ALBANY — Imagine New York state’s government led by a governor who doesn’t care about polls, raising campaign cash or angering powerful special interests.

That’s where Gov. David A. Paterson sits now. He’s an unshackled governor.

Government watchers anxiously await whether Paterson, who has vowed to stay in office until his term ends Jan. 1, takes the rare opportunity for a New York chief executive to push an agenda void of political calculations and to push an agenda about spending, taxes and social policies purely on citizen needs.

“There is more potential for bold and creative action than there would be, in all honesty, if he were to continue running for election, in which he would have felt much more constrained by the strains of weekly polling and the good will towards those who endorsed him and providing him significant amounts of campaign dollars,” said Susan Lerner, executive director of New York Common Cause. “There is interesting potential here,” she added.

There are, however, some major whatifs to this premise of a suddenly-free governor. For starters, Paterson must emerge unscathed by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo’s investigation to determine if the governor or State Police used illegal influence to get the former girlfriend of a top Paterson aide to walk away from a domestic violence case.

Should Paterson be cleared by that probe and brush back the calls from some Democrats that he resign, insiders say the lame duck governor would have to change something else important: his personality.

Paterson’s critics lament that he tried over the past 23 months to please too many people and ended up with bland results. They also say he embraced great-sounding ideas—like capping property taxes to slow the population exodus from upstate New York and Long Island—but then did not force deals in the Legislature.

Now Paterson is moving to the legacy-building stage.

“Clearly, the man doesn’t want to walk away with a bad reputation,” said Jeff Stonecash, a political scientist at Syracuse University. “So he might really get into this whole role he’s been pushing as the fiscal discipline guy. He could really drive the Legislature crazy.”

The common theme at the Capitol is that Paterson is so weakened, so embarrassed by what has transpired that he lacks credentials to move Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Democratic Leader John Sampson in key areas.

But Paterson is still governor, and compared with most states, has vast legal authority over the budget. His decision not to run comes just as he and legislative leaders are about to negotiate the 2010 budget—a plan that is at least $8 billion in the hole.

He has proposed deep cuts to education and health care—areas of the budget lawmakers always seek to protect to avoid alienating special interests.

Will the governor stick to it? Will he insist that public schools take a hit after years of big spending increases from Albany?

Will he now go after the state work force, which critics say he has refused to target for the same kinds of sacrifices that unionized workers in private and public settings nationwide have taken in salaries, health insurance and pensions?

A source close to Paterson said the governor is going to feel less worried about the nuances and political ramifications during the upcoming budget talks. The Legislature now must be far more worried than Paterson about the fallout of a bad budget or one that is perceived as not really addressing the crisis, the source said. So, Paterson will not be worried about an on-time budget but about getting a plan that solves—at least for this year—the fiscal crisis, the official said. The budget deadline arrives March 31, and how Paterson reacts will shape everything. There already are options being discussed and executive powers being prepared once the next fiscal year starts April 1. Administration officials believe the chances of an on-time budget, especially with a governor now able to hold out for a better deal, are practically zero.

Besides the cuts he’s proposed, Paterson will also dig in and push harder for two tax hike plans some lawmakers already think are dead—one on sugar-flavored drinks and the other on cigarettes, the source said.

If he does not get his way, Paterson could just sit back and wait for the Legislature to blink. If that happens, Paterson would find himself controlling spending by deciding what does and doesn’t get funded until a final budget is in place.

“I think it’s liberating for the governor because he doesn’t have to answer to the electorate and he can do what he feels is right to do in tough financial times. I think it’s important for him to focus on doing the right thing, rather than the politically appropriate move,” said Jay Jacobs, the state Democratic Party chairman.

There are other schools of thought, though. One is that Paterson is just 55 years old and wants to make money after leaving office in the private sector. Would he want to alienate people who might help make those connections by a damn-the-torpedoes approach?

Others say the Legislature will drop their own internal feuds to coalesce against Paterson if he becomes too much of a maverick.

Then there is the Richard Ravitch solution, as proposed by State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and others, that would have the lieutenant governor take over budget talks for Paterson.

Can Paterson govern?

“I think he can if he’s not a candidate,” said Assemblywoman Crystal Stokes-Peoples, D-Buffalo.

Others are less convinced.

“The fact is, the governor is now almost totally powerless. He’s delegitimized and has almost no influence and, therefore, the state’s in big trouble,” said Douglas Muzzio, a Baruch College political scientist.

“You’ve got a chief executive who can’t lead and a State Senate where neither party has enough members for a quorum. It is a mess. It’s more than dysfunctional. It’s nonfunctional,” he said of Albany.