For most of 2012, President Obama has been running in the Democratic primary. I know that seems odd, given that he’s essentially running unopposed. But that's not what I'm talking about.

The 2012 congressional redistricting cycle following the 2010 Census is just about over and done with. And it seems likely to make much less difference than many of us expected.

In a recent column, The Washington Post’s Fact Checker declared Rep. Ron Paul votes against “virtually every piece of legislation that could be interpreted as government overreach or interference with the free market.” There one small problem with the analysis: It ignores the fact that Paul is one of the biggest pork-barrel earmarkers on Capitol Hill. 

"If we could just take a little bit from each of them."

Political reporters always like to anoint one candidate as the front-runner. But there hasn't been a real front-runner in the Republican race so far.

Polls show Republican primary voters somewhat more satisfied with the field than they were a few months ago. But they also show all of the current candidates, with the occasional exception of Mitt Romney, running worse against the president than a generic Republican candidate.

Has one of our two major parties ever had a weaker field of presidential candidates in a year when its prospects for victory seemed so great? My answer, after hemming and hawing a bit, was yes: the Democratic party in 1932.