Hacker News Reader

Comment by akhilcacharya | Hacker News Reader

Likely an unpopular opinion but the idea of him winning in 2020 isn't as far fetched as some liberals think.

I don't like Facebook, and I don't particularly like Zuckerberg, but I highly respect the guy. He's clearly a very smart person.

But I think the leader of a country needs to live life a bit more before leading a country. If he does want to be president someday, I think 2020 is way too early.

I actually disagree here. I think someone young, energetic, and highly intelligent & analytic is exactly what we need to break out of the rut we're in. And so far the tone of his tour across the US seems to indicate that he wants to be fairly centrist and bipartisan, but without necessarily sticking to political norms.

>young, energetic, and highly intelligent & analytic

That isn't what works in politics...

What works in politics is knowing which levers to pull, and having the money or influence (in the right paces) to do pull them.

I think he has all that stuff as well? He's certainly got the money and he's got a big lever named "facebook" which gets his message infront of a substantial portion of the US voting public.

I am (anxiously) waiting for the "have you voted yet?" reminders Facebook has been using to get people to the polls in recent elections to turn into "have you voted for the Zuck yet?".

Can't do that. Zuck can't use FB resources or any form of support from FB (other than employees who volunteer outside work hours) for a political campaign. If he does he'll have to reimburse the fair value of services received from campaign funds.

But what if it were done on behalf of a super PAC that just happened to be in favor of his campaign?

It would be legal as long as there is no coordination with the campaign but I can imagine enterprise ending class actions against FB by minority shareholders if the Board violated their fiduciary duty to shareholders by involving FB in the campaign.

Oh no I don't think that's typical what works in politics at all, I think that's what would be beneficial in actually governing.

That's what's broken in politics.

Yea, I don't understand why age is always such a big deal to people when it comes to politics. Age doesn't always bring wisdom. Sometimes it just solidifies stubbornness and quackery.

> Yea, I don't understand why age is always such a big deal to people when it comes to politics.

Exactly the same reason “years of experience” are in other hiring situations; evaluating skills is hard, and it's an easier proxynthst people are intuitively drawn to, even if it is quite a bad proxy.

I'm looking for an American Macron. Zuck fits the bill better than anybody else I know of.

There were people that said "He wants to be emperor"...that does seem to fit in with Macron's comparing himself to Jupiter/Zeus.

The reason people say 2024 is because there is an age limit to be President. You have to be 40 or older.

Oops. I was wrong. Only 35. He could possibly run for the next one depending on his exact age.

May 2019 - 35

You actually only have to be 35, and he will be in time for 2020. The 2024 stuff was starting to come out before Trump won, which significantly increases the chances of a one term presidency based on the polls & media coverage (imo).

Running & losing can be preparation for running again & winning

I'd rather not vote third party for the second election in a row, but it looks like I'll have no other option if it comes down to Trump versus Zuckerberg.

The consensus seems to be that he's aiming for a 2024 run. Although if Bernie isn't running in 2020, I think he'd be the one to beat in a Democratic primary. And he'd have a much better chance at beating Trump than anyone else that seems likely to run, in my opinion. At least when I've seen him speak about anything, he generally comes off as intelligent and relatively sincere.

He probably has a better chance to win in 2020 than in 2024, doesn't he?

It really is too early to tell, it depends entirely on how Trump is doing politically. It may look like he's doomed now, but there's always the possibility of something crazy happening like single payer healthcare passing that could change things dramatically. It's happened before. Reagan's approval rating was 35% in the beginning of 1983, and by the end of 1984 it was 53%, and he ended up winning 525 electoral votes and over 58% of the popular vote. And while there's nothing I can imagine that would get Trump numbers like that, I do think it's quite possible that he could be re-elected.

Also, if it looks likely that Trump is going to lose then the Democratic primary will be super-competitive. Elizebeth Warren and Sanders are going to eat him alive.

I would much rather see Richard Stallman in the White House than to see a greedy Zuckerberg. His success was indeed a lot of luck, but also a lot more greed, climbing on other's shoulders, and several other bad things.

Stallman in the white house would be a complete disaster.

So would a man who has access to and control over a large portion of the developed world's "private" communications and "news" consumption.

We still have 3 more years of the current administration, that's an eternity (figuratively) in politics. Predicting who will be a legitimate contender at this point is a fool's errand.

I'm going to say it's unlikely since Zuckerberg and the rest of the Silicon Valley crowd is seen unfavorably especially after Google's flirtation with Obama's administration. At least that's been my observation with my parents and their views. So he has an uphill battle which would be much harder to win than Trump did as Trump had the advantage of voter dissatisfaction in establishment candidates.

I don't think he's going to run himself, I think he's going to find someone to run on a platform of his design.

He already seems to think he's a president, and has apparently been traveling with a convoy of ex-secret service agents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com