President Obama’s 2012 retooled message is about fairness. If that’s the case, the president should learn to love super PACs and their influx of money into the campaign system—a development which, if nothing else, ensures a stronger competitive balance in elections. That’s a good thing for democracy because it levels the playing field for candidates challenging entrenched incumbents with connections to moneyed interests.

Lacking a clear message of why their ideas are better, Republicans could squander their chance to take the Senate and White House.

If there was a lesson to be learned from the 2010 Senate elections, it’s that the quality of candidates matters—a lot. That’s why now-Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., was able to win comfortably in President Obama’s home state against a not-ready-for-prime-time challenger. It’s why Nevada Republican Sharron Angle couldn’t oust Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the most unpopular incumbents in the entire country.

The postgame punditry out of South Carolina was that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich defeated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney handily because voters were looking for the most conservative candidate. But that’s only part of the story.

If elections were judged on personality alone, Republican front-runner Mitt Romney would have his hands full against President Obama. Indeed, as Romney comes closer to locking up the Republican nomination, political commentators and Democratic strategists alike are beginning to advance the argument that his reserved, bordering-on-stiff personality is painfully similar to that of two recent Democratic presidential losers, and it bodes poorly for his chances against a more likable Obama in 2012.

In the past, presidential nominees have chosen running mates who represented battleground states or appealed to certain demographic groups. If he emerges as the nominee, Mitt Romney would face somewhat different challenges: He needs a No. 2 who can excite the base and serve as an effective attack dog against Obama, but without alienating independent voters.

In reading Walter Isaacson’s biography of Apple CEO Steve Jobs, it’s difficult to reconcile the visionary icon Jobs became with the petulant executive who was ousted from his company. Jobs created a successful Fortune 500 company from scratch, but his erratic management style turned his own allies against him in a coup.

I’ll admit that I’m as surprised as anyone at the rise of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to the top of the Republican presidential field.

If you want a sign of the gender gap in American politics, look no further than both parties’ Senate recruitment efforts.

Thanksgiving is only a day away, and many members of the House will be returning to their districts thankful it’s not 2012 yet. With the public registering historic levels of dissatisfaction with Congress and redistricting imperiling many of the most entrenched members, the list of vulnerable lawmakers will be particularly long next year.