So if you are comparing one president with others I would think you would have to include all the others in between otherwise the statement has no validity.
Also 'facts' or lack of them were being bandied around so I thought some real numbers that compare the terms of the presidents in the time in question would be appropriate.
Now there is some spill over from one president's term to another as policies put in place do not turn on a dime when a new guy gets in. To do a good comparison would take a great deal of work tracking the policies after a president leaves office and the effect that he leaves.
But while someone is in office people generally take the president situation and attribute it to the incumbent.
The numbers come as a surprise to me as Reagan was said to have given the economy a big boost. Well the increase in GDP does not show this. Looking at these numbers, as incomplete as they are, each president's term has strengths and weaknesses.
Stacked up against each other in this way it seems one is not really better than the other. Actually Clinton seems like the winner to me. Wonder what he really could have achieved if he could keep his whistle clean.