While new numbers released last week by the Department of Employment and Economic Development found Minnesota's seasonably adjusted unemployment rate ticked down to 5.6 percent for the month of April - tied for the lowest level for that metric since September 2008 - another number also crept downwards.

For the fourteenth consecutive month, the state's labor force participation rate fell or stagnated, coming in at 71.1 percent.

That marks the lowest participation rate the Gopher State has seen since July 1983, when Minnesota hit 71.1 percent on a gradual decades-long rise up to an eventual peak of 75.6 percent reached in March of 2001.

The labor force participation rate is the sum of employed and unemployed workers divided by the civilian non-institutional population at or over the age of 16.

Individuals in the civilian non-institutional population who are not considered to be in the labor force include retirees, students, people taking care of children or other family members, and, perhaps most telling in this economy, those who are neither working nor seeking employment.

Of course, as baby boomers continue to retire, the percentage of individuals who are not in the labor force is likely to increase, and that may account for part of the declining participation rate in the labor force.

Nationwide, the percentage of the U.S. population at or over the age of 65 increased every decade in the 20th Century before falling a bit in the 2000 Census and then rising again in 2010.

In Minnesota, the percentage of 65+ year-old individuals in the state reached a high of 12.9 percent after the 2010 Census after dipping from 12.5 percent to 12.1 percent during the 1990 to 2000 periods.

The current percentage of individuals at or over 65 years of age in Minnesota is virtually identical to the nationwide level of 13.0 percent.

But while the baby boomer variable and its attendant concerns brought about by fewer workers supporting more retirees has been a known quantity for demographers and economists for some decades, of particular concern today is the number of individuals outside the labor force who have simply stopped looking for work.

Because while the percentage of individuals 65 years or older are comprising a larger percentage of the population - a larger percentage of them are also remaining in the labor force.

For example, in 2011, 17.9 percent of 65+ year-old Americans were in the labor force - the highest level since 1964.

Minnesota's 71.1 percent labor force participation rate remains significantly higher than that of the nation overall, coming in at 63.6 percent last month which was the lowest level since December 1981.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Although he is facing a recall election unlike any of his predecessors, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is currently polling with an 'incumbent's advantage' - enjoying single digit leads over Democratic challenger Tom Barrett in all four public opinion polls released in the past two weeks.

Even putting aside Walker's huge fundraising advantage that he has amassed to date, Barrett is attempting to accomplish something only one out of four Wisconsin gubernatorial challengers have succeeded in doing over the last 160+ years: unseat a sitting governor.

A Smart Politics review of Wisconsin gubernatorial election data finds that incumbents have been elected at a rate of 74 percent out of nearly four-dozen attempts in state history.

Incumbents have appeared on the general election ballot in Wisconsin 46 times across the 72 elections for governor that have been conducted since statehood.

Sitting governors have won 34 of these contests and lost just 12 times, for a 74 percent reelection rate.

One-term incumbents, like Walker, have had essentially the same rate of success - winning 23 contests and losing nine, or 72 percent.

(Note: This study only examines governors who ran for reelection and made it onto the general election ballot. Other governors have failed to win their party's nomination, such as Walter Kohler, Sr. in 1930 to Philip La Follette).

Wisconsin governors seeking reelection won their first five attempts from the 1840s to the 1860s: Democrats Nelson Dewey (1849) and William Barstow (1855) and Republicans Alexander Randall (1859) and Lucius Fairchild (1867, 1869).

The first Wisconsin governor to lose a general election race was Republican Cadwallader Washburn in 1873.

Two years after winning the governorship in 1871 by 6.4 points over James Doolittle, Washburn became the first Republican to lose a governor's race in the Badger State since 1855 with a 10.4-point loss to Democrat William Taylor.

Taylor would likewise lose as an incumbent in 1875 by 841 votes to GOPer Harrison Ludington.

Other governors who lost their general election matchups include:

· One-term Republican William Hoard in 1890.
· Two-term Democrat George Peck in 1894.
· One-term Democrat Albert Schmedeman in 1934.
· Two-term Progressive Philip La Follette in 1938. (La Follette had also previously served an interrupted term as governor as a Republican.)
· One-term Republican Julius Heil in 1942.
· One-term Republican Vernon Thompson in 1958.
· One-term Democrat John Reynolds in 1964.
· One-term Democrat Martin Schrieber in 1978.
· One-term Democrat Anthony Earl in 1986.
· One-term Republican Scott McCallum in 2002.

(Note: Shrieber and McCallum had been elected to the office of lieutenant governor and ascended into the governorship when Patrick Lucey and Tommy Thompson resigned respectively).

Despite this overall reelection success, Wisconsin governors have had a more difficult time keeping their job over the last 50 years compared to the century prior.

From statehood through the Election of 1956, incumbents won their general election matchup 79 percent of the time (26 of 33 contests), compared to 62 percent since 1958 (8 of 13 contests).

A recently released Smart Politics report found that gubernatorial challengers seeking a "rematch" with the governor who defeated them (a la Barrett vs. Walker this June) have won only two out of six elections in Wisconsin history.

Electoral Success of Wisconsin Gubernatorial Incumbents Since Statehood

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

In yet another example of a growing list of underdog candidates rallying to knock off what at one point seemed to be shoo-in GOP U.S. Senate primary favorites over the last few cycles, Nebraska Republican primary voters backed Deb Fischer over Attorney General Jon Bruning in a six-candidate race on Tuesday.

Fischer, who was endorsed by Sarah Palin in the closing days of the campaign and had inched ahead in the polls, not only upset Bruning, but did so in one of the closest races in state history.

A Smart Politics review of the 37 Republican U.S. Senate primaries in Nebraska since the introduction of direct elections nearly 100 years ago finds that the 5.2-point victory by Deb Fischer on Tuesday was the second narrowest margin in Cornhusker State history.

Fischer won with 41.1 percent of the vote compared to 35.9 percent for Bruning, followed by 18.8 percent for State Treasurer Don Stenberg, 2.8 percent for Pat Flynn, 0.8 percent for Spencer Zimmerman, and 0.7 percent for Sharyn Elander.

Prior to Tuesday, the average margin of victory in GOP U.S. Senate primaries was 45.5 points dating back to the first such contest in 1916.

On only three previous occasions was a GOP U.S. Senate primary decided by single digits:

· In 1916, in the state's first such Senate primary after the introduction of direct elections, John Kennedy edged Chester Aldrich by 7.2 points, 53.6 to 46.4 percent in a two-candidate race.

· In 1940, the closest ever race for a Republican primary took place when Hugh Butler defeated Arthur Weaver by just 3.3 points, 37.2 percent to 33.9 percent in a five-candidate field.

· In 1988, Dave Karnes beat Hal Daub by 9.8 points, 54.8 to 45.0 percent in a two-candidate race.

The six-candidate field Tuesday was not the largest in state history for the GOP - being equaled or eclipsed five other times in Republican U.S. Senate primaries:

In the 1954 special primary election to serve the remainder of Dwight Griswold's seat, 16 Republicans appeared on the ballot with the winner - Hazel Abel - winning with 22.6 percent and no other candidate reaching double digits.

In the 1954 primary for the full term of that same seat, Carl Curtis won a seven-candidate race with 39.4 percent of the vote on the way to his first of four terms.

Six-candidate Republican primaries also took place in 1922 (won by Ralph Howell), 1984 (won by Nancy Hoch), and 2000 (won by Don Stenberg).

Stenberg, the State Treasurer and former Nebraska Attorney General, had vied for the nomination on three previous occasions, losing to Chuck Hagel in a two-candidate race in 1996 with 37.5 percent of the vote, winning with 50.0 percent in a six-candidate field in 2000, and losing to Peter Ricketts in 2006 with 35.8 percent in a two-candidate contest.

A Nebraska Republican U.S. Senate nominee has received a free pass to the general election ballot just six times in state history: Carl Curtis in 1954, 1960, and 1966, Roman Hruska in 1954 (special) and 1958, and Chuck Hagel in 2002.

Fischer will face former two-term Democratic U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey, who easily won his party's primary with over 80 percent of the vote.

Nebraska Republican U.S. Senate Primary Winners and Victory Margin, 1916-2012

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Former Minnesota governor and presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty proclaimed, "I'm not here to give a partisan speech" at a talk before the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota on Monday.

It was a rare public talk on substantive policy in his home state since Pawlenty exited the presidential race in mid-August of last year after finishing a distant third in the Iowa Straw Poll.

And for most of his 35-minute talk on "Restoring America's Greatness" Pawlenty held true to these words in what was a policy-rich presentation on how reforms in entitlements, energy, education, and enterprise are crucial for the United States to reach that end.

In fact, Pawlenty only made two references to the president during the entire speech (on rejecting Simpson-Bowles and Obamacare), and none to the Republican presidential candidate he has endorsed, Mitt Romney.

But is the national political environment hospitable to implement the kind of bold changes in the area of "the four Es" Pawlenty described in his talk?

In a moderated conversation with Humphrey professor Larry Jacobs after his speech, Pawlenty remarked he could have added a fifth "E" to his speech: elections.

And, according to Pawlenty, the kinds of leaders America picks will go a long way in determining whether or not true change will come.

In short, America is getting what it deserves.

"What we have now is a vast majority of the public has decided not to participate in the early stages of party or electoral selection, vetting, gate-keeping process, so this has been delegated, if you will, to a relatively modest slice of the population on the right or the left. They perform the gate-keeping function. Everybody else shows up in November and says, 'Why don't we have better choices?'"

Implied in that statement, of course, is that Pawlenty himself would have been a better choice among the 2012 GOP field.

And many moderate Republicans might agree, and several did bemoan his early exit out of the presidential race, particularly after seeing the Republican electorate shift quickly from Romney to Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt Gingrich to Romney to Gingrich to Romney to Rick Santorum and back to Romney again during a six-month stretch.

In addition to a large swath of potential voters simply staying at home during primaries and caucuses, Pawlenty attributes part of the problem of the types of candidates the general election ballot has to offer to a "Complex that's developed in politics and entertainment and news that are fusing together in a way where it begins to elevate entertainment above policy."

Pawlenty himself was certainly never charged with being the most dynamic or controversial figure in the Republican field.

Rewarding such candidates over those campaigning on serious substantive policies does not benefit those who are willing to bridge the gap between the two increasingly divisive parties.

But can there be a coming together of political leaders like in the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill when political parties would compromise to do what was best for the country?

Pawlenty is skeptical.

"Parties and elected officials shy away from compromise or pragmatism and stick very strongly to the positions that they have without any real desire or willingness to find some common ground...We have an industry around the right and left that does not reward anything other than the right and left's perspective."

So what should moderate Republicans do?

"I think all Republicans, all conservatives, anybody who cares about these issues should participate. The world is run by those who show up. The fuel of grassroots politics is passion...You can't just say, 'I wish it were different, please grant me an entitlement of influence.' You have to show up and fight for it and work for it...People bemoan whether their perspective, or policy perspective or piece of the coalition doesn't prevail, well, the answer is you've got to marshal your forces and go prevail."

So, given this divisive political environment, how will the country ever enact the kind of bold reforms Pawlenty believes are necessary to ensure America's greatness will be restored?

"One side or the other is going to have to substantially prevail to get quantum change, and I hope it's my side obviously."

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Tom Barrett's victory Tuesday in Wisconsin's Democratic primary for the state's June 5th gubernatorial recall election sets up a rematch against the state's controversial Republican governor Scott Walker who defeated him by 5.8 points in November 2010.

And while next month will mark the first recall election for governor in state history, there have been several rematches across the 72 gubernatorial contests conducted over the last 160+ years since statehood.

Challengers have won one-third of them.

A Smart Politics review of Wisconsin gubernatorial election data finds that major party candidates have landed rematches six times, with the loser of the first battle gaining ground in five contests and coming back to win on two of these occasions.

Each of these instances involved a Republican governor or ex-governor going up against a previously vanquished opponent.

Rematch #1: Nicholas Fratt vs. Governor Jeremiah Rusk

The first gubernatorial election rematch occurred during the elections of 1881 and 1884 with Republican Jeremiah Rusk on defense.

Rusk, who would later become the nation's Secretary of Agriculture, was first elected governor in 1881 when he defeated Democrat Nicholas Fratt by 7.0 points with a plurality 47.6 percent in a four-candidate field in which Prohibition and Greenback candidates netted over 11 percent collectively.

Three years later in 1884 (after the Badger State changed its general election cycles to end in even-numbered years), Rusk successfully fended off Fratt's challenge, winning by 6.0 points with 51.0 percent of the vote in a four-candidate race.

Rematch #2: John Aylward vs. Governor James Davidson

The next rematch occurred at the beginning of the 20th Century with the election of Republican James Davidson in 1906.

As Lieutenant Governor, Davidson had succeeded Wisconsin's most famous politician, Robert La Follette, in the governor's mansion earlier that year after the future presidential candidate took his U.S. Senate seat in D.C.

Davidson then defeated Democrat John Aylward to win the governor's seat outright, by a decisive 25.1-point margin with 57.4 percent of the vote in a five-candidate field.

Aylward was able to shave off eight points in his 1908 rematch against Davidson, but the Republican governor easily won by 17.1 points with 54.0 percent of the vote in a five-candidate field.

Rematch #3: Albert Schmedeman vs. former Governor Walter Kohler, Sr.

The third instance of a gubernatorial rematch departs from the narrative outlined above.

In 1928, businessman Walter Kohler, Sr. defeated Democrat and former U.S. Minister to Norway Albert Schmedeman by 15.5 points with 55.4 percent of the vote in a six-candidate field.

Kohler then lost his primary bid against Philip La Follette (son of Robert) in 1930 only to come back and defeat Governor La Follette in the 1932 primary.

Schmedeman also was victorious in the Democratic primary that year, and thus a Kohler-Schmedeman rematch was born in an open-seat race.

Only this time Schmedeman won, by 10.6 points, defeating Kohler with 52.5 percent of the vote in a six-candidate field.

The victory marked a 26.1-point turnaround for Schmedeman from four years prior.

Rematch #4: Orland Loomis vs. Governor Julius Heil

Just eight years later the first battle in what would become the state's second successful rematch took place with a bizarre ending.

In 1940, one-term GOP incumbent Julius Heil won a second term by a narrow 0.9-point margin against Progressive Orland Loomis with just 40.7 percent of the vote in a five-candidate field in which Democrat Francis McGovern won only 19.3 percent.

Loomis was a former state assemblyman and senator and was the former state Attorney General.

Loomis challenged Heil again when the governor sought a third term in 1942, with the Progressive winning this time - by 13.2-points with 49.6 percent of the vote in a six-candidate field.

However, Loomis died a month after Election Day and never took office.

Lieutenant Governor - Republican Walter Goodland who was elected separately - was appointed acting governor by the Wisconsin Supreme Court at the end of Heil's term in January 1943.

As a result, Republicans lost the rematch, but retained the seat.

But Goodland would shortly find himself in a rematch situation...

Rematch #5: Daniel Hoan vs. Governor Walter Goodland

After coming to the end of nearly a full term for an office to which he was not elected, Goodland ran for a second term in 1944.

He was elected outright to the office by 12.2 points over Democrat Daniel Hoan with 52.8 percent of the vote in a five-candidate field.

Hoan returned to the fold in 1946, but lost ground and was defeated by Goodland by 20.7 points in a five-candidate field, 59.8 percent to 39.1 percent.

This is the only instance in which a challenger came back and performed worse than he did the first time around.

Rematch #6: William Proxmire vs. Governor Walter Kohler, Jr.

The last gubernatorial rematch occurred a few cycles later and involved the son of a former governor.

In a bid for his second term, Republican Governor Walter Kohler, Jr. ran against future Democratic U.S. Senator William Proxmire in a 25.2-point landslide in 1952 in a three-candidate field tallying 62.5 percent of the vote.

Proxmire nearly pulled off a victorious rematch against Kohler two years later, but lost by 3.1-points in a three-candidate field, 51.5 percent to 48.4 percent.

(Proxmire would also narrowly lose his third straight gubernatorial general election in 1956, in an open seat race against Republican Vernon Thompson by 3.8 points).

Rematch #7: Tom Barrett vs. Governor Scott Walker

And as for the seventh gubernatorial rematch in Badger State history?

The national media will no doubt have a feeding frenzy over the myriad of story lines emerging in Wisconsin over the next month, such as the role of money in politics (Walker currently has a fundraising advantage of more than 25:1 over Barrett), the alleged excesses of Tea Party-backed officeholders if Walker should lose, and the recall election as a bellwether for the November presidential election both in this battleground state and beyond.

The rematch ends a 58-year drought since the last gubernatorial rematch in Wisconsin - the longest such stretch in state history - after averaging one rematch out of every 11.7 years from 1884 to 1954.

With the Barrett-Walker contest next month, a total of seven of the state's 73 gubernatorial elections have been rematches - or about one out of every 10.

Gubernatorial Rematch Elections in Wisconsin History

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

While Mitt Romney won the Indiana Republican presidential primary on Tuesday, his performance once again failed to insulate his campaign from questions about his ability to rally the GOP base this cycle.

With now only one other active candidate in the race - Ron Paul - Romney still failed to capture two-thirds of the vote in what amounts to the least impressive victory in the Hoosier state for a presumptive GOP nominee over the last 50+ years.

A Smart Politics review of Indiana Republican presidential primary data finds that the 64.7 percent showing by Mitt Romney on Tuesday is lowest winning percentage for a presumptive GOP nominee over the last 15 primaries conducted since 1956, with the exception of the Reagan-Ford showdown that lasted to the convention.

Romney fell more than 10 points shy of John McCain's 77.6 percent mark in 2008 and more than 15 points short of George W. Bush's 81.2 percent in 2000.

Aside from Ronald Reagan's win with 51.3 percent against Gerald Ford in 1976 - in which there was no decisive frontrunner or presumptive nominee at the time of the Indiana primary - the previous low water mark for a winner in Indiana over the last 50 years was Barry Goldwater's 67.0 percent in 1964 when he defeated former Minnesota Governor Harold Stassen.

Excluding the Reagan/Ford matchup and the four cycles in which candidates ran unopposed (1968, 1972, 1984, 2004), the average winning percentage for presumptive Republican nominees in Indiana is 80.2 percent, or 16.5 percentage points higher than Romney.

Ron Paul finished second on Tuesday with 15.5 percent which doubled his 7.7 percent showing in 2008.

Ex-candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich finished in third and fourth place with 13.3 percent and 6.4 percent of the vote respectively.

The Indiana primary has been conducted between in the first eight days of May throughout this 50+ year period.

On Tuesday Romney also had the third lowest GOP winning percentage in the post-1972 modern primary era in both North Carolina and West Virginia.

Indiana Presidential Republican Primary Winners, 1956-2012

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

With new public opinion polls released this week showing Barack Obama leading presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney in key battleground states like Nevada (+8), North Carolina (+4), Pennsylvania (+8), Virginia (+8), and Wisconsin (+9), skeptics will point out that a lot can change from May until November.

And indeed it may as six months is a long time until Election Day.

The last two election cycles demonstrate alternate glimpses into the degree of fluidity of a presidential election with polling six months out in one cycle being prophetic and polling in another not anticipating the results to come on Election Day.

A Smart Politics study of presidential state polling conducted in May 2004 finds the electoral vote count for the 30 states surveyed that month was identical to the general election, while in 2008 the change from May to November resulted in a swing of 176 votes among the 36 states surveyed.

A total of 30 states were polled in May of 2004 and 36 states in 2008. (Internet polling was excluded). If multiple polls were conducted, an average was taken within each state to determine the spread between the two candidates.

The vast majority of battleground or quasi-battleground states were among the 66 states surveyed in May of these two cycles, with the exception of New Jersey in 2008 and Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin in 2004.

In 2004, the polling leader in 28 of the 30 states surveyed that May won the state in November:

George W. Bush led the polls in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

Meanwhile, John Kerry led in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

The only two states that saw a change in control from May to Election Day were Iowa and Oregon.

Senator Kerry led by an average of five points across three polls in Iowa, which President Bush ended up winning by one point that November.

Bush, meanwhile, had an average lead of one point across four polls conducted in Oregon in May, which Kerry carried by four points in the general election.

Iowa and Oregon each had seven Electoral College votes, so the Electoral College math for these 30 states in May was the same as on Election Day: 221 for Bush and 200 for Kerry.

(In Minnesota, one Kerry Elector chose to vote John Edwards for President).

Overall, the candidate spread in May of 2004 was within 5 points of the general election outcome in 21 of the 30 states and reached double digits in just one state, Maine (where Kerry's 19-point lead in May dropped to 9 points on Election Day).

In 2008, however, the May to November period was more volatile, due in part to an ever-declining economy under the final months of President George W. Bush's administration and Democrats unifying behind the campaign of Barack Obama who had not yet wrapped up the nomination in May.

In 2008, the polling leader in only 30 of the 36 states surveyed that May won the state in November:

Barack Obama led in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.

John McCain led in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

By Election Day, however, McCain lost his lead in Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Virginia.

The result was an Electoral College vote swing in these 36 states from a McCain advantage of 220 to 209 to an Obama advantage of 297 to 132, or a 176-vote swing over six months.

The Election Day vote was within five points of the May polling in just 17 of the 36 states, with a 10-point swing or greater in 12 states (compared to just one in 2004).

In short, 2004 demonstrates that simply because there are six months remaining in the campaign, the election results can look pretty similar to the snapshot in May. (Perhaps due in part when an election is a referendum on an incumbent).

However, the 2008 contest also confirms the notion that there is plenty of time for candidates not simply to expand their lead in states in which they are already favored but also to flip battleground states.

Will the 2012 matchup between Obama and Romney ultimately resemble 2004 or 2008 or neither?

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.