It looks like the movement to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has big mo, and the Governor is leveraging his powers to suppress a key constituency — young voters, as John Nichols explains in his Nation post, “As Wisconsin Governor’s Poll Numbers Tank, GOP Moves to ‘Rig’ Recall“:

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s support has collapsed, according to a new poll that shows that 58 percent of voters favor recalling the Republican whose anti-labor initiatives provoked the mass demonstrations that anticipated the Occupy Wall Street movement.
According to a new St. Norbert College/Wisconsin Public Radio survey of Wisconsin voters, only 38 percent of voters now support retaining Walker as governor. That represents a ten-point drop in support for the governor since last spring, when it was presumed that he had bottomed out. In fact, they have continued to decline, with significant movement of previously undecided voters into the anti-Walker camp. Thirty-seven percent of Wisconsinites now “strongly disapprove” of Walker’s governorship, while 21 percent merely disapprove. Among the most engaged (and presumably likely) voters, the figure rises to a remarkable 61 percent overall disapproval number for the governor. Significantly, while attitudes toward President Obama and the state’s Republican senator, Ron Johnson, have remained relatively steady, Walker’s numbers have tanked. That’s a serious problem for the governor, as it suggests that voters are crossing partisan and even ideological lines to oppose him.

Nichols reports that The Republican-controlled Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules has ordered Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board, which oversees state elections, to subject proposed voting-rights rules to a process that gives Governor Walker and Republican legislative leaders authority to reject rule changes. This gives Walker the power to interfere with the recall election by making decisions about student i.d.’s, address verification and electronic circulation of recall documents.
Nichols quotes Rep. Mark Pocan a Democrat from Madison, “Republicans are trying to make it harder for students to vote and they should be ashamed of themselves…Today, Republicans sent a strong signal that Scott Walker wants the fairest election he can rig.”
Other Republican-sponsored voter suppression initiatives were already underway in Wisconsin, and Nichols notes the irony that Walker was first elected in 2002 as a Milwaukee County executive, as part of a recall campaign. Now he is fighting to survive one as the nation’s poster-boy union-basher, pitted against a rapidly-growing coalition of the working people of Wisconsin.

Let’s go whole hog with the economic determinist theory of election outcomes for a moment, and assume that the unemployment rate is one of the better statistical indicators for election predictions.
Yes, that could mean Dems are headed for defeat in the 2012 presidential election. But if the theory is valid, there should be some positive correlation between unemployment rates in the states and whether or not incumbents or their party’s state-wide candidates, especially governors, get re-elected/elected. Seems like a worthy notion to test out.
If indeed state-wide officials are to be held accountable for their states’ economic performance, that should be good news for Georgia Democrats, since Republican Governors and the GOP-dominated state legislature have presided over steeply-rising unemployment in the Peach State. Georgia now ranks 49th in job-creation and is one of only 7 states to lose jobs in 2011.
As Gracie Shepherd explains in her Augusta Chronicle article, “Democrats criticize Deal administration’s lack of job creation“:

“We used to be an economic engine that drove the region. Now, we are nothing more than a caboose,” said Eric Gray, the communications director for the Georgia Democratic Party.
Georgia is one of only seven states to lose jobs in 2011, he said, and has lost 8,200 jobs so far. Deal made promises on his campaign to “kick-start the economy,” but the results aren’t there, Gray said.
“When did you ever think that we would have to look up to Alabama or Mississippi?” Gray said. Indiana is the only state doing worse than Georgia on job creation, he added.

All of which posits a daunting question to the Republicans who have controlled Georgia’s governorship and legislature since 2003, “O Mighty Job-Creators, Where are the f__king Jobs?,” as one of the OWS signs so eloquently put it.
There is some evidence that a blue tide is beginning to rise in Georgia. As the latest email from the state’s Democratic party puts it: “The Democratic Party of Georgia posted big wins throughout the state last week, solidifying the strategy of raising Democratic performance in key races by over 5% from previous elections.”

In this week’s edition of his ‘Public Opinion Snapshot,’ TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira clears up any lingering confusion about what the public wants to do about festering economic inequality. Teixeira explains:

In the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 76 percent agreed and 60 percent strongly agreed that “The current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country. America needs to reduce the power of major banks and corporations and demand greater accountability and transparency. The government should not provide financial aid to corporations and should not provide tax breaks to the rich.”

As Teixeira says, “That’s impressively high support for such a strong statement.” And it’s not just one poll:

Along the same lines, in a new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute, 60 percent agreed that “our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal,” compared to just 39 percent who disagreed. And, by 63 percent to 33 percent, respondents agreed that “we need to dramatically reduce inequalities between rich and poor, whites and people of color and men and women.”

No doubt, GOP defenders of preserving extreme wealth for their cronies will find these polls disturbing. As Teixeira says, “Conservatives are frantically trying to convince the public that this whole inequality thing is overblown. These data suggest their arguments aren’t getting much traction.”

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galston is cross-posted from The New Republic.
As the headline in Thursday’s Politico boldly touted (“Ohio back on Obama’s dance card”), the Obama campaign is suddenly refocusing on the Buckeye state. There’s a positive reason for this reported shift in the Obama campaign’s thinking: Coupled with the rebuke Ohio swing voters administered on Tuesday to an overreaching Republican governor, Mitt Romney’s lack of populist appeal makes Ohio a more tempting target than it appeared just a few months ago. But there’s a negative reason as well: “Virginia and North Carolina, key to Obama’s victories in 2008,” the article continues, “are becoming more and more uncertain.” Indeed, if Obama hopes to win reelection, he needs to double down on Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the rest of the heartland–and acknowledge that his “new majority” coalition–upscale professionals, single women, young adults, and minorities–won’t be enough to get the job done.
To understand the significance of this reconsideration, let’s look at five key states: Virginia and North Carolina–two of the biggest prizes of 2008’s “expand the playing field” strategy; Ohio and Florida–the major swing states on the narrower playing field of national elections prior to 2008; and Pennsylvania, which every winning Democratic candidate in the past half century has carried.
First, the 2008 results:

Note that Obama’s share of the popular vote was two percentage points lower in Florida than it was nationally, and three points lower in North Carolina. Because 2012 is shaping up as a closer election than 2008, Obama is vulnerable in these two states, among others.
And now here’s the current situation, based on statewide surveys conducted within the past month:


There are a number of key takeaways from Tables 2 and 3. First, they are consistent with the results of the legislative elections in Virginia: That state is likely to be closely contested in 2012, the Republicans are considerably stronger than they were four years ago, and there’s no guarantee that the winning 2008 coalition can prevail this time.
Second, Obama is doing reasonably well in Ohio, although his lead over Romney is well within the margin of error. One hypothesis, to which the recent referendum results lend credence, is that Governor Kasich’s unpopularity is giving the president a bit of a boost. (Only 36 percent of Ohio voters approve of their governor’s job performance, while 51 percent disapprove.) But Obama’s margin is nowhere near as large as the margin by which Kasich’s anti-collective bargaining legislation was repealed–in part, we may conjecture, because two-thirds of Ohio voters also expressed their disapproval of the individual health insurance mandate at the heart of the president’s health reform legislation.
Conversely, Obama is doing poorly in Florida, with significantly lower job approval, “deserves reelection” numbers, and vote shares than in the other key swing states.
And finally, considering that Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 10 points in 2008, his standing there is surprisingly weak today, perhaps because there’s nothing dragging down Republicans in that state. On the contrary, 46 percent of Pennsylvanians approve of Republican governor Tom Corbett, versus only 31 percent who disapprove–a 15-point positive advantage that is the mirror-image of Kasich’s 15-point net negative rating.
Let’s put this in the context of Electoral College arithmetic. Of the states that Obama won in 2008, he is certain to lose Indiana, he will be hard-put to reproduce his razor-thin edge in North Carolina, and his chances of prevailing in Florida appear well short of 50-50. Those three states alone accounted for 53 of Obama’s 365 electoral votes in 2008.
Given all this, it would political malpractice for the Obama campaign not to go all-out in Ohio. At the same time, they should focus on fortifying the president’s standing in Pennsylvania, a state that traditionally has given Democratic presidential candidates a share of the popular vote about two percentage points higher than their national average. Winning Pennsylvania is a necessary condition of Democratic victory; winning Ohio is a sufficient condition.
As I’ve argued before, the president’s path to victory in 2012 runs through the heartland, not around it. And that means addressing the concerns of heartland voters, who mirror the demography of the U.S. population more closely than they do Obama’s “new majority.”

Andy Kroll has a good update at Mother Jones, “It’s Recall Time for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker,” surveying the prospects for getting rid of the Badger State’s union-basher in-chief. As the recall effort kicks off, Kroll sets the scene:

That fight begins at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday with the launch of the official Walker recall campaign. Organizers have 60 days to collect at least 540,208 signatures to trigger a recall election for Walker. (Another 540,208 additional signatures are needed to recall Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch.) The grassroots groups spearheading the recall effort under the “United Wisconsin” banner say they hope to collect as many as 700,000 or 800,000 signatures by mid-January. That’s roughly 12,000 or 13,000 a day. If they do, it will set up a bruising, cash-flooded, two-month recall campaign next spring, and an actual election between early April and early June, depending on legal challenges and potential primary races on either the Democratic or Republican side.

Despite the euphoric hopes of recall leaders in the aftermath of the Ohio victory over union-bashing legislation, it’s harder to mobilize support for recalling an elected official. It’s the difference between asking voters to take a stand against legislation they don’t like, though it was enacted by someone they may have voted for on the one hand, and asking a lot of voters to repudiate their earlier votes for a candidate. Also, the Democrats have to run a good unity candidate against Walker in the recall election. Fortunately, there are several strong possible candidates, including Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, former Rep. Richard Obey, outgoing U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl and Mahlon Mitchell, president of the firefighter’s union and protest spokesman.
The Ohio vote awakened many voters to the dangers of union-busting politicians, and Walker has been a particularly nasty opponent of unions. Moreover, even if the recall effort fails, it won’t be by much, and that will send a message to political leaders to avoid getting branded as union-bashing errand boy for the Koch brothers.
The recall campaign has some other cards to play, as Kroll notes:

…Walker’s full budget, passed in June, closed a two-year shortfall of $3 billion by slashing almost $800 million from public schools, trimming tax credits for the poor, rewriting state pension law while cutting investment and corporate taxes. He passed a controversial voter ID bill that critics say disenfranchises students and seniors, and signed two GOP-friendly redistricting bills. Also looming large is a John Doe investigation into possible campaigning by employees for Milwaukee County while on the clock when Walker was the county executive. (Eleven people have been granted immunity in the probe.) In September, the investigation captured national headlines when the home of a close Walker aide, Cynthia Archer, was raided by FBI agents.

As for the latest polling figures, Kroll cites surveys by Public Policy Polling (PPP) and Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI):

PPP’s and WPRI’s surveys detected a similar split on recalling Walker–48 percent of respondents favored it and 49 percent opposed in PPP’s poll, while WPRI reported a 47-49 split. But Maslin, who worked as former California Gov. Gray Davis’ pollster during his own recall election (which he led to his replacement by Arnold Schwarzenegger), dismissed these findings as the work of “fly-by-night cheap pollsters.” He repeated his belief that Walker is vulnerable, and said that his experience in California convinced him that Walker has only a five- or six-week window to win over angry voters before their attitudes are frozen in place as the recall effort ramps up.

Owing to a quirk in Wisconsin election law, however, Gov. Walker can accept unlimited donations until the recall election date is set in stone. The Koch brothers and anti-union corporate leaders will likely load up Walker’s coffers during the next 60 days. ActBlue has a donation page for contributors to the recall effort right here.

Unmarried women – who make up more than a quarter of America’s voting-eligible population — today feel disengaged and alienated from politics and that threatens their participation in the next election, according to new focus group research. The perceived failure of the new president to fulfill a key campaign promise to change Washington leaves these unmarried women appalled with both parties and politics in general. Few doubt the President’s intentions. However, most doubt his effectiveness and this leads them to the broader conclusion that it may not matter who they send to Washington. The economy hasn’t gotten better in their view and the government has become increasingly dysfunctional and embarrassingly ineffective. These women stand by the President for the most part, but are in a far different place than they were in 2008. As one woman memorably noted, she will vote for the President, but will not put his bumper sticker back on her car this year.
The good news is that a message speaking directly to their economic concerns and to the plight of the middle class re-opens them to the person and, to some extent, the process. Some begin to believe politics can matter again.
The Voter Participation Center (VPC) partnered with Democracy Corps and Finding Common Ground to produce a series of focus groups exploring common values among people of color, youth, affluent suburban voters and unmarried women. This memorandum isolates one population, unmarried women, and focuses more on their mood and level of political engagement a year before Election Day. These are focus groups and not projectable to the larger population of unmarried women in the country, but the sentiments we heard are broadly consistent with recent survey results and sentiments in other groups in this project.
KEY FINDINGS
The single women we talked to in Raleigh were articulate and well informed. Many are struggling economically, but despite that, remain hopeful and optimistic about their lives. Unfortunately, they do not see much help from their government or a political recourse for their frustration. Washington to them is dysfunctional, corrupt, infantile and, most poignantly, irrelevant to their lives. Although they love the President and see some things to admire in the Republican candidates, they do not believe any candidate, or either party, is capable of delivering meaningful change. Out of habit and duty, they may vote, but without the conviction that their vote will make a real difference. Other unmarried women, similarly disengaged from politics, but less committed to the franchise, will not vote.
The answer is a greater focus on the plight of the middle class, as well as these women’s lives. The 2012 election needs to get personal for them, and fast.

The following article, by Democratic Strategist Robert Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
A year ago the Empire struck back. Right Wing money capitalized on anger at the economic stagnation that their own policies caused just two years before. They brought a halt to the hard-won progressive victories that marked the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency.
Last night the progressive forces tested some of the weapons and tactics they will use in next year’s full-blown counter offensive. They worked very, very well.
Progressives won key elections in Ohio, Maine, Mississippi, and Arizona.
The importance of yesterday’s labor victory in Ohio cannot be overstated. It could well mark a major turning point in the history of the American labor movement -and the future of the American middle class.
The people of Ohio rejected right wing attempts to destroy public sector unions by an astounding 61% to 39%. Progressives in Ohio won 82 out of 88 counties.
In his “concession,” the author of the union-stripping bill, Governor John Kasich, looked like a whipped dog. He was.
Last night’s victory will have a direct and immediate impact on the livelihoods of thousands of middle class state employees in Ohio. It will stall similar attempts to destroy unions in other states. It will turbo-charge the campaign to oust Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who jammed a union-stripping measure through his own legislature. And it will massively weaken Kasich and other Republicans in Ohio.
But last night’s victory also carried critical lessons for the progressive forces throughout America as we prepare for the crossroads, defining battle of 2012.
Lesson #1: Creating a Movement. The industrial state labor battles that culminated in last night’s overwhelming Ohio success transformed the image of unions from a large bureaucratic “special interest” that negotiates for workers and are part of the “establishment” — into a movement to protect the interests of the American Middle Class.
The Republican Governors who began these battles hoped to make a bold move to destroy union power. In fact, they have succeeded in creating their worst nightmare — the rebirth of a labor movement.
That is critically important for the future of unions – which by any measure provide the foundation of progressive political power in the United States. It also provides an important lesson for every element of the Progressive community.
These battles put the “movement” back in “labor movement.”
And the importance of “movement” can’t be overstated. Particularly at a time when people are unhappy with the direction of the country and desperately want change — they don’t want leaders who appear to be embedded parts of the status quo. They want to be part of movements for change.
Movements have three critical characteristics:
They make people feel that they are part of something bigger than themselves.
They make people feel that they themselves can play a significant role in bringing about that larger goal.
They involve “chain reactions” — they go viral. You don’t have to only engage people in movements one by one or one or group by group. They begin to engage each other.
Because they make people feel that they are part of something larger than themselves — and that they can personally be a part of achieving that larger goal — movements inspire and empower. And for that reason they give people hope.
To win, Progressives must turn the anger and dissatisfaction with the present into inspiration and hope for the future.
The labor movement turned the battle in Ohio into a fight for the future of America’s middle class. It turned the battle into a fight over the dignity of everyday working people — and their right to have a say in their future. Instead of being about “contracts,” it was about “freedom.”
Lesson #2: It’s much easier to mobilize people to protect what they have than to fight for something to which they aspire.

Read more…