Thursday, the Democrats nominated the man who, barring surprise or scandal, will be our next governor. Andrew Cuomo, as predictably as sunrise, touted “The New NY Agenda”— promising to bring truth, justice and what is left of the American Way to downtrodden voters.

Yawn.

I know we are supposed to be excited about a new start, a promise of change ... blah, blah, blah. It would be easier to swallow if we had not heard it all before. Time has a way of crushing your illusions, particularly in this state.

Related: Cuomo sets out to restore trust in state government

I will be blunt. I believe that Albany is unreformable. The people who have the power to change it—the 212 state legislators, herded by majority party leaders Shelly Silver and John Sampson—have little interest in reform. Any alleged New Kid on the Block—much less Andrew Cuomo, who has been around Democratic politics for three decades—either does not know what he is up against or does not want to admit it.

The problems that led to our disastrous $9.2 billion budget deficit are chronic, not a product of bad luck, misaligned stars or poor posture.

In the face of a resistant Legislature, with a government shaped not by voters, but by a legion of muscular interests—from trial lawyers to municipal workers—that fund campaigns, what is a governor to do?

We have, in recent decades, torn through a variety pack of governors. The brilliant Mario Cuomo. Faceless bureaucrat George Pataki. Avenging knight Eliot Spitzer. Inside guy David Paterson. Different men, different methods, different philosophies. Same result: More taxation, less representation.

I love NY.

Republican Pataki promised to stop the orgy of waste and spending yet was powerless to change Albany’s shopaholic- with-unlimited-credit ways.

Spitzer tried a frontal assault, going district-to-district and naming names of sheepish, follow-the-leader legislators. But the “Spitzkreig” backfired, as people —amazingly—sympathized with their hometown lawmakers. Add a first-year budget that ballooned spending, and it was “game over” long before the self-righteous one’s fondness for high-priced hookers hit the headlines.

Paterson was supposedly the legislative insider who would work the back-rooms. Battered by chronic waffling and scandal, Paterson gave up on a second term.

Next up, likely, is Cuomo. Given history— his and Albany’s—my hopes are not soaring. There is too much to change, too much to fix, too much resistance.

I hope I am wrong, for everyone’s sake. And that Seymour Lachman is right.

The ex-state senator’s book “Three Men in a Room,” co-authored with Robert Polner, peeled back the curtain on Albany’s engine room. Either Lachman sees something I do not or he is getting misty with age. But he thinks there is hope in Cuomo—the hope born of voter frustration and recent economic collapse.

“Ordinarily, it does not make a difference who is governor,” Lachman told me by phone from Brooklyn. “But people are so fed up with government, . . . and economic times are so bad . . . that if Cuomo does not give in to special interests, if he hires the best people, if he brings [opposing] people together—then he might get moderate reform.”

Lachman said that if Cuomo can erode Silver’s power with redistricting changes and persuade public workers to give back, conditions can improve.

Seymour, I asked, do you believe it will happen? I could sense the hesitation from 400 miles away.

“I have hope,” he said, finally. “But my hopes have been dashed before.”