Hacker News Reader

Comment by endianswap | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com