In analyzing the 2010 election, one must consider pretexts, subtexts and contexts. Remember, pretext is the excuse, subtext is the reality, and context is the political environment.

The Illinois primary election will be held on Feb. 2, 2010, the first day to circulate petitions is Aug. 4, and the petition filing period begins on Oct. 26. Thus far 2009 has been the "Year of the Exit" or, in the Chinese tradition of utilizing animals, the "Year of the Rabbit."

The two statewide 2010 game changers, both of whom have rabbited to safe burrows, are Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who refused to run for governor or senator, and appointed U.S. Senator Roland Burris, who would have been humiliated had he sought retention. Burris wisely announced that he would not run.

Two questions demand answering. Why this sudden skittishness? And who's next? At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, the next plug puller will be the hapless, hopeless, clueless governor, Pat Quinn, who will decide that bailing is preferable to ignominiously losing the primary to state Comptroller Dan Hynes.

The pretext for Madigan's decision was that she enjoys her job and that the decision was best for her family. The subtext was that Illinois' fiscal situation is FUBAR, to use the World War II acronym which means "Fouled Up Beyond All Repair." To assume the governorship in the near future will be like becoming the Titanic's captain after it hit the iceberg. Madigan decided to let somebody else fix the problem, or bear the blame.

The context is that there are gubernatorial races in 2014, 2018 and 2022 and U.S. Senate contests in 2014, 2016, 2020 and 2022, so Madigan, age 42, can wait for a winnable race and not risk a premature, career-ending loss. Also, by 2014, the recession/depression surely will have abated.

Further, there are inklings that "Messiah Obama's" policies have not yet succeeded and that 2010 will be characterized by continued economic deterioration. That portends a disastrous Democratic year.

As for Burris's pretext, he grandly proclaimed the "people's business" to be more important than raising campaign cash. How lucky we Illinoisans are, as Burris can devote the next 16 months to his senatorial duties. The subtext is that Burris has raised a paltry $20,000, so even if he spent 24/7 on the phone dialing for dollars, it would be for naught. The context is that donors don't waste their contributions on losers, and Burris is a loser.

With Madigan and Burris exiting, a rush of B-team contenders has hurtled into the void. Here's an early look at the governor's race:

Quinn's disgraced predecessor, Rod Blagojevich, was derisively known as "Governor Windsock," due to his propensity to let polls guide his governance. Quinn is "Governor Weathervane," a veritable thermometer who makes decisions based on the weather, or what side of the bed he happens to exit, or whatever thought permeates his brain.

Quinn had the misbegotten notion that he could succeed by being "reasonable." Blagojevich was totally detached from Springfield squabbles, governed by press release and media event, and cared only about raising money and keeping his job. Quinn thought that by acting like "Chicken Little," insisting that a financial doomsday was imminent, the legislature would agreeably raise taxes.

In 6 months, with stupendous flip-flops on policy and positions, Quinn has made himself a laughingstock in the legislature. Here's a synopsis:

(1) Quinn promised to sign the $31 billion capital construction bill, then reneged, linking it to passage of his budget, then capitulated, signing the bill, with legalized video gambling.

(2) Quinn asserted that he was "adamantly against" any month-to-month budget, insisted that any income tax hike be permanent, and warned of "dire" budget cuts. He warned that 6,000 prisoners would be released prematurely, that 14,300 teachers would be laid off, that 400,000 students would lose college aid, that 650,000 Illinoisans would lose health care coverage, that 60 parks and museums would be closed and that 100,000 people would be cut from their "human services" benefits. Then Quinn flipped and accepted a 5-month "bare bones" budget, with a "period of review" in November and no income tax hike.

(3) Quinn insisted on capping pension benefits for newly hired public employees. After the teachers union squawked, he quickly shelved that idea.

Quinn's cowardly, inconsistent conduct has created chaos. Is there or is there not a crisis? Either shut down state government or shut up. Quinn wants a tax increase, said Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan (D-22), who won't give him one unless the Republicans sign on. A tax increase is inevitable, said an aide to Illinois Senate President John Cullerton (D-6). But with every passing day, state government muddles on, and it will until at least November, when the General Assembly revisits the budget. There is now no sense of urgency thanks to Quinn's bungling, and there won't be any urgency in November.

Quinn is perceived by the public as weak and ineffectual. He has raised only $210,000. He has no political network in place. He has no credibility. In short, Quinn is unelectable.

Madigan would have beaten Quinn in a primary, but she would have had to take a stance on an income tax hike. That was a lose-lose situation. If opposed, she would be labeled irresponsible or "under the thumb" of her father, Mike Madigan. A lot of liberal Democrats support a tax increase. If she supported it, she would absorb all of Quinn's toxicity and the Republicans would make the election a referendum on the issue.

Plus, hovering in the wings is state Senator James Meeks (D-15), a strong pro-tax advocate. If the Democrats nominate an anti-tax candidate, expect him to run for governor as an independent.

With Madigan out, Hynes, age 41, the state comptroller since 1998, surely will run. This is his opportunity to leapfrog Madigan.

Hynes has been a veritable Cassandra, warning as early as 2006 that natural spending growth will cost the state an added $1 billion annually and forecasting in 2008 that sales and corporate income tax collections will continue to decline. He was also a champion of eliminating "pay to play" politics by banning contributions from state contractors. The question is: Will he oppose a tax hike?

Hynes' father, former Cook County assessor Tom Hynes, is the state's Democratic state central committeeman, and he has an extensive personal and financial network in place with but one goal: To elect his son to higher office. Dan Hynes ran for U.S. senator in 2004, losing the primary to Barack Obama but getting a credible 23.7 percent of the vote; he thereafter endorsed Obama and was an early backer of Obama for president.

Hynes has $2.8 million in his campaign account, and his father has $4,369.

Polls show that a majority of the voters want to implement spending cuts before raising taxes. Given the projected $9.2 billion revenue shortfall, and given that almost 90 percent of the state's $56 billion budget is already earmarked for personnel and social services, some tax hike, stopgap borrowing or federal bailout will be necessary by early 2010. Hynes can run for governor as a "reformer," but he'll have to be either pro-tax or anti-tax. That will require a two-track strategy: He must first demand budget cuts and personnel layoffs be immediately implemented, and then he must telegraph to Meeks, through his ties to Obama, that he will be receptive to a tax hike if necessary.

To win, Hynes must bluff Quinn out of the race and ensure that Meeks does not run.

And then, in a one-on-one election against a Republican, Hynes must choose his proverbial poison: Either he runs as a tax advocate after a government shutdown, blasting the Republican as irresponsible and hoping voters view him as courageous, or he positions himself as an anti-tax reformer who can solve the problem without a raise, expecting that liberals and minorities will vote for him anyway. The former is the more dangerous.

My prediction: The name of the game is to win. "Deny now, win, and tax later" is better than "tax now, lose later." With deft prevarication, Hynes can emerge victorious.

It's not quite a "Battle of the Pygmies," but the Republican gubernatorial field need not be awe-inspiring. The 2010 election will be a referendum on the Democrats -- on their proven incompetence and pervasive corruption.

Blagojevich, a lightweight, won in 2002 because voters rejected "George Ryan corruption." The Republican nominee, Attorney General Jim Ryan, was a viable candidate and a statewide winner, much like Hynes, but the electorate was fatigued with the Republicans and wanted "change," and they certainly got it -- a more corrupt governor.

The issue in 2010: Will Illinoisans continue to tolerate an inept governor? Quinn could have been a "profile in courage," shutting down the state to force a tax hike; instead, he's a "profile in procrastination" and just another opportunistic politician. If Quinn has any brains, he, like Burris, will bail.