How sad will Zuckerberg's run for President be?

[Technocracy Timmy]

[McGovernForPrez]

His candidacy makes me want to puke.

[Canis]

His candidacy makes me want to puke.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

His candidacy makes me want to puke.

[dw93]

Very sad. I think Trump established a dangerous trend. Now any celebrity thinks he/she can run for President and win just based on their celebrity status. At least Reagan was elected governor twice before getting elected President.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Jeb is praying for him to run, I can tell you that much.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I do worry that his personal influence over a substantial portion of the eyeball time of this country will be dangerous.

But then I look at him/hear him talk.

I just don't know which will win out.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I doubt he even makes it to Iowa.

[Mr. Smith]

WI: Lincoln Chafee 2016 sad

[Morgan Kingsley]

At least Trump was a businessman and knew politicians in person. Zuckerberg would be even bigger of a outsider than Trump and that is saying a lot. In a bad way

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Imagine how bad bang for the buck he'd get if he self funded a billion dollars. That's only 1.6% of his wealth, so we can't rule out some massive self funding.

[JoshPA]

his censorship will kill him and the democrat party in any elections.

[JoshPA]

At least Trump was a businessman and knew politicians in person. Zuckerberg would be even bigger of a outsider than Trump and that is saying a lot. In a bad way

but his censorship thought will kill off any independents voters that he need and centeris democrats arent going to vote for him. 

[Robert California]

Sad for him, or for the country?

[NeederNodder]

I don't need another Billionaire president in my lifetime.

[Senator LouisvilleThunder]

At least Trump was a businessman and knew politicians in person. Zuckerberg would be even bigger of a outsider than Trump and that is saying a lot. In a bad way

but his censorship thought will kill off any independents voters that he need and centeris democrats arent going to vote for him. 

Independents and Centrist Neoliberal Democrats would find him appealing, but progressives and WWC blue dogs wouldn't turnout to vote for him.

[This is Eharding, guys]

Zuckerberg is an extremely underrated Democratic candidate (though not my preferred choice, of course). He has a much better handle on the press than Trump and can easily appeal to college-educated voters. He is superior at reading prepared speeches to Hillary Clinton, and I think he can, at his best, almost do as well in debate as Hillary at her normal level. I think he would have enormous appeal to Democrats on economic issues, just as Trump did for the GOP side.

[Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Zuckerberg is an extremely underrated Democratic candidate (though not my preferred choice, of course). He has a much better handle on the press than Trump and can easily appeal to college-educated voters. He is superior at reading prepared speeches to Hillary Clinton, and I think he can, at his best, almost do as well in debate as Hillary at her normal level.

Working class Americans don't want to vote for for a robot who can't connect with them. He acts like a billionaire, and it would result in him receiving fewer vote than Hillary. Voters don't care about the intelligence of a candidate, they are swayed by emotional appeals and pocketbook issues. (Think Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary) Minorities will definitely stay home in a Trump vs. Zuckerburg election. He is just another corporatist technocrat who will say whatever he thinks will help him but he'll serve his fellow billionaires if he wins--just like Trump. He'll get crushed in the Rust Belt.

[This is Eharding, guys]

Zuckerberg is an extremely underrated Democratic candidate (though not my preferred choice, of course). He has a much better handle on the press than Trump and can easily appeal to college-educated voters. He is superior at reading prepared speeches to Hillary Clinton, and I think he can, at his best, almost do as well in debate as Hillary at her normal level.

Working class Americans don't want to vote for for a robot.

Zuckerberg is not a robot. He is a businessman who creates his own image.

[Technocracy Timmy]

^ Zuckerberg is way too socially awkward to run a successful campaign. He'd be horrible.

[Kingpoleon]

Nothing could be as sad as Facebook.

[McGovernForPrez]

Zuckerberg is an extremely underrated Democratic candidate (though not my preferred choice, of course). He has a much better handle on the press than Trump and can easily appeal to college-educated voters. He is superior at reading prepared speeches to Hillary Clinton, and I think he can, at his best, almost do as well in debate as Hillary at her normal level. I think he would have enormous appeal to Democrats on economic issues, just as Trump did for the GOP side.

In what world does Mark Zuckerberg connect with voters on economic issues?

[This is Eharding, guys]

Zuckerberg is an extremely underrated Democratic candidate (though not my preferred choice, of course). He has a much better handle on the press than Trump and can easily appeal to college-educated voters. He is superior at reading prepared speeches to Hillary Clinton, and I think he can, at his best, almost do as well in debate as Hillary at her normal level. I think he would have enormous appeal to Democrats on economic issues, just as Trump did for the GOP side.

In what world does Mark Zuckerberg connect with voters on economic issues?

The same one in which the richest candidates in both the 2016 and 2012 Republican primaries were thought by Republican primary voters to be the best candidates on economic issues. Both, naturally, had an advantage on economic issues over the Democratic nominee in polling when the general election came. Like it or not, being a billionaire or multi-millionaire gives one huge credibility on economic issues among the electorate.

[McGovernForPrez]

Zuckerberg is an extremely underrated Democratic candidate (though not my preferred choice, of course). He has a much better handle on the press than Trump and can easily appeal to college-educated voters. He is superior at reading prepared speeches to Hillary Clinton, and I think he can, at his best, almost do as well in debate as Hillary at her normal level. I think he would have enormous appeal to Democrats on economic issues, just as Trump did for the GOP side.

In what world does Mark Zuckerberg connect with voters on economic issues?

The same one in which the richest candidates in both the 2016 and 2012 Republican primaries were thought by Republican primary voters to be the best candidates on economic issues. Both, naturally, had an advantage on economic issues over the Democratic nominee in polling when the general election came. Like it or not, being a billionaire or multi-millionaire gives one huge credibility on economic issues among the electorate.

You said amongst Democrats. Do you think Mark Zuckerberg is gonna be popular with black or latino voters? What about the super liberals of the Northeast and Pacific Northwest? The Democratic party is shifting further left economically not further center. Billionaire technocrats are unpopular in this party. They can get away with for Republicans because they're the "party of business" but otherwise not so much.

[This is Eharding, guys]

Zuckerberg is an extremely underrated Democratic candidate (though not my preferred choice, of course). He has a much better handle on the press than Trump and can easily appeal to college-educated voters. He is superior at reading prepared speeches to Hillary Clinton, and I think he can, at his best, almost do as well in debate as Hillary at her normal level. I think he would have enormous appeal to Democrats on economic issues, just as Trump did for the GOP side.

In what world does Mark Zuckerberg connect with voters on economic issues?

The same one in which the richest candidates in both the 2016 and 2012 Republican primaries were thought by Republican primary voters to be the best candidates on economic issues. Both, naturally, had an advantage on economic issues over the Democratic nominee in polling when the general election came. Like it or not, being a billionaire or multi-millionaire gives one huge credibility on economic issues among the electorate.

You said amongst Democrats. Do you think Mark Zuckerberg is gonna be popular with black or latino voters? What about the super liberals of the Northeast and Pacific Northwest? The Democratic party is shifting further left economically not further center. Billionaire technocrats are unpopular in this party. They can get away with for Republicans because they're the "party of business" but otherwise not so much.

I really don't think you understand the nature of the Zuckerberg run. Zuckerberg is economically left of center. His strategy is to take some very left wing economic policy positions, then get every other candidate to attack him from the left, then position himself as a sensible pragmatist while the rest look like socialist loons.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-universal-basic-income-alaska-2017-7

There's no reason to expect Zuckerberg to not be popular with Black and Latino voters. They have long liked Democratic pragmatists. If billionaire technocrats are unpopular in the Democratic Party (and I've seen not a shred of evidence for that), then why did Hillary Clinton tout her support from "real billionaires"? Why did Archie Parnell do so well? If anything, liberal billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos are probably more popular among the Democratic base than ever before.

The super liberals of the Northeast and Pacific Northwest are a tiny section of the party, and are largely college-educated. Many were attracted to Barack Obama's reformist, technocratic message in 2008 (even though his positions were slightly to the right of Hillary's at the time), and there's no reason to suspect they won't be attracted to Zuck's. I think they might even prefer him to Warren, since Warren has a reputation for stabbing Bernie in the back.