NP: Cheap Trick, The Latest

So, if you know me -- or read what I wrote yesterday -- you probably know I'm going to say that Arlen Specter losing the Pennsylvania Senate primary is most likely not a repudiation of President Obama. That's an overly simplistic conclusion that too many political hacks are resorting to because it makes for good "horse race" reading. Yes, Specter was endorsed by Obama, but you have to figure he was owed that for the party switch that gave the Dems that extra seat in the Senate. And if Sestak wins in November, it'll be moot, anyway.

I've been more interested in the one matchup between Democrats and Republicans yesterday, which was also in Pennsylvania. Talking Points Memo takes a look here, and FiveThirtyEight digs in as well.

Nate Silver then writes the post I would have written had I been paying really close attention, giving a pretty broad overview of the results, which is the one to read if you only read one piece about where things stand.

To me, the implications for November are so mixed as to be almost totally useless. Why? Mostly Sestak's general polling numbers, the Democratic turnout in Kentucky, this counterintuitive string of Democratic wins in special elections in the House and whether the Tea Party can come through in a general election. And then there's the state of the economy in the fall, which will be a huge determinant.

All of these factors introduce enough uncertainty into the equation that anyone who flatly declares "what this all means" for November or for the President is completely full of shit. Please remember that when consuming your "news" today.