It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this.
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
Not including us, obviously. But on a public political level, holy shit lmao imaging being a dead-souled loser to allow yourself to get owned by fucking soyboy jones
By what metric are you considering 2016 a failed run?
...he uh, didn't win.
Now you could make arguments about what his campaign did achieve in 2016 engaging many disenfranchised people. However a second presidential run is not going to do anything beyond what the first already did, and becomes more of a fundraising opportunity than a credible presidential campaign.
...you realize who is President right now, right?
I'm so confused why you're asking. Feels like a question from a Repub who thinks Trump is still in control but from a Bernie supporter.
Biden.
...whose second run was in 2008, and which achieved just a bit more than fundraising?
I don't know if I have the time to explain how the democratic party has shifted its solidification of primary power since that time, largely because of outside runs like Obama and more specifically Sanders. Or the difference in running a second presidential run directly after a failed campaign compared to running after serving as VP.
This is not a gotcha or some kind of flaw in my reasoning. Ultimately it doesn't fucking matter because working people will not see substantial change through electoral politics.
Edit: also I'm going to add you should just state your point in your first reply instead of trying to bait out people your conversing with a stupid question. It is much more respectful of peoples time and effort.
My friend, I'm well aware of modern political history within the Democratic party. That doesn't change the fact that your heuristic is not a good one; there are plenty of reasons to run a second presidential campaign besides fundraising, even if you don't think you're likely to win (and Biden had to know he wasn't in '08).
Moreover, Bernie's campaign strategy in '16 was poor, and his run in 2020 amended that by focusing a lot more resources into Iowa early on. Unfortunately, Buttigieg played the same angle and the caucuses were a total debacle besides, which robbed the campaign of the momentum it had hoped to generate with a big win in Iowa (which, you'll note, is exactly how Obama won in 2008.)
Edit: I'd be a lot more inclined to listen to your request for respect if it didn't follow an incredibly condescending comment. Also, I'm well aware of the uselessness of electoral politics--but it was 2020 that cemented that for me, and for many others as well, particularly here. So even in that sense, Bernie's 2020 run had real impact.
the capitulation and bending of the knee at the end. He should have spited the democrats and tanked their chances and hopefully caused a schism or collapse of the party