Live Q&As

As with any special election, the results are never simple. I think NY09 and NV02 were a mix between national and local dynamics.

Weprin was not a good candidate but Turner was no Scott Brown either. I think these specials have a lot to do with momentum. Once a candidate gets on the defensive, it's extremely hard to come back. That's part of what happened to Weprin.

We have to remember that not every Democratic candidate in 2012 is going to run a good campaign. 

This is a great question, with an uncertain answer.

One of the reasons national Democrats came in late to try and save NY09 was because they were worried about redistricting. 

With NY losing 2 seats, convention wisdom is that each party will lose one. So instead of just losing the Weiner seat to redistricting. Now Dems may have to give up an additional seat in redistricting for a total of 2. Republicans will still give up one. 

The key part of all of this is that Gov. Cuomo is a key player and not exactly a team player for either side. 

I'm sure there will be that temptation, but the truth is is that it's going to be very difficult for Democratic candidates to distance themself in 2012. Obama will be on the ballot on the airwaves everywhere.

Some Democrats did it effectively in 2010 (see Joe Donnelly's race in Indiana) but it will be much more difficult to do that in a presidential year. 

Democrats' best hope is for the President to regain some popularity and confidence frmo the American people in the direction of the country.

All politics is local except when its not. I just don't believe that if the President was more popular that Weprin loses this race. There were local issues but I don't think that undercurrent of dissatisfaction would have been there.

You should read some great coverage from Josh MIller at Roll Call about the Jewish vote in the CD.

You're right that we should be cautious about over-interpreting the race. But it would be very unwise for Democrats just to discount the results to local issues. 

What we saw in Nevada and New York was the Medicare was not the silver bullet issue that Democrats believed it would be. It couldn't pull out the race. 

In a midterm, this election starts as a referendum ont he President. With the current economic situation, things don't look good for him. But if Republicans nominate someone like Bachmann, the President will turn it into a choice election. The White House would rather have a popularity contest than a partisan one. 

The referendum vs. choice dynamic is how Harry Reid got reelected. People didn't like him or the job he was doing, but they disliked Sharron Angle more. 

I think it's going to be tough to see a fourth consecutive wave election. Republicans are solidifying their 2010 gains rather than reaching for a lot more. 

Again, I think Israel was a big issue, but I don't think the only factor. But anyway...

Not all Jewish communities are the same but it has to be a concern for Democrats for a big state like Florida. If Republicans can run targeted messages and chip into a normally reliable Democratic vote, that could be problematic if the race is close there. 

Plenty of adjectives there!

I do think Republican primaries (presidential, senatorial, and congressional) matter. We saw that in 2010 in the Senate. Different GOP nominees in Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado and Republicans probably would have won 3 more seats. 

Again, if the economy continues to struggle, the best Democratic strategy is to get voters to focus on Republicans and not the current situation. 

That's why NY09 and NV02 are tough pills to swallow for Democrats because they weren't able to turn the debate onto their terms. 

Politics is in everything, for sure. But even if you don't agree with Republicans (which is pretty clear) many of them legitimately disagree with the President's approach to handling the economy. So if they disagree with his policies and don't think it will work, why would they vote for it?

I think talk about Republicans wanting to tank the economy to win is a little silly. They do obviously want to pin the blame on Democrats for the situation. But Democrats are still trying to blame President Bush!

This is a good point that comes up a lot. 

Even though I want to believe people know about the three branches of government, I think most people see the President as all powerful. 

When times are good, he gets disproportionate credit. When they're bad, he gets more blame. So even though Republicans have the House I think Obama and the Democrats are more at risk of a backlash.

We saw this after 2006 when Republicans took a beating and lost the House and the SEnate. Republicans still got blamed in 2008 because Bush was still the president and being held responsible. 

Well, the public polls in NY09 showed that about 30% of Democrats went for the Republican Turner. That's why I think the Democratic GOTV edge was muted. It looks like they were turning out Turner voters. 

I think that's where yesterday's NV02 results are also worth talking about. It was just NY09 last night. 

Obama got 49% of the vote in NV02 in 2008 and barely lost it to McCain. Last night, the Republican Mark Amodei won the seat by 20 points! 

He was not a stellar candidate. He had a 14-year legislative record, was on-camera supporting Paul Ryan's budget and supported a BILLION dollar tax increase in the legislature. Democrats had a statewide elected official. Amodei cleaned her clock. 

Ahh...sounds like you've been reading Thomas Frank's What's the matter with Kansas. 

I think that at times, both parties vote out of spite. In 2010 and now, Republicans are upset and voting against Obama and Democrats everywhere. But in 2006 and 2008, a similar anger toward President Bush drove Democrats to the polls. 

I think having a common enemy is a lot more powerful and effective in elections than anything else. Americans seem to get more upset when they're in the minority, and without the White House, Republicans still have that mentality. 

President Obama has  a tough balancing act. 

People also ask if you need the base or the middle. The truth is, you need both. That's how Obama got to the White House and he'll need it again to keep it. 

If Republicans win the White House it won't be because people are in love with Republicans, it will be because they don't like the direction of the country. 

I don't think people expect Obama to solve all the nation's problems in his first midterm. They just want to feel like we're moving in the right direction. Right now, they aren't seeing it. 

Well, Republicans can try and propose something but it's not going anywhere in the House or SEnate. And they're not going to support something they think is bad policy.

That's why I don't think anything significant is going to get done for the next 14 months. 

Just came in....

Republicans have to avoid becoming the issue. If Democrats successfully paint the election as a referendum on Republicans, than there might be a backlash. But I think last night showed that changing the terms of the debate is going to be harder for Democrats than they think.