Rauner = Next Gen Pataki?

[Free Bird]

Could we agree on this?

Defeats incumbent Democrat semi-comfortably in a hotly contested race
Wave year ending in 4
Moderate enough to win there
Republican governor of a big city state

Does this mean that Rauner will run for president a full 9 years after last being relevant?

[SWE]

No because Pataki was able to at least pretend to be moderate

[Flake]

He's going to lose reelection though

And he's not too popular with the good people of Illinois

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He's going to lose reelection though

And he's not too popular with the good people of Illinois

Bill Daley has promised to run and Madigan hasnt committed yet.

At least Pataki supported expansion of casinos. Rauner is opposed to a Chicago casino. Which both Dems have committed to building.

[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.

[Mr. Illini]

Many non-Illinoisans have been sure to voice their opinions regarding how wonderful of a job Rauner is doing.

I just hope they don't presume that the people of the great state of Illinois agree with them.

[IceSpear]

Illinois would've been much better off if Topinka won in 2006.

[Ebsy]

All of my relatives in southern Illinois despise him, though they are of course not necessarily an accurate cross section of the populace.

[Maxwell]

Also, George Pataki isn't a general?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

more like the next george ryan imo

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah; Rauner dug himself a hole, when he wanted to repeal the state income tax but no new jobs created.

Austerity; no job creation. And infrastrure building like building jobs through expansion of OHare and Casino gambling are the ways to do; programs he is opposed to.

[Mister Mets]

Also, George Pataki isn't a general?

Gen is also short for Generation.

Next Gen means Next Generation.

[President Johnson]

I see Charlie Baker more in this category. I would vote for a guy like Baker, but not for Rauner.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

It's a long way to 2018.  At this time in 2011, no one thought Rick Scott would even be renominated in FL, but he won a tough race.

Scott (whom I despise) provided Rauner with a plan for re-election:  Hurt people early, reap the benefits for making tough decisions, and create "jobs", even if they are part-time crappy jobs.  Scott was able to do this, and while he is not a great speaker, his campaign showed remarkable "message discipline", whereas Charlie Crist, a party-switcher AND an ideology-switcher (the latter is the REAL reason he lost) ran a rather unfocused campaign.  It'll be harder in IL than in FL, but Rauner has the chance to do this IF HE STAYS FOCUSED. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rauner's ace in hole is the Chicago Casino, but Madigan doesnt want for him to be reelected or Kirk for that matter. They will be the beneficiaries of term limits on ballot.  

We will see how it plays out in 2016 and 2018 with the budget crisis.

But Kirk may be the loser of the Madigan and Rauner standoff due to the fact, he cant blanket airwaves with millions.

[andrew_c]

Nope. Rauner is unpopular, and will be a goner in 2018.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Nope. Rauner is unpopular, and will be a goner in 2018.

Don't count on it.  It's still early, and I'm sure he will rebound once the budget impasse is over.  Reagan had similarly low job approval halfway through his first term, and we all know how that turned out.

As for the original question, I doubt it.  He supports term limits, so I imagine he will quit after two terms.

[Green Line]

Everyone here keeps talking about how unpopular Bruce Rauner is.  What are you guys basing this off of? Theres been like 1 poll since he was inaugurated and it was widely denounced

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Everyone here keeps talking about how unpopular Bruce Rauner is.  What are you guys basing this off of? Theres been like 1 poll since he was inaugurated and it was widely denounced

He said he wants to create jobs, so far he has made promises on cuts.  He has cut every social program out there and hasnt fielded a budget. If Bill Daley runs, Rauner is toast☺

[Mr. Illini]

Everyone here keeps talking about how unpopular Bruce Rauner is.  What are you guys basing this off of? Theres been like 1 poll since he was inaugurated and it was widely denounced

See: the most recent PPP poll

Not to mention there have been several polls since inauguration that have shown a gradual decline in his popularity. Illinois didn't elect Bruce Rauner, they elected not-Pat Quinn. Expect a slow implosion of Rauner's approvals heading forward.