In all honesty, Reagan left the stage in '94 or '95, I don't think think the world heard anything out of him after that point.
An analogous active lifespan for LBJ takes him almost to the nomination of Clinton, though.
I can see a lot of competition between him and Tricky in the presidential rehabilitation department during the seventies and eighties.
What does it matter? Well, for starters, there's the little fact that the US economy never tanked during Johnson's term, and that it's possible for economic history to be influenced in apportioning whatever blame he does or doesn't deserve for the rise of stagflation. Hello, debate about Nixon ending the international exchange rate system.
Looking at this stuff, I genuinely think the absence of LBJ during the seventies played a part in shaping opinions toward the subject of 'the strange death of postwar economic prosperity'; a favourite Australian economics writer of mine wrote a book where he went into great, well-researched detail about our political economy during that era, but all he says about America at the time is 'huh, Great Society and Vietnam, government deficit/debt'. That's a mistake, and yet it's prevalent in popular history.