2. That makes little sense.
Statement # 2 is correct about Statement #1. Please explain what statement #1 means.
In your earlier post you explained that the current socialist policies are due to the fact that:
a Socialistic Democrat was elected in '92 and reelected in '96. That sent a message to politicians that socialistsic policy can win elections.
Yet if '92 and '96 sent a message that socialist policy can win elections, why wouldn't 2000 send an equally strong rebuke of that very same message? By your logic 2000 should've sent the message that conservative policy wins elections.
The reality is, we cannot blame the actions of a Republican Congress and White House on the presence of Bill Clinton 3 years ago. While Bill Clinton is sitting in Harlem, Republicans are proposing and passing massive spending increases. They get all the blame.