I remember reading in a reputable publication quoting sources that Trump is considering him as the most serious candidate.<p>If anything Trump would be afraid of non-politicians, given the anti-establishment sentiments prevalent recently and fueled by Sanders.<p>In my opinion, Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks. The DNC conceded nothing to the Sanders side during the nomination, turning off lights on their side. That's the votes that swung in Trump's favor. Rather than reforming themselves, they diverted attention by concocting Russia collusion story, something that fell completely flat.<p>With Zuckerberg/Sanders/xyz-not-establishment running, I think we may have a chance at beating Trump for the second term.
Zuckerberg is only hyping running so he looks more important to the Chinese government so he can get more leverage for getting Facebook into China. He's doing this because rolling over by creating backdoors and censorship tools to appease the Chinese Gov was apparently not enough. It's a scummy move but given our current president ......
Whenever his other merits or demerits Zuckerberg seems to have very little mass charisma (i.e. the ability to fire up a crowd or inspire people over tv).<p>Look at some recent matchups and think about who had more mass charisma:<p>Clinton v Trump<p>Obama v Romney<p>GWB v Kerry<p>GWB v Gore<p>Clinton v Dole<p>Does it make any sense at all for a party to nominate a candidate with poor mass charisma?
The ol' Zuck means well and I think he'd give the go a nice solid try with proper intentions. But I do not think he would be that successful in the office, whatever "successful" means these days.
I have thus far avoided any Zucker interviews, but I will say that I have had enough of presidential conflicts of interest. Facebook is too big, and he would need to completely divest.
I hold a contradiction over Zuckerberg. He would work harder than most to understand issues, fundamentally transform government to embrace tech, and also have a very powerful platform to reach out to voters directly.<p>However, given all of this, running as a Democrat would not protect him from the same pressures and problems as Trump. It would probably exacerbate tensions, with him ending up much more isolated than Trump from the political establishment. If we think the Trump presidency and its coverage are hectic, just imagine the air when Zuckerberg blows through all of the weak political candidates. Everyone D and R will unilaterally oppose Zuckerberg, 10x as they do Trump, just because of his power.<p>Additionally, it's dangerous gamble for Zuckerberg to run, as all Facebook products WILL face a massive exodus stoked by political enemies. The debate of him vs Trump will not please anyone. His path to the nomination will feel so forced like a repeat of Hillary's campaign without all the enthusiasm.<p>Despite all of this, in my recommendation, it would be incredibly foolish of Zuckerberg not to run. If not in 2020, at least afterwards.<p>2020 is not an election anyone should want to be involved in. Ever. With the optics and warping that Trump's campaign style involves, traditional campaigns (and even with an adept tech strategy, direct messaging, etc.) do not work against Trump. Even co-opting his strategy and style (energy, heart, voice) is suicide. It would take an exceptionally practiced person to channel, reflect and amplify the frustrations of the electorate as a candidate to displace Trump.
People are seriously considering Mark "The People's Privacy Champion" Zuckerberg for president?<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims...</a><p>>Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard<p>>Zuck: Just ask.<p>>Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS<p>>[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?<p>>Zuck: People just submitted it.<p>>Zuck: I don't know why.<p>>Zuck: They "trust me"<p>>Zuck: Dumb fucks.<p>I suppose the 2020 edition of this would look like this:<p>Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone in the United States<p>Zuck: Just ask.<p>Zuck: I have over 320,000,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS<p>[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?<p>Zuck: I became the president.
Can Zuck rise people up like Trump and Obama did? I doubt he could give a politics/"vote for me" speech without half the people falling asleep.
I think the modern presidential role needs more technological savvy and broad-scale systems thinking than in the past. I'd put those abilities at a greater weight than typical political communication / dealing. There are tech CEO/Founders/Businessmen I would rather have in the White House than Zuckerberg, but there are very few politician/lawyer types that I would prefer over Zuckerberg.<p>Facebook's practice of experimentation and data-driven decision making is something our country needs more of. Incentives are pretty out of wack, in many cases the only way to align incentives is with information systems regulating more complex relationships. I'd also like to see some really aggressive pushes towards infrastructure improvements in internet, education, and transportation . All of these are things I think Zuckerberg would be a good bet to organize.
El Presidente (Señor Teflon Trump) has a unique set of skills that Mr. Zuckerberg probably doesn't have. These have been covered by the hypnotist cartoonist, Scott Adams:<p><pre><code> Like many of you, I have been entertained by the
unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On
the surface, and several layers deep as well,
Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard
with inadequate credentials to lead a country.
The only problem with my analysis is that there
is an eerie consistency to his success so far.
Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of
system at work under the hood?
Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the
hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has
employed on you. (Most of you know I am a
trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of
mine.)
[...]
</code></pre>
- Clown Genius (August 15, 2015), <a href="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius" rel="nofollow">http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius</a><p>Two posts later was <i>Wizard Wars</i> [1], which discusses some of the hypnosis training that El Presidente went through.<p>[1] <a href="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126916006856/wizard-wars" rel="nofollow">http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126916006856/wizard-wars</a><p>Milton Erickson (the grand master) -> John Grinder -> Anthony Robbins -> Donald "Teflon" Trump<p>The Clintons [Bill & Hillary] are also friends with Anthony Robbins. I don't know why Hillary didn't learn anything - maybe it's because she was a career politician who spent her formative years interacting with politicians, instead of with real people.<p>Adams pointed out somewhere that Teflon Don's pastor growing up was Norman Vincent Peale, who wrote <i>The Power of Positive Thinking</i> and other books about effective mental habbits. Señor Trump used his persuasion training in his reality T.V. show, in building his twitter audience, and in his presidential campaign.<p>One Saturday morning, when I was going to get the taxi, I heard a blurb on NPR about the screening of the Milton Erickson Foundation's new documentary, Wizard of the Desert [2] [3]. I called one of my "Project Passengers" [4] and let her know that we were going to this screening.<p>Later I had a session with the president of the organization. Dr. Zeig precisely identified how I was sabotaging my efforts...<p>[2] <a href="http://www.wizardofthedesertmovie.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wizardofthedesertmovie.com/</a> (auto-play video, starts with Anthony Robbins)<p>[3] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_YMCHDzLm4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_YMCHDzLm4</a><p>[4] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085</a> - she is doing very well now, no thanks to the State's efforts. Her family & "art therapy" & "peer support" training were much more helpful with getting her alcohol use under control than was 2 years in minimum security prison.