Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisNorstrom | Hacker News Reader

It's so obvious he is preparing and advertising himself to run for president. And it's about time.

He has something few other presidents have. Success in both Private and Public office.

I don't think it'll work. He's neither Republican nor Democrat (and in fact has been both at one point or another) - even someone as well-known as Bloomberg I don't think can capture the Presidency as an independent candidate.

Not to mention his stance on things is too complicated for modern American politics. He's socially liberal (supports heavy social programs, large-scale public education, gay rights, pro-choice), but also largely anti-civil liberties (stop and frisk, crackdowns on demonstrations, pro-surveillance). He's the exact sort of candidate New Yorkers vote for, but I don't think the rest of the country would go for it.

I've thought for a long time that the US political system will someday realign along the lines of urban vs. everything else. The "tough on crime / livable cities / pro environment / social programs" platform resonates with a huge swath of urban America, be it in Pittsburgh, Dallas, Detroit or New York. Bloomberg could well be our first urban candidate for president, and I think he would have broad appeal beyond NYC.

Bloomberg will never run for President. He's too protective of his private life to subject himself to the circus.

Plus he's too conservative to run as a Democrat, and he's a communist compared to the current national GOP.

He won't make it out of the primaries for either party. The state setup at the start works against him, as he has received a lot of "the crazy NYC Mayor banning something else" pieces.

I agree. He's a remarkable man. Not sure he's powerful enough to win the race for US President.

Does he need to go through a stint in the senate/congress first, or could he run directly for nomination?

I don't mean "need" as in legal, but just as a path to it?

Has anyone ever done that before? Run for president without being a governor or a senator/congressman? (Asking as a Canadian who isn't super familiar with historical presidential politics in the US).

Yes, although they usually quit early.

2012: Herman Cain (businessman)

2008: Alan Keyes (author/diplomat)

2004: Wesley Clark (Army General), Al Sharpton (reverend/civil rights activist)

I'm thinking that most simply don't have the intelligence connections to endure the blackmail game.

According to a Wikipedia article, it would be likely be in his best interest to start somewhere bigger:

Every President of the United States has served as either:

Vice President of the United States a U.S. Senator a Congressman a Governor of a state a Cabinet Secretary a General of the United States Army

Mayor of NYC is probably a better executive experience that many (most?) state governorships. Bloomberg isn't my cup of tea, politically, but he's certainly qualified to run if he decides to do it.

For example, as mayor of NYC, Bloomberg governs about three times as many people as Bill Clinton did as governor of Arkansas.

The governor of Arkansas deals with both rural and urban issues and has a good cross section of what makes up this country.

The biggest city in Arkansas is less than 3/4ths of a million people. To say that Arkansas cities gave Clinton experience with urban issues in America is roughly like saying that the sum total of NYC's parks and gardens give Bloomberg experience with rural issues in America.

That's more than a bit of hyperbole. He had to deal with the issues of an urban area typical for US residents. He didn't deal with the super metroplexes, but that is not the typical problems faced by most. NYC is not a cross section of what makes up the US.

I disagree. Fully one third of Americans live in urban areas with populations of two million or more. Only about one fifth of Americans live in an area that qualifies as "rural".

No, NYC is not a cross section of the US, but neither is Arkansas, and of the two, I'd say NYC gets closer to more of the population.

The amount of process and rules the White House deals with is not confined to the demographics or where the population is. NYC has a fraction of the overall rules and needs of a state like Arkansas. The absolute number people are not the determining factor.

You seem to be shifting the goalposts here. Before, you were talking about "rural and urban issues". Now you're talking about process and rules, which is completely different.

Absolute number of people is not the determining factor in any of this, but with no major cities in Arkansas, I reject the notion that Bill Clinton's governorship gave him experience with urban issues.

I'm not shifting the goalposts, it is rural and urban issues that leads to having different departments and systems to deal with them. Clinton knew and dealt with urban issues. That is obvious from his campaign and experiences he brought to the White House. You can reject it, but a state is much closer to structure, system, and rural / urban concerns than any city. Even one as big as NYC. Clinton's dealing with HUD and as governor gave him an appreciation of how things work in DC more than any city official.

You're using a terrible example. There is exactly one city in Arkansas with greater than 100k people, and that is Little Rock with 193k. That state has zero claim to being "a cross section of what makes up the US".

From a government systems point of view, it is a cross section. The White House isn't about demographics, it's about process.

Relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1122/

Probably get more hands on experience being the mayor of NYC than most other positions. Of course, that's not saying much given the current political landscape.

Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S Grant, and Dwight D Eisenhower all had held no political position before running for president. They all came from the Army.

They were also presidents in a bit of a different era.

I would suggest it could still work fine for a General. They are experienced in leadership, logistics, and dealing with budgets.

Mayor of New York City is a harder and more important job than governor of Arkansas, which was Bill Clinton's highest elective office before being elected president. (Although he ran for Congress, he did not win.)

Zachary Taylor*

US Grant*

Chester A Arthur (if you don't count VP)

Taft (if you don't count appointed governorship of territories)

Hoover (if you don't count VP)

Eisenhower*

HW Bush was barely a representative (2 terms, most well known as CIA director prior to VP).

*military generals

Reply on news.ycombinator.com