It’s totally a question of opinion, but I would have to say that NYC mayor is a bigger position, especially when considering political advancement. I was thinking about Mike Bloomberg, and if he were to decide to run for president. Who would make a good mayor? I would think Eliot Spitzer, but then again he’s already governor of NY state. Would it be a demotion or promotion or sideways-motion for him to be mayor of New York?
I am leaning from completely neutral to promotion. What about you guys?
I’d say that Governor is historically more prestigious and generally puts a person in a better position to run for president. However, the last two NYC mayors have gotten a great deal of national attention due to 9/11, and both did an excellent job overall of bringing NYC out of hard times.
With NYC vs NYS, it is easier for a mayor to show his excellence than it is for the governor. The NYS government is dysfunctional, with power divided among the three top guys, if they don’t want what you want, you’re powerless. A great governor would be hamstrung by the process and not really get much done to improve the state.
I think it’s also worth mentioning that it’s easier for the NYC mayor to be a national media figure in his/her own right, simply because of the concentration of media distribution centers in NYC. So, often, for example, people like Letterman or other late-night hosts in NYC seem to have cracks or comments about the local politician that most affects their immediate audience. It’s not an every night thing, but there are a number of local to NYC issues, like the proposal to charge for automobile traffic in downtown Manhattan, that end up being watched by the nation, simply because of the interest of the people reporting the news to the nation.
As a slight hijack, it is interesting that the mayor’s race in Dallas is getting more attention nationally than the Governor’s race did (if you exclude some of the Kinky Friedman articles).
Mayor definitely. If it wasn’t true 12 years ago, it’s definitely true today.
I think that NYC is pretty unique in this regard, but definitely the Mayor. I’m basing this solely on the fact that as a Massachusetts resident, I don’t remember ever knowing who the Governor of NYS was, or ever *not * knowing who the Mayor of NYC was.
Historically, the Governor of New York State has been a more prestigious office than Mayor of New York City and the Governor has been much more likely to hold higher office.
The power of the Mayor has gradually increased, with the office being an appointed one until 1832. The City of New York itself started out much smaller, only attaining its present size in 1898 when the then-existing city consisting of of Manhattan and part of the Bronx was consolidated with the City of Brooklyn and the other towns making up the current five boroughs. Until 1989, the power of the Mayor was significantly constrained by the five Borough Presidents due to the control they exerted through the Board of Estimate, a fiscal control body ruled Unconstitutional and eliminated by City Charter amendment. And until 2000, the Mayor had no direct control over the school system, which was run by a semi-independent Board of Education.
Four Governors of New York have gone on to become President of the United States: Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland and two fellows known Roosevelt of whom you may have heard. Nelson Rockefeller was appointed Vice President by President Ford after Ford was elevated to the Presidency on Nixon’s resignation. Charles Evans Huges was Chief Justice of the United States after an unsuccessful run for the Presidency. John Jay was also Chief Justice. Two other notable nominees for Presidential from the 20th Century were Al Smith, the first Catholic to win a major party nomination in 1928, and Thomas Dewey, who ran in 1944 and 1948 and famously “defeated” Truman in an incorrect newspaper headline.
Of the most recent Governors, Mario Cuomo was heavily discussed as a potential Presidential candidate but ultimately declined to run, George Pataki was the subject of some light speculation, and the incumbent, Elliot Spitzer is widely regarded as one of the leading young Democrats with strong potential for higher office.
On the other hand, I don’t believe that any of the Mayors of New York has achieved similar high office. Indeed, Mayor of New York is widely believed to be a political dead end job. Mayor Ed Koch ran for Governor and was defeated by Mario Cuomo. The fact that two New York Mayors are being considered as Presidential candidates is pretty highly abberational.
Utter hijack:
Why did Mario Cuomo decide not to run. Billdo, any ideas?
I say NYC Mayor, to address the OP. Worldwide recognition, opposed to NY Governor, which barely registers a blip in New Jersey. 
I don’t really think so. Outside of NYS and NJ and maybe CT, how many Americans can name the current Mayor?
I don’t know how old you are, but while I was growing up in a Boston suburb, I knew who the mayor of NYC was, and had no clue for whom the NYS governor might have been. I know now - but that’s due, in part, to Cuomo’s longevity at the position.
For that matter, I’d like to point out that Billdo’s list of prominent NYS politicians has a small flaw - Thomas Dewey, the former governor who ran for President against Truman, may have done so from the position as a former NYS governor, but he did get his state-wide and much of his national recognition for his successful campaigns against the mob in NYC - especially breaking or at least reducing, their control of the piers. Granted, he was doing it as a prosecutor, not as Mayor, but it was definately his prominence from his work in NYC that got him into the national spotlight. Just my opinion there, and I may be mistaken, but…
It isn’t just New York City. Chicago has the same thing with the Daley mayors. I have no idea who the governor of Illinois is but Daley is pretty well known nationally.
You are correct, and Teddy Roosevelt was New York City Police Commissioner in addition to the other positions he held, but none of the prominent Presidents or candidates served as Mayor.
In fact, if Wikipedia is to be believed, none of the Mayors after the 1898 consolidation have gone on to hold any significant office after their Mayoralty. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the only two Mayors who were nationally significant after their terms date back to the era before 1821 when Mayors were appointed by the state government.
Edward Livingston was appointed Mayor from 1801 to 1803, after having served in the House of Representatives. In 1804, Livingston moved to Louisiana, where he served as a Representative and Senator before being appointed U.S. Secretary of State from 1831 to 1833.
DeWitt Clinton, after serving briefly in the U.S. Senate (and resigning because of the living conditions in the then-new Washington, DC), was appointed Mayor three times, 1803 to 1807, 1808 to 1810 and 1811 to 1815, simultaneously serving as Lieutenant Governor from 1811 to 1813. In 1812, he ran for President as a candidate of the Federalists and a break-away segment of the Democrat-Republicans, obtaining 47.6% of the popular vote but losing to James Madison. He was elected Governor of New York in 1817, serving through 1822, and reelected Governor in 1924, serving until his death in 1828.
In other words, you need to go nearly two centuries to DeWitt Clinton to find a New York Mayor who became Governor or a major party Presidential nominee.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliana elevated the position to an almost god-like stature after 9/11. The accolades were highly deserved. He did an astonishing job of getting NYC on its feet very quickly in the short time he had left in office.
Past NYC mayors and so far Mayor Bloomberg have not achieved this status. Rudy’s was a deserved honor, but I hope no future mayor has to do the same for the City.
In short, the NYC mayorship cannot be judged by Rudy.
But right now, it it were possible for Giuliani to run for mayor, he would not be elected. New Yorkers wanted him out badly prior to 9/11 and his efforts, though appreciated, didn’t make up for the issues.
Cuomo has never really said, but probably didn’t want to undergo the campaign process. Some have suggested that he felt a bit intimidated by the office itself.
I can’t recall offhand if any mayor has ever been elected president. There may have been cases where someone was mayor and then went on to a governorship before running for president, but I don’t think any major party candidate ever got the nomination where their only public office was mayor of a city.
Honestly, I’m not basing my opinions solely on Rudy. I’m well aware his national stature now is in a large part due to his competence following 9/11. Before he was elected, I was living in another state, and I knew, as everyday knowledge, that Ed Koch was the mayor. I’d have had to think about who was NYS governor, for the same period.
Rudy was big way before 9/11. Before Rudy, NYC was considered a crime-infested, sleaze-town, where police and politicians seemed to assume a high crime rate and “family-unfriendly” atmosphere as a fact of life in the big city. Democratic politicians, especially Rudy’s predecessor David Dinkins, seemed too beholden to ethnic special interests to take action for fear of offending activist rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton (never mind the fact that most crime victims were blacks). Rudy (and those working for him) initiated a bold police strategy that radically reduced crime in NYC, cleaned up problem areas like Times Square and made NYC inviting again as a family tourism destination. When he stood for re-election in 1997, Republican Rudy got almost 60% of the vote in heavily-Democratic NYC. He definitely had the high stature even then.
Unfortunately for Rudy, he spent his second term trying to top his first, and fell flat on his face attempting to tame the Public Education beast. He was reduced to ridiculous-sounding little things like anti-jaywalking crusades, and his personal life became a public embarrassment. 9/11 saved his reputation, not because he did little before it, but it reminded the public of what they had liked about him in the first place.
The thing is, even if people know who the New York City Mayor is, that doesn’t necessarily get him any particular advantage in seeking national (or even statewide) office. Being widely known before the campaign is not necessarily that big an advantage in a Presidential race. Who knew or cared who the Governor of Arkansas was before Bill Clinton ran in 1992? Right now the relatively little known Barack Obama is nipping at the heels of the universally recognized Hillary Clinton, and an obscure character actor has a chance to knock the much better known Rudy Guilani and John McCain out of their race. With the intense media spotlight on Presidential elections, a compelling personal story and fund-raising ability is much, much more important than intial name recognition.
Another thing is that a New York governor has to run a statewide race (including fundraising) that is similar to a national race, having to appeal to both the heavily Democratic City and largely Republican Upstate. A Democrat running for Mayor, in contrast, can rely heavily on many of the entrenched Democratic institutions city-wide, while a Republican must run in the long, historical tradition of good government/fusion candidates opposing the entrenchment of Democratic control. Either way, winning as Mayor doesn’t leave you much of a base to appeal to higher office, and the difficult (indeed almost impossible) choices one has to make as Mayor means that you will almost always make as many enemies as friends.
Guiliani is a great example of this, where his incredible achievements of his first term (largely succeeding in sweeping out many entrenched problems from decades of Democratic control) are overwhelmed by the negativity of the first 15/16ths of his second term. Non-New Yorkers see his success on crime (much of which resulted from his continuing the programs started by Dinkins which only began to bear fruit in his term) and his strong leadership in the three months after September 11, 2001, during which he could act in the heat of the moment without much concern for having to deal with the issues (particularly fiscal issues) that would persist after he left office at the end of 2001.