The latest Gallup Poll conducted Aug 4-7, after the S&P credit rating downgrade, affirms a favorable trend for Democratic House candidates, as well as recent polls indicating a big downer for tea party Republicans. According to Lydia Saad’s Gallup post,

Gallup’s first measure of the 2012 congressional elections shows Democrats leading Republicans, 51% to 44%, in registered voters’ preferences for which party’s candidate they would support in their district “if the elections for Congress were being held today.”

Saad notes that the Dem advantage is not quite as large as in ’06 and ’08, when Democrats enjoyed double digit leads in Gallup polls leading up to the election. But the trend line nonetheless appears favorable for Dems.
The poll also brings some unwelcome news for Republicans who have linked their election hopes to the tea party:

Gallup also asked registered voters how a Tea Party endorsement would affect their likelihood of voting for a congressional candidate. The effect is nearly 2-to-1 negative, with 42% saying they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate versus 23% saying they would be more likely. About a third say it would make no difference or are unsure.
Among registered voters, most Republicans say a Tea Party endorsement would either make them more likely to vote for a candidate (44%) or make no difference (42%), while most Democrats say it would make them less likely to vote for a candidate (66%). Independents’ reactions are similar to the national average, with 25% more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by the Tea Party and 38% less likely…These results echo those of a separate question in the new survey showing that, by 20% to 14%, more Americans strongly oppose the Tea Party movement than strongly support it.

Evidently, ‘tea party downgrade’ applies to electoral politics, along with America’s credit rating. Maybe a good bumper sticker for Dems in the months ahead should say “Had Enough Tea?…Vote Democratic.”

Kos nails it cold:

I’ve got to say, I expected to be torn up if we didn’t get to three seats. I expected to suffer through yet another bout of electoral depression, bummed at coming up short yet again. And we did come up short!
Short of what? Short of taking the Wisconsin Senate? Sure. That would’ve been nice.
But let me just say, if tonight was a loss, I hope we have many more such “losses” in 2012.
We took the fight into red territory, and took two seats. What was a safe 19-14 GOP advantage is now a narrow 17-16. If we had those numbers going into 2011, the anti-labor bill would never have passed–one GOPer voted with the Democrats (and hey, Sen. Dale Schultz, the water is mighty fine on our side of the aisle!).
The execrable Randy Hopper is gone. He can cry in his 20-something-year-old mistress’s arms tonight. And Kapanke too. It sucks being unemployed in Wisconsin these days. Maybe they can get a non-union job at McDonald’s.
Beyond Wisconsin, if we can enjoy a similar “loss rate” in Republican-held districts (picking up 33 percent of them), Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a huge majority in 2013. We had a message that resonated with large numbers of working people in overwhelmingly white working-class districts that shifted hard against Democrats in 2010. GOP overreach is winning them back for us. Just think, before today, only 13 state legislators had been recalled in the entire history of this nation.
So yeah, I feel strangely energized and elated.
It’s going to be a long year, and tens of millions of dollars of Koch money (in addition to hundreds of millions more from Rove and allies) are going to force us to fight like hell for every inch of territory. They won’t cede it willingly or fairly. They’ll do their best to cheat or buy whenever they feel they can’t win fairly.
That’s our challenge. I, for one, am ready for it.

In his Daily Kos post, “Democrats’ message in Wisconsin recall: don’t cut safety net to pay for corporate tax breaks,” Chris Bowers finds their ad message promising for Dems, not only in Wisconsin, but nation-wide. Bowers explains:

The closing television ads from We Are Wisconsin, the labor-dominated coalition group coordinating pro-Democratic independent expenditures in the Wisconsin recalls, takes exactly the same angle we are taking in our closing online ads (which start running tomorrow). The ads argue that this election is fundamentally about Republicans cutting vital aspects of the social safety net for the working and middle class, such as public education and health care, in order to pay for tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy. For example, here is their closing ad against Sheila Harsdorf:

We Are Wisconsin is running the exact same ad, changing only the names, against Republicans Alberta Darling and Luther Olsen. As such, this message of Republicans cutting public services to pay off corporations appears to be the centerpiece of their closing campaign. As Greg Sargent notes, Scott Walker also features prominently in these ads, so the message is perhaps most accurately described as “fighting back against Scott Walker’s class war.”
Still, even if it is largely tied into an unpopular figure like Walker, it is notable that a group like We Are Wisconsin has chosen a class war themed message at all for its closing ad. By their very nature, umbrella organizations like We Are Wisconsin do not often take risks. If this is the message that they are closing with, then it must have proven, quantifiably, to be their most successful message during polling and voter contacts.
That’s the real story here: the strongest possible Democratic message right now is that they oppose Republicans who would take from the working and middle classes in order to give to the rich. Further, given that all six of the Republicans facing recalls won their most recent elections in 2008 despite the national Obama wave, if Democrats are able to defeat those Republicans using this message in 2011, then it will stand out as perhaps the strongest Democratic message in a generation.

Bowers concludes with a pitch for ActBlue’s Wisconsin support campaign and adds, “Democrats should run on this message, and not just in Wisconsin and not just in this electoral cycle. This should be exactly what we stand for as a party, both in elections and in terms of what we deliver when we are in governance.”

In his latest ‘Public Opinion snapshot,’ TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira has what should be the last word in any discussion about Medicare cuts. “Conservatives have successfully held the country’s economy hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling,” notes Teixeira. “But they’ve been less successful in cutting Medicare. There’s a simple reason for this: Cutting Medicare to reduce the deficit is very, very unpopular.” Teixeira adds,

Fifty-nine percent of respondents in the latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll say there should be no reductions in Medicare to reduce the deficit, compared to 30 percent who support minor reductions and just 10 percent who support major reductions.

In fact, the public doesn’t even want to talk about the possibility, Teixeira explains:

Even more definitively, the public thinks reductions in Medicare spending should not even be part of the discussion about reducing the long-term budget deficit by an overwhelming 67-28 margin.

The message is clear for Dems, says Teixeira. “So progressives should continue to defend Medicare vigorously with the confidence that they have the public’s strong support.”

If you know anyone who believes that a disinformation campaign to confuse voters is beneath the dignity of the GOP, have them read Eric Kleefeld’s Talking Points Memo post “Koch Group Mails Suspicious Absentee Ballot Letters In Wisconsin” and think again. Kleefeld explains:

Is the Koch-backed conservative group Americans For Prosperity up to no good in the Wisconsin state Senate recalls?
As Politico reports, mailers have now turned up from Americans For Prosperity Wisconsin, addressed to voters in two of the Republican-held recall districts, where the elections will be held on August 9. The mailers ask recipients to fill out an absentee ballot application, and send it in — by August 11, after Election Day for the majority of these races.
“These are people who are our 1’s [solid Democrats] in the voterfile who we already knew,” a Democratic source told Politico. “They ain’t AFP members, that’s for damn sure.”

A little creative snooping helped i.d. the source of the disinformation, as Kleefeld reports:

There are two other recall elections being held on August 16, targeting two Democratic incumbents, but they are both a distance away from the recipients of these particular mailers.
Furthermore, a close look at the mailer shows a continuation of irregularities that have already involved conservative groups and absentee ballots in the state.
The mailing address for the applications is listed as “Absentee Ballot Application Processing Center, P.O. Box 1327, Madison WI 53701-1327.” A Google search shows that this address is not any sort of government office, but has been used by the conservative group Wisconsin Family Action.
In addition, Wisconsin Right To Life previously used the same address for absentee ballot application letters and phone calls that were sent out shortly before the July 12 Democratic primaries, but after the official deadlines for the applications. The group responded to criticism, saying the phone calls were intended to be for the general elections in August.
Calls placed by TPM to Americans For Prosperity Wisconsin, and to Wisconsin Family Action, were not immediately returned.

Kleefeld goes on to report that Americans for Prosperity Wisconsin director Matt Seaholm told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the August 11 date in the mailer was a typo, and that the group is not trying to mislead voters. “No (mailing) list is perfect,” Seaholm said.
But “George C” adds in the comments in response to Kelfeld’s post “Not uncommon. Some guys on the Repub payroll were recently convicted in Maryland of posting fliers in African American communities stating that the actual voting day was the day after Election day. Not to mention the guy in NH who blocked calls to the Dem HQ on election day.”
UPDATE: According to Jason Zimmerman’s report at WBAY’s website (ABC Green Bay affiliate),

The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board is working to clear up confusion surrounding absentee voting in the upcoming recall elections…The board says it has reports of automated phone calls or telephone polls giving people the wrong election dates.
The GAB also says it has several reports of unofficial absentee ballot applications going out to voters.
While it’s legal for political parties and other groups to distribute absentee ballot applications, the GAB getting reports of forms containing errors, such as incorrect voting addresses and dates.

Gee, wonder who is behind all that? Sounds like it’s time for the DOJ to step in, find out and prosecute.

TDS Co-Editor Stanley B. Greenberg’s article, “Why Voters Tune Out Democrats” in the Saturday edition of The New York Times addressed the disconnect between the public’s relatively progressive views on economic policy and their lack of faith in politicians and the government as a critical problem for progressives. Noting that voters in industrial democracies are “generally turning to conservative and right-wing political parties” in this time of economic crisis, Greenberg observes:

It’s perplexing. When unemployment is high, and the rich are getting richer, you would think that voters of average means would flock to progressives, who are supposed to have their interests in mind — and who historically have delivered for them.
During the last half-century or so, when a Democratic president has led the country, people have tended to experience lower unemployment, less inequality and rising income compared with periods of Republican governance. There is a reason, however, that many voters in the developed world are turning away from Democrats, Socialists, liberals and progressives.
My vantage point on voter behavior comes through my company, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and its work for center-left parties globally, starting with Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992. For the last decade, I have worked in partnership with James Carville conducting monthly polls digging into America’s mood and studying how progressives can develop successful electoral strategies. (I am also married to a Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut, Rosa L. DeLauro.)
In analyzing these polls in the United States, I see clearly that voters feel ever more estranged from government — and that they associate Democrats with government. If Democrats are going to be encumbered by that link, they need to change voters’ feelings about government. They can recite their good plans as a mantra and raise their voices as if they had not been heard, but voters will not listen to them if government is disreputable.
Oddly, many voters prefer the policies of Democrats to the policies of Republicans. They just don’t trust the Democrats to carry out those promises.

It’s a disturbing paradox, Greenberg explains further:

When we conducted our election-night national survey after last year’s Republican sweep, voters strongly chose new investment over a new national austerity. They thought Democrats were more likely to champion the middle class. And as has become clear in the months since, the public does not share conservatives’ views on rejecting tax cuts and cutting retirement programs. Numerous recent polls have shown that the public sides with the president and Democrats on raising taxes to get to a balanced budget.
But in smaller, more probing focus groups, voters show they are fairly cynical about Democratic politicians’ stands. They tune out the politicians’ fine speeches and plans and express sentiments like these: “It’s just words.” “There’s just such a control of government by the wealthy that whatever happens, it’s not working for all the people; it’s working for a few of the people.” “We don’t have a representative government anymore.”
…Just a quarter of the country is optimistic about our system of government — the lowest since polls by ABC and others began asking this question in 1974. But a crisis of government legitimacy is a crisis of liberalism. It doesn’t hurt Republicans. If government is seen as useless, what is the point of electing Democrats who aim to use government to advance some public end?

The bailouts added to the perception that government primarily serves the elites, Greenberg adds:

GOVERNMENT operates by the wrong values and rules, for the wrong people and purposes, the Americans I’ve surveyed believe. Government rushes to help the irresponsible and does little for the responsible. Wall Street lobbyists govern, not Main Street voters. Vexingly, this promotes both national and middle-class decline yet cannot be moved by conventional democratic politics. Lost jobs, soaring spending and crippling debt make America ever weaker, unable to meet its basic obligations to educate and protect its citizens. Yet politicians take care of themselves and party interests, while government grows remote and unresponsive, leaving people feeling powerless.
…When presented with vivid descriptions of income inequality in America, people are deflated, rather than empowered to bring change. In surveys, they tell me that they think the politicians and the chief executives are “piggybacking off each other.” They think that the game is rigged and that the wealthy and big industries get policies that reinforce their advantage. And they do not think their voices matter.
That government and the elite appear blithely to promote globalization and economic integration, while the working population loses income, makes the frustration more intense.
Our research shows that the growth of self-identified conservatives began in the fall of 2008 with the Wall Street bailout, well before Mr. Obama embarked on his recovery and spending program. The public watched the elite and leaders of both parties rush to the rescue. The government saved irresponsible executives who bankrupted their own companies, hurt many people and threatened the welfare of the country. When Mr. Obama championed the bailout of the auto companies and allowed senior executives at bailed-out companies to take bonuses, voters concluded that he was part of the operating elite consensus. If you owned a small business that was in trouble or a home or pension that lost much of its value, you were on your own. As people across the country told me, the average citizen doesn’t “get money for free.” Their conclusion: Government works for the irresponsible, not the responsible.

To address the concerns about Democrats in particular, Greenberg outlines a new messaging approach for Dems:

Read more…

A national web survey conducted this week by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner on behalf of Democracy Corps, shows that Independent voters do not trust House Speaker John Boehner and the Congressional Republicans on the debt ceiling and budget deficit debate. These swing voters are tuned in and paying close attention to the debt ceiling debate in Washington and are very concerned about what could happen to the economy should Congress not act.
Most problematic for Speaker Boehner and Republicans is these voters represent a critical bloc that propelled them into the majority last November, but have now turned away from the Republicans. Independent voters supported Republicans nationally by a double digit margin last November, but that support has fallen off during the debt ceiling debate. Independents are extremely negative toward Boehner and just 30 percent favor Boehner and the Republican’s approach on the debt ceiling debate. Boehner’s personal standing is abysmally low with this bloc, including among self-described conservatives.
Equally important, President Obama has a sizeable advantage over Boehner and the Republicans among Independents on who is more concerned with the interests of the middle class, and Boehner is viewed as looking out more for millionaires and billionaires by a huge margin. Independents simply don’t see Boehner as an advocate for the middle class.
President Obama and Democrats have a real advantage as Boehner and Republicans lack credibility among these swing voters as the debt ceiling debate continues.

Read thither and yon, google all day, and you’re still not going to find a better take-down of the MSM’s proclivity for false equivalency — and the damage it is doing in the current debt ceiling negotiations than Paul Krugman’s “The Centrist Cop-Out” in today’s New York Times. Some excerpts:

The facts of the crisis over the debt ceiling aren’t complicated. Republicans have, in effect, taken America hostage, threatening to undermine the economy and disrupt the essential business of government unless they get policy concessions they would never have been able to enact through legislation. And Democrats — who would have been justified in rejecting this extortion altogether — have, in fact, gone a long way toward meeting those Republican demands.
…Many people in the news media apparently can’t bring themselves to acknowledge this simple reality. News reports portray the parties as equally intransigent; pundits fantasize about some kind of “centrist” uprising, as if the problem was too much partisanship on both sides.
Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” But would that cult still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which one party is clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size of the ransom?
The answer, it turns out, is yes. And this is no laughing matter: The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.

Krugman goes on to explain how President Obama bent way over backwards to negotiate with Republicans, inmcluding “a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans over taxes and spending…extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities…an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases.” The President’s concessions were not merely centrist, but “a bit to the right of the average Republican voter’s preferences.” Krugman continues:

But Republicans rejected the deal. So what was the headline on an Associated Press analysis of that breakdown in negotiations? “Obama, Republicans Trapped by Inflexible Rhetoric.” A Democratic president who bends over backward to accommodate the other side — or, if you prefer, who leans so far to the right that he’s in danger of falling over — is treated as being just the same as his utterly intransigent opponents. Balance!
…Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don’t. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing.
But for those who insist that the center is always the place to be, I have an important piece of information: We already have a centrist president…

Krugman cites President Obama’s HCR and tax policies as examples and adds:

So what’s with the buzz about a centrist uprising? As I see it, it’s coming from people who recognize the dysfunctional nature of modern American politics, but refuse, for whatever reason, to acknowledge the one-sided role of Republican extremists in making our system dysfunctional. And it’s not hard to guess at their motivation. After all, pointing out the obvious truth gets you labeled as a shrill partisan, not just from the right, but from the ranks of self-proclaimed centrists.
But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.

In fairness, there have been MSM reporters and editorials that have not been hustled by “the centrist cop-out” and they merit respect for doing an honest job. But Krugman is right that too many others have swilled the pseudo-centrist Koolaid, and now are very much a part of the problem.

J.P. Green’s post below covered a range voter suppression activities. But now we have a new, particularly disgusting initiative from Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker, reports Mike Hall in the AFL-CIO Now Blog:

In May, Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed a Voter ID bill that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of students, seniors, poor and minority Wisconsin voters who don’t have drivers’ licenses or state-issued photo IDs.
Now it appears as if the Walker administration is going a step further to keep voters who aren’t likely to be Walker supporters (see list below) away from the polls. He’s closing 10 Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices where residents can obtain the photo IDs they will need before they are allowed to vote. Supposedly, the move is to free up DMV employees to staff offices that will have expanded hours to provide ID services.
But state Rep. Andy Jorgensen (D) says it appears the decisions were based on politics, with the department targeting offices for closure in Democratic areas and expanding hours for those in Republican districts.

As for the old ‘voter fraud’ excuse being peddled by GOP politicians coast to coast, Hall notes that there were more UFO sightings (40) in Wisconsin in 2008 than reports of improper voting (14) — out of 3 million votes cast in that election.
The i.d. law itself is draconian, but the required procedures compound the injustice:

While Walkerites claim that all a person needs to do is head to the nearest DMV and get his or her “free” voter ID, as recent hidden camera video shows, if you don’t specifically ask for a “Voter ID,” you’ll be charged $28, the cost of a regular state photo ID. There are no signs and the clerks are not instructed to ask what type of photo ID a person is after. In effect, that’s a $28 poll tax.

The Wisconsin i.d. law kicks in next year. But Hall points out that “voters will be asked to provide a photo ID but will be allowed to vote without one” in the upcoming recall elections.