In Los Angeles, HSG Campaigns client and first time candidate Joe Buscaino won his primary for the LA City Council.  He managed to upset his opponents from the political establishment and now moves into a run-off election for Congresswoman [...]]]> Last night was a great night for HSG Campaigns and for progressives all across the country.

In Los Angeles, HSG Campaigns client and first time candidate Joe Buscaino won his primary for the LA City Council.  He managed to upset his opponents from the political establishment and now moves into a run-off election for Congresswoman Janice Hahn’s old Council seat.

From the Daily Breeze:

“Early favorites were [Pat] McOsker, 51, who stepped aside temporarily as president of the city’s firefighters union, and [Assemblymember Warren] Furutani, who had the backing of the county and state Democratic Party.

…But it was Buscaino who emerged early as a grass-roots favorite, especially among voters in San Pedro, where his lawn signs were prolific.”

Other HSG Campaigns clients in the LA area include Fredrick Sykes, who advanced to the run-off for his West Covina City Council race, and the LA County Federation of Labor, which helped re-elect El Monte Mayor Andre Quintero by a 58% to 42% margin.

Big Wins for Progressives Everywhere

The big news this morning is how well progressives did in races across the country.

In Ohio, they defeated Governor John Kasich’s union-busting law by a whopping 61% to 39% margin.  In Mississippi, they killed an anti-choice state amendment 58% to 42%.

We also saved the Kentucky governor’s mansion, our state senate majorities in Iowa (and possibly Virginia), and Election Day registration in Maine.

Congratulations to our clients and progressive friends everywhere!

In the past few years, we have written extensively on the subject of new media in politics, and nowadays it seems to be what everybody is talking about.

Late last [...]]]> At HSG Campaigns, we have also been excited about the opportunities presented by QR codes, and we recently tested one out.

In the past few years, we have written extensively on the subject of new media in politics, and nowadays it seems to be what everybody is talking about.

Late last week, we released a new mail piece for one of our current campaigns, Joe Buscaino for L.A. City Council. On the piece, a teenage girl named Treasa tells the story of Joe’s volunteer work for the Boys and Girls Club.

Scanning the QR code with your smart phone, using an app like RedLaser or QuickMark, you are taken directly to a video of Treasa persuading you to vote for Joe.

A great way to get out a great message. It’s more targeted and more affordable than TV, but still has that TV-like impact on the voter.

There has been lively discussion and debate among political consultants regarding new media spending. Last month, the magazine Campaigns and Elections did a roundtable about the future of TV advertising with new media now in the mix. Similarly, there’s been a lively forum for the past 3 weeks on the AAPC’s LinkedIn group titled “Is Direct Mail Dead?”

That last discussion was started because of an article on the Direct Marketing News website. The question posed: how can direct mail vendors transform the industry to meet the technological norms of the 21st Century?

One answer was QR Codes.

Direct mail will stay in the political marketing mix, but eventually as a smaller piece in a larger puzzle. “Direct mail isn’t dead, but we have to change the way we look at it,” said Cami Zimmer, president of Campaign Touch, a mobile and digital strategy agency that develops SMS campaigns and mobile apps for political groups. “I’m seeing an increase in the use of quick-response codes on literature that’s sent out. It really doesn’t cost anything extra to include them in direct mail, and it bridges the offline and online worlds.”

Fellow consultant/blogger Ben Donahower also spoke highly of QR codes for the website e.politics. He points out that smart phones are becoming more and more widespread (1 in 2 Americans is expected to have one by the end of this year) and QR code scans have been skyrocketing since the beginning of 2011.

A new opportunity is opening up in campaign politics, and we’re proud to be in on the ground floor.

Do you have intriguing ideas for using QR codes in political campaigns? Tweet at us @HSG_Campaigns!

Note: This is a guest blog post and the views and opinions in this piece do not necessarily represent the views and opinions at HSG Campaigns.

The better we understand marketing the more likely our candidates get elected and our causes [...]]]> Summary: Ben Donahower explains how we can use tested marketing principles in political campaigns.

Note: This is a guest blog post and the views and opinions in this piece do not necessarily represent the views and opinions at HSG Campaigns.

The better we understand marketing the more likely our candidates get elected and our causes get adopted. In fact, the similarities between marketing and campaigns and elections are striking. Campaigns and marketers might use different words but they name the same concepts. Ultimately, marketers and campaigns want people to say yes to their offer. One offers a product or service and the other ideas and representation.

Let’s make voters and others an offer they can’t refuse!

To Get An Answer Add Scarcity

We’ve all seen offers for products and services where the price or the product was only good for a certain time. Act now because the first hundred customers will get this widget for three easy payments of $19.95!

Fortunately, politics is a business of deadlines. Campaigns commonly use scarcity is to raise funds before a campaign finance deadline and to persuade undecided voters to make up their minds close to the election. Adding scarcity to your ask for financial support or to vote for the candidate will increase the percentage of people who give a straight answer and the number of people who will say yes.

Look for other deadlines and take advantage of them! If you have an upcoming vote by mail deadline, for example, reach out to people who are likely to vote by mail, share with them the benefits of voting by mail and that the deadline is fast approaching.

Its Give and Take: In That Order

Robert Cialdini in his book, 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive, shared an experiment where researchers asked a group of homeowners to place a large “drive carefully” sign on their front lawns. Only 17% agreed. The researchers also went to another group of homeowners but instead of asking them to post a sign on their first visit, they were asked to display a small window sign. Now that the researchers had a mental foot in the door, the next time they visited those homeowners, 78% of them agreed to take the large “drive carefully” lawn sign.

The second group of homeowners easily agreed to a small window sign. After they had displayed the sign for some time they identified themselves as the kind of people that cared about whether others drove carefully or not. Since the small windows signs helped them self-identify as that type of person they easily agreed to take the much larger and less attractive yard sign.

This same marketing principle applies to political campaigns whether it’s yard signs, campaign contributions, or something in between.

The Power of Pricing Psychology

Marketers are very strategic in how much they ask for a product. A product price, for example, is $14.95 in a bricks and mortar retail or something like $27 online. Marketers also think about the structure of the price such as the three easy payments of $19.95.

Activists can use the same principles of pricing psychology to make it easier for undecided voters to vote for a candidate. Tell an undecided voter that they aren’t making a lifelong commitment but putting the candidate in office for one term. If they aren’t happy with their representation, their money back guarantee is that they can return the elected official to private life and elect someone else. More people will vote for the candidate because you have framed the ask for a vote in a way that is low cost and guaranteed.

Marketing Works

When we market a candidate or an issue using these ideas and other marketing strategies, we are communicating ideas in a way that are accessible and compelling. We shouldn’t feel sleazy about our efforts unless we are making claims that we can’t deliver on. The reason why we think that marketing is sleazy comes from unethical marketers who make false promises about their products and candidates alike. If we market our issues and candidates ethically, we our doing ourselves and our causes a service.

Ben Donahower blogs about campaign yard signs at Campaign Trail Yard Signs and has worked on campaigns from State Representative to President. You can follow Ben on Twitter at @iapprovethismsg.

With the victory of State Senator Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) on Tuesday, one recall election is done with 8 to go.

Democrats, who currently hold no state chamber or office of significance in Wisconsin, need to net 3 seats [...]]]> Summary: State Representative Sandy Pasch is now Democrats’ #1 candidate for taking back the State Senate.

With the victory of State Senator Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) on Tuesday, one recall election is done with 8 to go.

Democrats, who currently hold no state chamber or office of significance in Wisconsin, need to net 3 seats in the State Senate to take it back during this year’s recall elections. And the path to reclaiming the upper chamber is clearer than ever.

Conventional wisdom is that State Senators Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac) and Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse) are lost causes for the Republican Party. Democratic challengers Jessica King and Jennifer Shilling are now largely considered shoo-ins, so long as Democrats keep the pressure up.

From the beginning, however, Democrats Nancy Nusbaum and Fred Clark have been seen by many as long shots against State Senators Robert Cowles (R-Allouez) and Luther Olsen (R-Ripon).

And while teacher Shelly Moore’s candidacy against State Senator Sheila Harsdorf (R-River Falls) once gave Democrats great hope, a series of missteps prior to the campaign have made her chances look bleak over the past month.

That leaves one race — between State Senator Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and State Rep. Sandy Pasch (D-Whitefish Bay) — as the Democrats’ focal point for these recall elections.

Darling took just 50.46% of the vote in 2008 during her fourth re-election campaign, but in this wealthy suburban-Milwaukee district, the debate about collective bargaining rights did not have the same effect it had in other areas of Wisconsin.

In a March DailyKos/PPP poll, Darling led the generic Democrat 52%-44% for a hypothetical recall election (compare that to Hopper, who trailed 5 points to a hypothetical Democrat, or Kapanke, who trailed 14 points in the same poll).

Then there are the finance reports, which show Darling out-raising Pasch by a 2-to-1 margin. Similarly, Darling had almost twice as much cash-on-hand as of the end of June.

So what chance does Pasch have of winning?

Quite a good chance, in fact.

Milwaukee’s progressive residents, still fuming from Governor Walker’s end of collective bargaining, budget cuts, and other far-right measures, are taking to the streets of the northern suburbs en masse to canvass and phone-bank on Pasch’s behalf.

We Are Wisconsin, a coalition of labor unions, is conducting a massive independent expenditure operation against Darling, along with several other progressive organizations.

And Republican attempts to shore up support by running as “fake Democrats” to force primaries and give incumbents more time to campaign appears to be backfiring.

Altogether, victory is becoming more and more out-of-reach for Darling. A recent poll from the Mellman Group finds support for Pasch has jumped 8 points in the past two months, while Darling has slid 2 points. With 7% of voters still undecided, Pasch is in a virtual dead-heat with the Republican State Senator.

With this sort of momentum behind Pasch, things are looking good. She still has more than 2 weeks to seal the deal with voters.

Unfortunately, conservative special interest groups have caught on, and are spending millions now on TV ads, accusing Pasch of voting against child protections from sex predators (undoubtedly part of the same budget that took $800 million from public schools for more corporate tax breaks).

And even if Democrats pick up seats from Hopper, Kapanke, and Darling, they still have to protect State Senators Bob Wirch (D-Kenosha) and Jim Holperin (D-Conover). Wirch should be safe, but Holperin has a near toss-up race in his Northwoods Wisconsin district.

If Democrats keep ramping-up the pressure on Darling, however, and hold on to Holperin, the month of August could be very good for Wisconsin.

We seem to think that the month before the 2008 general election was about the economy or all the momentum Barack Obama had over John McCain. The truth is that the [...]]]> Summary: The darling of the Tea Party has taken center-stage in the GOP presidential race, but does she have what it takes to win?

We seem to think that the month before the 2008 general election was about the economy or all the momentum Barack Obama had over John McCain. The truth is that the months before November 4, 2008 were Palin-mania.

All anyone could focus on were the shenanigans Palin got herself into in the past 24 hours. Screwing up the Katie Couric interviews, Troopergate, getting booed at a Philadelphia Flyers game, that’s all anyone cared about.

And it was in those days (after an incident in which she criticized city-folk for not being “real Americans”) that we were introduced to another new, loose-tongued, conservative, female politician.

Michele Bachmann was introduced to America when she told Chris Matthews that the media should uncover all the anti-American members of Congress plotting socialist conspiracies. You’d hardly know it today, however, the way she’s being portrayed in the media.

Since her debut with Matthews she’s had no shortage of gaffes, but she spoke at Tea Party protests, delivered the Tea Party’s response to the State of the Union Address, and launched the House Tea Party Caucus. By all means, she has taken every opportunity to shore up support among the right-wing of the Republican Party.

Perhaps most importantly, she has raised her fellow Republicans a lot of money.

Yet when she hinted at running for president, it was hard for many establishment politicos to take her seriously. That all changed at the first GOP presidential debate.

Bachmann stole the show, even using the debate to announce her candidacy, and winning the most post-debate media attention of anyone there. She was composed, confident, and actually sounded intelligent.

In the weeks since the debate she has made her formal announcement in Iowa and made gains in the polls. A recent New Hampshire poll finds she’s one of only two candidates breaking double digits (11% to Romney’s 36%) and in Iowa she trails Romney by just 1 point at 22%.

Republicans have been looking for their anti-Romney (just as Democrats were looking for their anti-Hillary four years ago) and they may have found her in Michele Bachmann.

The Minnesota Congresswoman appeals to conservatives the same way Obama appealed to liberals in 2007. She has a compelling biography (a mother of 5 with an additional 23 foster children), she knows how to appeal to the base without scarring centrists (see Ed Kilgore’s recent piece for the New Republic) and she’s not the pre-ordained establishment choice.

But does she have what it takes to win?

Like we said before, Bachmann has no shortage of gaffes in her history, and most skeletons don’t come out of the closet until the worst possible time for a candidate. At some point in the near future, Bachmann’s past political carelessness will catch up to her. It might not sink her candidacy, but it will create speed-bumps for her campaign.

In fact, the greatest burden of negative stories on Bachmann will be to her campaign, which will be forced to spend critical time and energy defending her instead of organizing, fundraising, and framing the campaign in their own terms. Obviously they will shoot back by criticizing the “lame-stream media”, but if too many stories accumulate, it won’t be enough.

Let’s not forget what it did to the McCain-Palin campaign. After the Alaskan governor was selected as McCain’s running mate, her down-to-earth folksy demeanor won the hearts and minds of conservative voters across the country.

But then came story after story that cast doubt on her legitimacy: rumors she believed man once walked with dinosaurs; her husband’s registration with the Alaska secessionist party; her unwed teenage daughter’s pregnancy; and of course “I can see Russia from my house!”

It may have already started for the Minnesota congresswoman. Take the recent story of her husband, Marcus, who called gays “barbarians” on a Christian radio program last year. And of course there’s the time she was introduced to us three years ago.

Typically, when there’s that kind of crazy behind a candidate, it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Timing of the media’s pounce could break a Bachmann candidacy.

Bachmann has a good team working for her and she could very well be the GOP nominee, but not until she first faces the very real test of handling the inevitable pressure of media scrutiny.

An interesting pair of articles from the National Journal caught my eyes last month.

The first one had to do with the Republican Party’s GOTV operation (better known on their side as the 72-Hour Program). Two years ago we mentioned how GOTV was changing with the new trends of early voting across America. Now it seems that these trends are catching up with the GOP.

From the National Journal:

“Republicans once wielded a vaunted 72-hour program, which identified voters most likely to cast ballots for Republicans, and whipped them into heading for the polls. Now, the parties must begin turning out voters weeks in advance of Election Day. At the moment, Democrats are much better equipped to get their voters to the polls over that stretch than are Republicans.

“Though Republican operatives are loath to publicly acknowledge the shortcoming, it is common knowledge among senior strategists that turnout operations are underfunded and out of date.”

Many top Republicans are saying that the static of the 72-Hour Program had a lot to do with Harry Reid’s victory in Nevada and the gubernatorial losses in Minnesota and Connecticut last year.

Unfortunately for the GOP, there’s not much that can be done. The RNC has been in tough financial times for years, and many strategists like Karl Rove (who helped develop the 72-Hour Program back in 2002) have gone “independent.”

Might they take GOTV with them?

This brings me to the second article that caught my eye: one on the declining relevance of parties.

“Why have both parties been so reluctant to invest in New York’s 26^th District?” the article asks.

The answer:

“The flurry of independent expenditures this week, which eventually forced both sides into the race, began with American Crossroads, an independent expenditure organization (headed up by Karl Rove, no less) that in 2010 spent more than $70 million on behalf of GOP candidates. And that tells us a ton about who really drives political decisions in Washington.”

And it’s absolutely true. Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in early 2010, everything about electoral politics has changed — and that includes GOTV. That’s especially true when you consider how cash-strapped the RNC, NRCC, DCCC, etc. are.

While the Republican Party’s 72-Hour Program appeared to fail them in 2010, Republicans were able to take back the House of Representatives as well as several Senate seats because of an organized IE get-out-the-vote program called “November is Coming.”

That effort, led by corporate-financed Tea Party groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, did the GOP very well. And it’s a sign of what’s to come in GOTV organizing.

Thoughts on the GOP Presidential Race

Tonight the Republican candidates for President will meet in New Hampshire for the first true debate before 2012. There’s been a lot of focus on how poor the field looks for Republicans, including a recent Onion headline that read “Handmade Anti-Obama Sign Currently Frontrunner For Republican Presidential Nomination.”

Here are my thoughts on the declared candidates as they move forward:

Mitt Romney

He has the name recognition, and polls say he could potentially beat Obama. But between the flip-flops in the past, his Mormon faith, and his slick political personality, people just don’t really trust him. Don’t expect that to change. He could do well by addressing his RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare problem as a states-rights issue, and by keeping the message 100% on the economy. He has to hope then the economy won’t get better.

Tim Pawlenty

In 2009 I said he would be the candidate most likely to win the GOP nomination and I am holding that prediction. He is to the Republicans in 2010 what John Kerry was to Democrats in 2004: boring but safe. He’s not a wildcard like Rick Santorum or Rick Perry (or Howard Dean) and he’s not too slick to be trusted like Mitt Romney (or John Edwards). He’s nominee material because he’s electable.

Newt Gingrich

Don’t be too quick to discount him. He’s had about as rough of a start as you can have, but John McCain was in a similar place just 4 years ago. Some of these old dog Republicans can pull off the “come-back kid” routine. Plus with a smaller staff and a more intimate-with-voters strategy, Newt’s campaign can be more efficient than it would have been.

Herman Cain

While I don’t think he’ll get the job done in the end, Cain is building name-recognition among the party faithful. With his compelling biography and message, he’s actually got a shot at this. Don’t write him off as the GOP’s token-black candidate: he’s anything but.

Rick Santorum

To me, the former Senator from Pennsylvania resembles something between a Howard Dean (who was again, unelectable) and a Chris Dodd or Dick Gephardt: old-timers who put their dues in and then wanted to go big. But those candidates never won the nomination, they had all been in office when they ran, and they certainly never had a Google problem.

Jon Huntsman

Way too moderate — and connected to Obama — to be given a chance by the Republican base. For Huntsman, there’s simply no path to the nomination.

Ron Paul

They’re trying to get rid of him in Texas as it is. Even though his son pulled off the upset in Kentucky, I see it as very unlikely the libertarian can break 12% at the Iowa Caucus or New Hampshire primary.

The Others

To put it simply, if a political-junky like me can’t figure out who the other candidates are, I see it as very unlikely the voters can.

In 2010, we witnessed something strange within the Democratic Party: we avoided primaries like the plague.

In Wisconsin, in particular, there was a general hush-hush to any talk about a primary in the gubernatorial race, and there was a strong structural effort [...]]]> Summary: Dave explains why primaries will help us elect more Democrats this cycle.

In 2010, we witnessed something strange within the Democratic Party: we avoided primaries like the plague.

In Wisconsin, in particular, there was a general hush-hush to any talk about a primary in the gubernatorial race, and there was a strong structural effort to forego a primary in the race to replace retiring House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey in his district.

In the end, however, Republicans mopped up Wisconsin’s electoral floor.

We typically say that there are pros and cons to primaries.  There are certainly potential drawbacks to having them.  Among the concerns raised by party activists and insiders alike:

• Primaries eat up too many resources.  They make candidates of the same party spend more time and money fighting each other rather than the other party.  Meanwhile contributors can get tapped out before the general election comes around.
• Primaries bring out the hard-liners.  They can make it difficult for a nominee to transition to a more centrist message once they enter the general election phase.
• Primaries hurt party unity.  Supporters of one Democrat or another may not be as supportive of the party’s eventual nominee once their favorite candidate is eliminated.

Certainly no individual candidate or campaign would want a primary.  After all, it’s just one more hurdle to climb.  But for the party and its supporters, these concerns about primaries are overstated.

And let’s look at the positive reasons to have a primary:

• Primaries give the party’s candidates greater exposure than they would have otherwise.  In Wisconsin, the GOP gubernatorial primary between Scott Walker and Mark Neumann gave those candidates months to collectively throw mud at Democrats while Democratic candidate Tom Barrett appeared (in so far as media coverage went) to sit on his hands.
• Primaries help the party get all of their candidates’ skeletons of out the closet early, so they have a smaller impact come general election time.  Meanwhile, the candidate with the fewest skeletons and electability problems typically becomes the nominee.
• Primaries give the party’s candidates more of the most valuable resource in politics: time.  When you know you have to face a primary in addition to a general election, you make sure you give yourself more time to build a team, identify supporters, and develop a winning brand.

Many of these reasons for having primaries not only outweigh the drawbacks, but they can actually minimize them.

For example, having more exposure (like Walker and Neumann did because they were in a primary) actually helps raise money.  When the media ignores you (and they will if you’re not in a primary) it’s harder to look like a credible candidate to many donors.  This helps minimize the often made claim about primaries eating up resources.

Another example: when primaries help bring out the skeletons in the closet, it helps the primary voters decide which candidate would be more electable in the general.  Believe it or not, this tends to be a major factor among primary voters (think Kerry beating Dean in 2004) and it helps minimize the problem of hard-liners demanding a polarizing nominee.

And when it comes to party unity, only the most extreme cases of primary mud-slinging and hard-feelings will continue to divide the party come November.  If Obama could withstand it after his battle with Clinton, can’t most nominees?

Last week, 4 Democratic candidates in California’s 36^th Congressional District lost their bid in the special primary election there.  But virtually all of their supporters are going to support Janice Hahn (the Democratic nominee) over Craig Huey (a Tea Party Republican).

In the end, most elections come down to winning over independents in November.  The more time that is spent organizing, advertising, and blasting Republicans in that particular community, the more likely the independents will lean toward the Party of Jefferson when the time is right.

We made a mistake by avoiding primaries in 2010.  Let’s not repeat it in 2012.

According to an article out yesterday in Politico, President Obama’s team is trying to paint a portrait of the past few days that will make the death of Osama bin Laden the defining [...]]]> Summary: Why the death of Osama bin Laden won’t carry the president to re-election.

According to an article out yesterday in Politico, President Obama’s team is trying to paint a portrait of the past few days that will make the death of Osama bin Laden the defining moment of the current presidency [1].

Almost everyone is expecting Obama to get a jump in the approval ratings this week.

But later in that article, one insider gave some sobering predictions for Obama supporters.

When asked how long a new Obama honeymoon might last, a senior Democratic strategist replied: “How long does it take USA Today/Gallup to come out with his new favorable/unfavorable ratings and his new strong leader numbers? Take that, then add a week. … After that, it’s over.”

In fact, that seems to be the consensus opinion from analysts like Charlie Cook, pundits across the media, and political strategists alike.  This news is going to be nice for the president, but it won’t last long.

But why?

Soon enough, the day-to-day struggles of Americans will take center-stage once again.  The rise of gas prices in particular — with no clear end in sight — could have detrimental effects to the presidency.

As I wrote back in November [2] before the GOP massacred the Democrats in power, “political scientists (Niemi and Weisberg, Nadeau and Lewis-Beck, Miller and Shanks, Lodge and Steenbergen) have pointed out for decades, people blindly vote against incumbents when the economy is bad.”

In another Politico article [3], a Republican operative put it rather simply.

“My guy took down the Berlin Wall and won the Gulf war, but it didn’t matter,” recalled former George H.W. Bush’s political director Ron Kaufman, noting, like a half-dozen other Republicans, Bush’s 89 percent approval rating in the wake of Desert Storm.

“This election is about three things: jobs, houses and cars,” Kaufman added. “My job, my house and putting gas in my car.”

And in that 1992 election, Clinton Campaign Manager James Carville explained that phenomenon with 4 of the most famous words in politics: “it’s the economy, stupid.”

And it always is.

Who deserves credit for bringing down bin Laden?

A new Gallup poll [4] finds that 71% of Americans give Obama a “great deal” or a “moderate amount” of credit for the raid on bin Laden’s compound.

It sounds good at first glance, but that means an incredible 29% of Americans feel the president didn’t deserve much (if any) credit.  This despite several facts:

1) Obama ended the Bush-era policy of not caring where bin Laden was (there are several statements the former administration made to that effect)

2) The president took an unusual hands-on approach to this mission, even watching it in real time from the White House with his national security team

3) Everybody — including Speaker Boehner and even Glenn Beck — it seems is commending Obama for his role in bringing down bin Laden.

On another note from Gallup, the president’s job approval rating [5] has inched up to 47% with 44% disapproving.  Much of that data, however, was collected before the bin Laden announcement.

[1] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54153.html

[2] http://whatareyoulookingatpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/10/editorial-difficulty-in-facing-november.html

[3] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54163.html

[4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/147395/Americans-Back-Bin-Laden-Mission-Credit-Military-CIA.aspx

[5] http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

On Friday, grassroots organizers in the La Crosse area announced they had collected more than twice as many signatures as they needed to recall GOP State Senator Dan Kapanke.

Many Wisconsinites, and non-Wisconsinites alike, have been asking about the exact process and timeline [...]]]> Summary: What to know about State Senate Recalls in Wisconsin this year.

On Friday, grassroots organizers in the La Crosse area announced they had collected more than twice as many signatures as they needed to recall GOP State Senator Dan Kapanke.

Many Wisconsinites, and non-Wisconsinites alike, have been asking about the exact process and timeline for the recall of state senators this year.

This is the jist of it.

The recall process is complex and, due to the unprecedented number of recall efforts happening at the same time, specific timelines for recalls in any individual State Senate district are uncertain.

Petition Due Dates
Recall petitioners have 60 days to collect the appropriate number of signatures needed to initiate a recall election following the registration of their committees.

The number of signatures a recall petition committee needs to collect is equal to 25% of the number of votes in the most recent race for Governor in that district.

The following table reviews the petition due dates and signatures needed for every State Senator facing recall efforts.

*Recall petitions completed.

Timeline for Recall Elections

General Timeline

The normal timeline (according to state law) for recall elections is as follows:

*Depending on when the closest Tuesday is to that timeline.

Thus, the earliest any general recall election will take place (Kapanke’s) would be July 19th. The latest any recall election (Lassa’s and Hansen’s) can happen this year is September 6th.

Consolidated Recall Elections

The Government Accountability Board has not yet determined what actions it may take to try to consolidate recall elections to the same dates. There is no rule or legislation in Wisconsin for consolidating recall elections because no one ever thought there would be this many recall efforts happening simultaneously.

Nonetheless, the GAB has indicated that they may use the court system to consolidate these elections, arguing that it is unfair to voters who might be confused as to what exact date they are supposed to vote in the recall election in their district.

The right-wing in Wisconsin says that voter fraud is an ongoing epidemic [...]]]> The Wisconsin State Legislature will soon be passing a Voter ID bill, and it will be quickly signed into law by Governor Walker. Just as the recent move to eliminate collective bargaining was meant to reshape the electoral landscape, so is Voter ID.

The right-wing in Wisconsin says that voter fraud is an ongoing epidemic — particularly in Milwaukee — that has allowed Democrats to “steal” elections. The way they see it, there’s no way they could actually lose elections — people love them! There must be a scam going on.

The truth is that voter fraud is incredibly rare and virtually impossible to get away with. This bill is clearly designed to disenfranchise voters who tend to support Democrats.

But all that aside, here’s what you need to know.

For Voters
For the April 5th election, poll workers will be required to ask for identification. However, you DO NOT need to give it to them if you’re already registered. The bill’s provisions are not enforceable until 2012. Republicans stuck that part in to scare younger and poorer voters (aka, Democrats) from voting this year.

In 2012 you will need one of the following pieces of identification (with up-to-date residency information) to vote:
– A drivers license
– A state ID
– A passport
– Naturalization papers
– A military ID
– A Native American tribal ID

Student IDs will no longer be acceptable. Right now student IDs can be used, with poll workers cross referencing the ID with a list of students living on campus provided by their college. But college students vote more for Democrats than Republicans, so they will now need their driver’s license (or another state-issued ID) to include their campus address to vote there.

Similarly, disabled veteran cards will not be accepted. Disabled veterans tend to vote for candidates who support things like BadgerCare, so they will need another form of identification.

It should be mentioned that if you don’t have your ID the day of the election, you can still cast a provisional ballot, but you must show an election clerk your ID by 4pm on the Friday after the election.

Additional things you must do to vote:
– Register early (same-day registration is going away, because it helps busy working people and college students vote)

– Live at your residence 28 days before the election (the current 10-day requirement helps the mobile population cast their ballots, and studies show these voters tend to be younger and more progressive)

– Sign your name in the voter log when you go to the polls

For Political Operatives
Democratic consultants and campaign staffers will need to start to focus on getting their supporters to climb the new barriers to voting.

Here are three things we will need to start doing:
1) Registering Voters Early. Operatives for our side already do it in most states; we just need to start to do it here too. Hiring organizers, sending voter registration applications in mailers and other efforts will be required. This will be especially important on college campuses and in the inner-city.

2) Better Voter Education. Because Wisconsin has a history of relaxed voting laws, Democrats have never seen a strong need for educating voters on what they need to do to vote. That’s going to have to change. We will need to communicate the law in a clear and effective manner to re-enfranchise our voters.

3) Fight for Repeal. The law is going to pass, and it’s going to pass soon. The Republicans in Madison work in lock-step and can pass anything they want. Looking forward, however, we must support candidates who promise to roll-back this attack on voting rights. Climbing barriers to voting will distract us from focusing on other important campaign operations — we must break the barriers.