Indeed, whilst Reagan like Obama inherited from his predecessor a country in economic, military and geostrategic decline unlike Obama Reagan turned us around transforming both the country and world making better what was worse and bringing down the Sovie state after a long and dangerous Cold War. With good reason he's called "RENALDO MAGNUS." But because Obama's been no better than Reagan's shadow in practically everything (the economy, foreign policy and the national spirit which he's depressed) he has transformed America and the world downwardly prolonging the worst recovery since World War II with his high debt, low growth, runaway regulatory policies, while emboldening our enemies who are advancing across the world at our expense.
Indeed, Obama is a worse president and failure than Reagan's predecessor Jimmy Carter who surprisingly agrees with conservative critics that he has damaged America's power, credibility and prestige in the world making it a more dangerous place, and our nation and freedom less secure and safe.
Now as Obama when compared to Reagan is a mental and moral pipsqueak using his presidency as a model to predict that Hillary or some Democrat will follow him (like Bush 41 did Reagan) just doesn't work. A more credible model, in my view, with a better chance at predicting 2016 would be Dwight Eisenhower (another president Obama has falsely been compared to). For like Ike Obama has been a two term president; and like Ike Obama was elected and reelected on a November 4th and November 6th election date; and like Ike Obama's successor will be elected on a November 8th date*. But unlike Ike Obama has been an abysmal failure. And though Ike was a successful two term Republican president he was followed into office by the Democrat John Kennedy who beat his popular VP Richard Nixon in a very close race.
*The 2016 election falls on November 8th.
Now given the disastrous course of Obama's presidency-which can only get worse in the months ahead as he's doubling down on stupid and going further and further to the left-doesn't it make better sense that as in 1960 a candidate for president from the opposite party will win the presidency? In other words, if a Democrat could win election during a successful Republican presidency then how much greater are the odds that a Republican will defeat Hillary (often compared to the mendacious Nixon) during the presidency of a terrible Democrat president? Using the Eisenhower model the odds for a Republican victory in 2016 look very good.