbly observe that backing-and-forthing about Debt levels is a bit off-topic. It is more detail than is necessary.
The point is: if Obama continues to be a Touchpoint, a President whose record is debated actively like Reagan’s is, then both views regarding Debt will be championed. Democrats will hold him up as a role model, and Conservatives will present their case for how his legacy should be viewed.
If no one cares about Obama, then whichever way the political winds are blowing in general will shape the narrative about him, and his management of the debt will not be actively discussed.
What tends to make a president memorable, at least in the eyes of anyone that isn’t a historian, is whether or not a crisis emerged during his presidency and how it was handled. Would Lincoln be considered one of the greats if he hadn’t been president during the Civil War? To the average citizen, the probably can’t name more a president within 20 years of him in either direction. Looking at Obama’s presidency, without regard for whether his policies are good or bad, there just isn’t anything that anyone will care about a century from now.
Sure, healthcare is something we care about now, but there’s no way it will be meaningful to people in the future. Whatever healthcare is then, there’s no way it is remotely what it is now. The economic crisis might still be remembered, but I also doubt that will have the same kind of memorability that the Great Depression did. After all, how many other economic crises that didn’t occur during one’s lifetime can the average person name? I bet that number is zero.
Unfortunately, I suspect he’ll largely be drowned out by Bush II, starting with his controversial election, being president during 9/11, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, because that’s the kind of stuff that they will care about in a century. Then again, maybe some of the significance of certain events will look different based upon how they develop under the next couple of presidents. After all, presidents like Buchanan and Hoover are memorable not as much for what they did but what their successors did (though, more in negative lights for them). So, even if he is one of the best or worst administrations we’ve had, it just wasn’t tested in the crucibles that other greats (or terribles) had; he’ll likely, unfortunately, be mostly remembered as the first black president by the average citizen in a century.
I wouldn’t say that Obama got the Nobel Prize for being black, he got it for not being Bush. But I’d also say that he actually earned the Nobel Prize after having received it. Opening the door to Cuba and reaching the nuclear deal with Iran are both, as Joe Biden would say, big deals. Not getting into new land wars in Asia is also something to admire. Could things have been handled better? Maybe. Maybe it would have been better in the long term to let Assad and Khadafy continue to crack down on their rebels. Maybe we were too quick to pretend that Libya was stable enough to support an embassy. On the whole, his foreign policy has been steady, surehanded, and cautious.
Domestically, he was thwarted at every opportunity by the Republicans. The ACA is certainly better than nothing, but much less than it could have been but for the Republicans’ obstinacy. The recovery has been slow and painful, again aggravated by constant Republican sabotage. His embracing of LGBT rights may have been overdue, but still he’ll be remembered as the first gay-friendly president.
On the whole, I’d say he favors comparably to most any post WW II president.
He’s earned the Nobel Prize by killing a lot of terrorists. That’s what contributes to peace in the world, not giving despots money, which is pretty much all the Iran and Cuba agreements amount to.
Maybe according to Trump, but not according to experts and the real world.
When have “the experts” ever said, “Hey, that peace agreement is a bad idea.”