If “success” just means “I agree with” then you’re better off not using the word.
Some of us do have a life off-line and things to do and places to be.
Nobody expects Ted Cruz to be a left-wing president or Hillary Clinton to be a right-wing president. Nobody asks whether Cruz will turn out to be like FDR in his politics or Clinton will turn out to be like Reagan because everybody knows the answer.
What's harder to answer -- what's not a trivial question -- is whether Cruz would turn out to be one-term failure like Carter or whether he'd manage to win reelection and strengthen his party, as Clinton more or less did. Or whether Cruz would be able to fundamentally change American politics and government as FDR did or whether he'd be remembered as a mixture of achievement and disastrous failure as LBJ is. Or whether Hillary Clinton would be a transformative president like Reagan, a one-termer like Ford or the first Bush, or something somewhere in between like the second Bush.
The game of rating presidents gets pretty silly. On the one hand you have people who only give passing ratings to those they agree with ideologically. On the other side you have people who think that getting reelected makes any president a success. That's obviously wrong. A president can do a lot of damage and still manage to get reelected. But it's also wrong when people say that the greatest president was Van Buren or Tyler or Buchanan because they agree with their policies (or because they kept out of the way the most).
You have to combine the value side with the objective performance-based side. If you're not acknowledging that somebody can perform well even doing things you may not agree with you're missing something. If you're not, say, recognizing that we did win WWII with Roosevelt at the helm (while admitting all his other faults), you're not taking some very important factors into account.
So in answer to your question, I'd say that Roosevelt, Carter, and Clinton weren't successes in conservative terms (Did they really try to be?), but they weren't all failures by their own standards. Objectively, they weren't all failures in the same way or on the same scale. Carter definitely failed and failed miserably, but if FDR had been a failure on that scale the United States might not even exist today. Clinton was somewhere in between -- that is, if you're honest and not just condemning him for emotional reasons.
If you want an ideologically pure president, you'd do well to stay away from governors (or mayors, who don't get elected president in any case). They have to make compromises and concessions to balance budgets and keep cops on the street. Rarely can they make the kind of ideological statements that representatives, or junior senators, or people outside politics can (though Scott Walker may be an exception).
But the governors have already "pre-disappointed" us. We don't expect ideological purity from them. We may get competence in return, and may not have to sacrifice some ideological resolve to get it. Congressmen, Senators (especially first termers), and political novices will disappoint you if they manage to get elected. They will disappoint you when you find out they can't deliver on everything they've promised. They'll disappoint you when they compromise or make concessions. They'll also disappoint you if it turns out that they don't have the administrative skills or executive experience to do the job successfully.
Here are the list of Presidents that did not have Executive experience(Being Governor).
First, the job has changed a lot since the 19th century. Consequently, experience has become all the more important since then. Secondly, running an executive department or being vice president are ways of learning more about how the executive branch works. Third, we can distinguish between somebody like Lyndon Johnson, who in a real sense was running the Senate, and backbenchers like Harding or Obama, who did as they were told.