See, when those of us out here were talking about 'Chicago politics,' we weren't, ya know, talking about race.... we were, ya know, talking about Chicago politics....



Does the last week or so kinda make that a little bit more clear for you?

Former MA Rep. Barney Frank (D) has apparently thrown his hat into the ring for consideration as the replacement Senator from MA for John Kerry, according to The New Republic's Alec MacGillis:

"March and April will be the most important months in American economic history, and I don't think I'm being immodest to think I could impact it," said [Frank].

America's political debate in about 20 seconds: politicians, the media, lobbyists, the something-must-be-done crowd, all of them.

James Taranto writes, "Get ready for higher taxes and no spending reform."

Taranto continues:

"Maybe peace would have broken out with a different kind of White House, one less committed to waging a perpetual campaign--a White House that would see a 51-48 victory as a call to humility and compromise rather than an irrefutable mandate."

Yeah, well, shut up, you Republican losers. Obama won, which means a majority of Americans support his policies. Stop being obstructionist and get with the program.

Oh wait, sorry. That quote wasn't from a Republican but from a recently elected Democrat. It was referring not to Obama but to George W. Bush after the 2004 election. The author: Barack Obama, junior senator from Illinois. The book: "The Audacity of Hope."

In the following paragraph, Sen. Obama goes on to complain about antitax activist Grover Norquist, who was "unconstrained by the decorum of public office." On Tuesday, as PBS's "NewsHour" reports, President Obama met with a group of similarly unconstrained "leaders of labor and liberal groups" at the White House to discuss economic policy.

Dennis Van Roekel, president of the teachers union that styles itself the National Education Association, told the network: "I brought the message that, number one, it's important that we let the Bush tax cuts disappear for the wealthiest 2%. As we're looking for a $1.2 trillion solution, $829 billion takes us a long way there."

Do you see the problem here? The annual budget deficit has been running at around $1.2 trillion. (The Hill reports the deficit for October alone was $120 billion.) Raising taxes on "the wealthiest 2%," it is estimated, would increase government revenues $829 billion over a decade. When Van Roekel says the tax hike "takes us a long way there," he's off by an order of magnitude.

Actual quote from CA Gov. Jerry Brown:

"High-income earners have more to fear from their spouses than they do from [increased] taxes in California.... Usually it's because they are going through a nasty divorce. So as long as they take care of their relationships, we will take care of spending their money wisely."

When one describes a political victory in these terms, one, um, might have a problem....

Andrew Sullivan:

I remember musing earlier this year - and this is not Captain Hindsight speaking - that Obama's problem might be motivating his base after the ecstasy of 2008. A sense that Romney could actually win - a period when Romney was ahead in the polls - might actually help Obama fight complacency. Here's hoping it does.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the embodiment of a corrupt and scummy political ideology.

Today, the Gallup poll's three-day moving average from Oct. 12-14 measures President Obama's approval rating at 48%.

As the Weekly Standard's Jay Cost pointed out in a recent piece, Gallup changed the methodology of its poll at the beginning of October 2012 in such a way that boosts the president's approval rating by about 3% compared with its previous methodology.

By way of comparison, Gallup's measurement of Obama's approval rating from Oct. 12-14 in 2010 showed an approval rating of 44%.

These Gallup findings from 2010 and 2012 indicate that the president's approval ratings for the two periods are roughly equivalent -- yet a majority of polls are using the 2008 election for their respective turnout models, as if the results from 2010 never happened.

This doesn't seem to comport with reality.

Notice that Obama's 2008 victory margin over John McCain -- 7.26% -- trailed the Dems' victory margin in the aggregate US House vote by about 3.25% and that the Repubs won the 2010 aggregate US House vote by about 6.6%.

Here are the actual election results for both the presidential and aggregate US House votes from 2000-2010, along with the exit polling data for the same period:

National
Presidential Popular-Vote Results: (US)
2008
Obama 52.9%
McCain 45.6%
Other 1.5%

2004
Bush 50.7%
Kerry 48.3%
Other 1.0%

2000
Gore 48.4%
Bush 47.9%
Other 3.7%

Aggregate US House Vote: (US)
2010
Reps 51.4%
Dems 44.8%
Other 3.8%

2008
Dems 52.9%
Reps 42.4%
Other 4.7%

2006
Dems 52.0%
Reps 44.1%
Other 3.9%

2004
Reps 49.2%
Dems 46.6%
Other 4.2%

2002
Reps 49.6%
Dems 45.0%
Other 5.4%

2000
Reps 47.3%
Dems 47.0%
Other 5.7%

Exit Polling Data: (US)
2010 (US House)
Reps 35%
Dems 35%
Ind 29%

2008 (Pres.)
Dems 39%
Reps 32%
Ind 29%

2006 (US House)
Dems 38%
Reps 36%
Ind 26%

2004 (Pres.)
Reps 37%
Dems 37%
Ind 26%

2002 (Not available)
Dems
Reps
Ind

2000 (Pres.)
Dems 39%
Reps 35%
Ind 26%

In response to Mitt Romney's decision not to appear on Nickelodeon children's show Kids Pick the President -- a show President Obama naturally appeared on -- a spokesman for the Obama campaign said the following:

Deputy National Press Secretary Adam Fetcher tells TMZ, "It's no surprise Romney decided to play hookey. Kids demand details, and I'm sure they want some answers on why Romney could increase their class sizes, eliminate their teacher's jobs, raise taxes on their families and slash funding for Big Bird. ... 'The dog ate my homework' just doesn't cut it when you're running for President."