Rauner = Next Gen Pataki?

[sg0508]

George Pataki was a successful governor in NY for at least six years.  Keep in mind that many governors elected in '94 were "successful" as the economy boomed until mid-2000.  Pataki may have lost re-election in '02 had it not had been for 9/11, and the Democrats knew politically, it would have been in bad taste to seriously challenge him in '02, which they really didn't. 

IL seems like a very tough state to run. Budget-wise, it's been in bad shape for years, the population keeps shrinking, or growing at a snail's pace (per the EC map movements), and the state house seems to be a lair for corrupt politicians.  It's scary that Jim Edgar was likely the last successful governor of the state. 

Even if Rauner does okay during his first term, it's going to be very tough to hang on for a second term.  In order to fix a lot of which is wrong with that state's finances, unpopular decisions are going to have to be made, for which people will blame him.  That's often why you don't see many people bite the bullet anymore in America, because nobody wants to be blamed for doing some unpopular to help things long-term....Let it be the next guy's problem to fix whatever is going wrong.  It's a bigger reason why politics don't work anymore in the US and why this country to some extent is falling apart.  But, that's another story.

Other than Jim Edgar and the late Judy Topinka, Republicans have had a very hard time in surviving more than one term statewide in IL.