How will historians rank the Biden presidency in your opinion?

[Obama24]

Let us say Biden loses this year, because if the question becomes one of asking about a term that hasn't even begun yet, we can't really speculate. A lot can happen in 4 years to alter for better or worse a leader's historical ranking. So let's assume for the sake of the thread he is judged only on his record from 2021-2025.

How do you feel the Biden presidency will be ranked by professional historians within the next few decades? Where do you feel his final placing will be?

[wnwnwn]

I suppose historians will like his healthcare policy all things considered. The policy in Ukraine will also be liked unless RT style third-worldism takes over academia.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

If he loses, he will be seen as an egotist who didn't know when to quit.

[Progressive Pessimist]

At least top 20. History will be much kinder to him than we are currently.

[wnwnwn]

If he loses, he will be seen as an egotist who didn't know when to quit.

No. Nobody serious tried to primary him.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

If he loses, he will be seen as an egotist who didn't know when to quit.

No. Nobody serious tried to primary him.

Well yeah, no one serious primaries incumbent presidents in the modern age.

[dw93]

If he loses, he'll be ranked similarly to Gerald Ford, if he wins I can see him being ranked as high as 12 or 13 or see him being ranked in the 30s if he ends up in George W. Bush 2nd term territory.

[Yelnoc]

Certainly below the top 20. Fair or not, his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan is likely going to be viewed by historians similarly to Lord Salisbury's "hiccup" in the Boer War, which presaged the loss of British supremacy in WWI.

[Vice President Christian Man]

If he loses, he will be seen as an egotist who didn't know when to quit.

No. Nobody serious tried to primary him.

Williamson was a serious candidate who was made into a joke both by the DNC and the media. They didn't want another (Ted) Kennedy or Buchanan to shake things up.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Probably somewhere in the 30's. Simply as a man who had good intentions but was ineffective in handling the events that impacted him, and his base. If they wanted to be objective, they could mention that it's likely that he would've been a better president during a different time in history. I think that he could've easily been a top 20 president had he instead of Bill Clinton won during the '90s or possibly had he won in 2008 for that matter. Essentially a later day Jimmy Carter but without the humanitarian work. Although his rating may be inflated given the Congress he had to deal with, especially with the House.

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

If he loses, he will be seen as an egotist who didn't know when to quit.

No. Nobody serious tried to primary him.

Williamson was a serious candidate who was made into a joke both by the DNC and the media. They didn't want another (Ted) Kennedy or Buchanan to shake things up.

A new age guru whose only political experience was losing a congressional primary and coming in 20-somethingth place in 2020, and who did worse than "uncommitted", was a serious candidate?

[buritobr]

The democratic historians will rank Biden in the top 10 and the republican historians will rank Biden in the bottom 10

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Depends on 2024

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Objectively pretty low.

Also probably one of the least interesting men to be president also so far in the 21st century, probably more in the veins of Carter and Ford, but in this case, also one who was not able to deal with the issues of his time and was not able to prevent the rise of trumpism/populism. And also one who didn't do enough in his power to prevent the Israeli genocide, which future democratic-aligned historians will judge strongly on.

He'll be rated above Trump and Dubya but that's where it ends.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

He's already been ranked in the top 20s by historians, and his legacy will probably be viewed more favorably as time goes on. His ability to pass major legislation with such slim majorities is surely going to boost him.

[SnowLabrador]

At least top 20. History will be much kinder to him than we are currently.

This. I think he'll be remembered similarly to Jimmy Carter.

[bagelman]

If he loses against Trump he will be judged very poorly for failing to stop Trumpism. His job was to end the Trump presidency, not give it an intermission. Trump remains far more consequential both as a President and as a public figure than sleepy joe.

[Storr]

It very much depends on whether or not he beats Trump in November.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

probably around the top 1/3 mark. Not amazing, not horrible.

[Mr. Smith]

If he loses, likely around Ford or Carter

If he wins, either about HW or where Obama is, depending on term 2.

[RINO Tom]

I really don't see how his first term will be remembered fondly if he is not re-elected.  People have mentioned Ukraine as if history will remember him as defiantly standing up against Putin, but how many Presidents are remembered fondly for giving weapons to a given group and nothing more?  Lol, not saying it's fair or unfair, but I really don't see historians in 100 years seeing his response against Russia as particularly noteworthy ... it was kind of the safest path.  Just saying.  The migrant crisis will not be viewed in the same light as modern conservatives view it, of course, but I do think it will be viewed as a sort of incompetence ... at BEST, it will be viewed as "well, his heart was in the right place" incompetence that Grant has recently been afforded.  I'm genuinely curious what else will be remembered fondly in 100+ years when historians are not as caught up in our contemporary political dynamic and view things in a bit more of a "vague" nature in order to fill textbooks.

[Schiff for Senate]

Initially I'd have said top twenty, but after reading the other responses, I'm not quite as confident. I'd guess somewhere between 15th and 25th at present, maybe. Of course, his second term, if he gets one, could change the equation completely.

He definitely won't be the Roosevelt to Trump's Hoover or the Lincoln to Trump's Buchanan so much as he would be the Ford to Trump's Nixon.

At least top 20. History will be much kinder to him than we are currently.

This. I think he'll be remembered similarly to Jimmy Carter.

This, except no serious presidential historian puts Jimmy Carter in the top 20.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He'll be in the bottom 20 and his ranking will get lower over time.

[7,052,770]

I really don't see how his first term will be remembered fondly if he is not re-elected.  People have mentioned Ukraine as if history will remember him as defiantly standing up against Putin, but how many Presidents are remembered fondly for giving weapons to a given group and nothing more?  Lol, not saying it's fair or unfair, but I really don't see historians in 100 years seeing his response against Russia as particularly noteworthy ... it was kind of the safest path.  Just saying.  The migrant crisis will not be viewed in the same light as modern conservatives view it, of course, but I do think it will be viewed as a sort of incompetence ... at BEST, it will be viewed as "well, his heart was in the right place" incompetence that Grant has recently been afforded.  I'm genuinely curious what else will be remembered fondly in 100+ years when historians are not as caught up in our contemporary political dynamic and view things in a bit more of a "vague" nature in order to fill textbooks.

Expanded Obamacare subsidies have changed so many lives. If we end up with single-payer, it will be viewed as an important step. If we don't, it will be remember as something that at least helped millions of people.

[Mopsus]

If he loses he’ll be viewed the same way as Obama (overshadowed by the specter of Trump).