6 ms·

> Zuckerberg denied he is running for president in 2020. That's a common tactic. I'm all but sure he plans on entering politics. In addition to his recent tour

> Zuckerberg denied he is running for president in 2020. That's a common tactic. I'm all but sure he plans on entering politics. In addition to his recent tour of America and big PR team, he also recently renounced his atheism. That, imo, is a big tell. Trumps win this fall is going to open the door for many other billionaire-celebrities. He basically proved that name recognition alone can take you very far. This is why you see people like Mark Cuban mulling a campaign. Zuck has name recognition - arguably more than Trump - is less blatantly offensive, and has a treasure trove of data. Not to mention a natural marketing/communications/propaganda platform. He also has a seasoned team of lobbyists at his disposal. Oh and he's loaded, too.

pavel_lishin 9y ago
Did he pick a new belief system? My first thought was that he would have converted to his wife's religion, but Buddhism isn't likely to play much better than atheism in America if he's planning on entering politics proper.
- ithinkinstereo 9y ago
  > Did he pick a new belief system? No, not a particularly belief system. He just made a FB post stating that "religion is very important" to him. Previously, he was on the record as stating that he was an atheist. He'll prob embrace Judaism - that will probably fly a bit better with middle America than Bhuddhism.
  - pavel_lishin 9y ago
    Wait, did he state that his religious beliefs are important to him? Or that in general, the concept of religion is important to him? It sounds like a weasely statement - "I care about this because you care about this", meaning, I don't give a shit but don't want to offend you. Either way, though, it's definitely and unfortunately a near necessity for entering politics.
nostrademons 9y ago
Also, Facebook's recent stock plan reportedly includes a clause that allows him to maintain control of the company if he serves in government: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/zucks-sure-acting-like-someone-might-run-president/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/zucks-sure-acting-like-someone...
michaelchisari 9y ago
Zuckerberg lacks the charisma. His run will be more Carson than Trump. He severely lacks the oratory skills of Obama, the fiery commitment to economic justice of Bernie, the decades of government experience of Hillary, or the Barnum-esque showmanship of Trump. Trump is the first non-stateman to win, and he did it by keeping the cameras on him at all times, and competing against a wide field of primary candidates that split the vote. And also by appealing to some base desires that Republicans have only dog-whistled in the past. And the left is much less friendly to a billionaire with eyes on purchasing the presidency than the right. Why would anyone pick Zuckerberg in 2020 when they could pick someone like Warren or Booker? I'm not saying he won't run, but I think it's delusional to think he can win a primary, let alone the presidency.
- ithinkinstereo 9y ago
  1) He has name-recognition. This carries you very far. Who doesn't know Zuck? He even had a hit movie made about him. 2) He has money. Doesn't need to waste time raising funds. He can also take Trump's line and say he is independent, not in the pockets of big money doners 3) He has access to possibly, the best voter database, and a platform to communicate and drive home his messaging (remember, some say that Trump's win was due to massive FB analytics and targeted ad campaigns) 4) He is likely already in bed with the "establishment". I'm sure he has deep connections to the intelligence agencies and local, state, and federal government. Not to mention of course, the media. 5) He is young and likely more appealing to the millennial generation, who will be more deeply entrenched in society by the time he runs. Certainty more appealing than say Booker or Warren. > And the left is much less friendly to a billionaire with eyes on purchasing the presidency than the right. Why would anyone pick Zuckerberg in 2020 when they could pick someone like Warren or Booker? Warren and Booker are pretty discredited IMO. It'll be hard for Warren to win the Bernie votes, given her disloyalty and lack of action during the primaries. I had such high hopes for her, but she really let the power and possibility of a presidential run corrupt her. Her who shtick was this fearless, independent, populist. That image came crashing down this election. If she would have publicly backed Bernie early on, he might have taken the nomination. It's obvious to all that she only backed HRC to kiss-ass to the establishment and curry favors for either a VP nom or to secure her "successor" status to Hillary. Compare her actions to someone like Gabbard. Booker is similar discredited, given his non-transparent lobbying for a variety of corporate elites. The main problem for Zuck is his young, rich, tech, Jew shtick makes me persona non-grata for alot of blue collar voters in the key swing states. But who knows, the next generation of those voters, who grew up on FB/Instagram, may not find him so unappealing as their parents. I think he has a pretty good shot. I def agree that his main weakness is his lack of charisma and perceived fakeness / always-scheming persona, but thats something that can be changed with the key handlers, messaging, and media campaigns.
LordHumungous 9y ago
He should run for San Francisco mayor and try to do something about the housing shortage. Actually help people in his own back yard.
Stranger43 9y ago
There is a lot more to the Trump victory then the Trump brand having name recondition, as there was and still is a real trend in politics that makes it almost impossible for a mediocre well mannered insider to campaign effectively against an opponent that is willing to get emotional on stage, that is pretty symptomatic for divided societies undergoing change. Trump ran as "angry man" at a time when the public was angry with the dishonest elites and was greatly aided by the fact that the democrats failed to offer an electable candidate as an alternative. In order to beat someone like Trump when their message of anger and loss resonate with the public, you cannot really depend on connections and advisors no matter how well funded the candidate might be. Someone will still have get on the stage and follow through in a way that resonate with the emotional state of the public and that mean someone willing to go off script and screw up.
thr0waway1239 9y ago
Personally, I feel no amount of money can compensate for a basic lack of charisma. However, I wouldn't put it beyond any megacorp today to actually manipulate the flow of information during elections to favor the candidates who are likely to give them the best deals. They cannot become kings, but they can certainly become king-makers.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

Did he pick a new belief system? My first thought was that he would have converted to his wife's religion, but Buddhism isn't likely to play much better than atheism in America if he's planning on entering politics proper.

ithinkinstereo 9y ago
> Did he pick a new belief system? No, not a particularly belief system. He just made a FB post stating that "religion is very important" to him. Previously, he was on the record as stating that he was an atheist. He'll prob embrace Judaism - that will probably fly a bit better with middle America than Bhuddhism.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  Wait, did he state that his religious beliefs are important to him? Or that in general, the concept of religion is important to him? It sounds like a weasely statement - "I care about this because you care about this", meaning, I don't give a shit but don't want to offend you. Either way, though, it's definitely and unfortunately a near necessity for entering politics.

nostrademons 9y ago

Also, Facebook's recent stock plan reportedly includes a clause that allows him to maintain control of the company if he serves in government: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/zucks-sure-acting-like-someone-might-run-president/ https://www.wired.com/2017/01/zucks-sure-acting-like-someone...

michaelchisari 9y ago

Zuckerberg lacks the charisma. His run will be more Carson than Trump. He severely lacks the oratory skills of Obama, the fiery commitment to economic justice of Bernie, the decades of government experience of Hillary, or the Barnum-esque showmanship of Trump. Trump is the first non-stateman to win, and he did it by keeping the cameras on him at all times, and competing against a wide field of primary candidates that split the vote. And also by appealing to some base desires that Republicans have only dog-whistled in the past. And the left is much less friendly to a billionaire with eyes on purchasing the presidency than the right. Why would anyone pick Zuckerberg in 2020 when they could pick someone like Warren or Booker? I'm not saying he won't run, but I think it's delusional to think he can win a primary, let alone the presidency.

ithinkinstereo 9y ago
1) He has name-recognition. This carries you very far. Who doesn't know Zuck? He even had a hit movie made about him. 2) He has money. Doesn't need to waste time raising funds. He can also take Trump's line and say he is independent, not in the pockets of big money doners 3) He has access to possibly, the best voter database, and a platform to communicate and drive home his messaging (remember, some say that Trump's win was due to massive FB analytics and targeted ad campaigns) 4) He is likely already in bed with the "establishment". I'm sure he has deep connections to the intelligence agencies and local, state, and federal government. Not to mention of course, the media. 5) He is young and likely more appealing to the millennial generation, who will be more deeply entrenched in society by the time he runs. Certainty more appealing than say Booker or Warren. > And the left is much less friendly to a billionaire with eyes on purchasing the presidency than the right. Why would anyone pick Zuckerberg in 2020 when they could pick someone like Warren or Booker? Warren and Booker are pretty discredited IMO. It'll be hard for Warren to win the Bernie votes, given her disloyalty and lack of action during the primaries. I had such high hopes for her, but she really let the power and possibility of a presidential run corrupt her. Her who shtick was this fearless, independent, populist. That image came crashing down this election. If she would have publicly backed Bernie early on, he might have taken the nomination. It's obvious to all that she only backed HRC to kiss-ass to the establishment and curry favors for either a VP nom or to secure her "successor" status to Hillary. Compare her actions to someone like Gabbard. Booker is similar discredited, given his non-transparent lobbying for a variety of corporate elites. The main problem for Zuck is his young, rich, tech, Jew shtick makes me persona non-grata for alot of blue collar voters in the key swing states. But who knows, the next generation of those voters, who grew up on FB/Instagram, may not find him so unappealing as their parents. I think he has a pretty good shot. I def agree that his main weakness is his lack of charisma and perceived fakeness / always-scheming persona, but thats something that can be changed with the key handlers, messaging, and media campaigns.

LordHumungous 9y ago

He should run for San Francisco mayor and try to do something about the housing shortage. Actually help people in his own back yard.

Stranger43 9y ago

There is a lot more to the Trump victory then the Trump brand having name recondition, as there was and still is a real trend in politics that makes it almost impossible for a mediocre well mannered insider to campaign effectively against an opponent that is willing to get emotional on stage, that is pretty symptomatic for divided societies undergoing change. Trump ran as "angry man" at a time when the public was angry with the dishonest elites and was greatly aided by the fact that the democrats failed to offer an electable candidate as an alternative. In order to beat someone like Trump when their message of anger and loss resonate with the public, you cannot really depend on connections and advisors no matter how well funded the candidate might be. Someone will still have get on the stage and follow through in a way that resonate with the emotional state of the public and that mean someone willing to go off script and screw up.

thr0waway1239 9y ago

Personally, I feel no amount of money can compensate for a basic lack of charisma. However, I wouldn't put it beyond any megacorp today to actually manipulate the flow of information during elections to favor the candidates who are likely to give them the best deals. They cannot become kings, but they can certainly become king-makers.