#AskTIME Subscriber Q and A: Alex Altman, Zeke Miller and Jay Newton-Small

Welcome to TIME Subscriber Q&A, with TIME political reporters Alex Altman, Zeke Miller and Jay Newton-Small. They have been reporting on next month’s midterm elections and will answer your questions about who’s up, who’s down, and why it matters.

To read the full post, you need to be a subscriber. It’s not too late to sign up.

PaulDirks asks, Everyone now seems to be agreeing that Obamacare is fading in its utility as a bludgeon with which to beat Democrats. But since polling suggests that the opposition to Obamacare is based mostly on its name and not on its actual effects, doesn’t that mean that some Democrats are actually missing the opportunity to campaign on its benefits?

Jay: Dem pollster Stan Greenberg argues that Dems should be running on Obamacare, especially those who need to turn out unmarried women and minorities to win. But the vast majority of Dems remain unchanged in their belief that Obamacare, at least for now, is a third rail. And, certainly, running pro-Obamacare ads didn’t discernably help Mark Pryor in Arkansas or Natalie Tennant in West Virginia–though it notably didn’t hurt them, either.

outsider asks, Hey Alex, Zeke and Jay – what do you think the chances are of the Senate remaining in the Dem control? And when, if ever, do you think the House might swing back to the Dems? Given the gerrymandering that has occurred, what conditions do you believe might make it feasible?

Alex: Most of the poll-based forecasting models suggest Republicans are a slight to moderate favorite to win the Senate. I think aggregating these models gives you a pretty accurate picture of what’s most likely to happen. But even if you stipulate the GOP is, say, a 58% favorite (to pick the current FiveThirtyEight estimate), that means it wouldn’t be a surprise to see the Democrats retain control on Nov. 5. And the map is in their favor in 2016, when more Republican incumbents will be defending their seats.

The picture in the House is uglier for Democrats. They will lose seats this year. Big changes in the composition of the House don’t happen all that often: there have been just four double-digit swings in the past two decades. And while we have seen a number of wave elections recently, they are less likely to happen going forward because of the shrinking number of competitive districts. Democrats could struggle to retake the House until after the next decade’s redistricting.

sacredh asks, if the GOP fails to retake the senate in November, do you think it will force the GOP to run a woman in the VP slot in 2016 to try to match the appeal of Hillary?

Alex: Regardless of whether they retake the Senate, Republicans know they need to find a way to do better with women. Putting a woman on the ticket is one way to do that, but hardly the only way, and certainly not as effective as backing policies that better fit female voters. I’m sure the GOP would love to nominate a qualified woman as VP, but after 2008, I doubt they will repeat the mistake of playing identity politics on a presidential ticket.

Jay: Interesting question. There is certainly pressure within the party to pick a female VP on the GOP ticket. The two most talked about are New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez. Martinez was also on Mitt Romney’s shortlist in 2012, but asked not to be considered because she is her sister’s caretaker, who has special needs. Speculation has so focused on Ayotte this time around that I’ve heard John McCain jokingly call her Madame Vice President. Personally, though, I wish the GOP would field a serious female candidate for the top of the ticket–someone like Ayotte or Martinez. Now that would be interesting.

fitty_three asks, How do you see politics and money interacting in the future? In your opinion, was Citizen’s United a mistake or will it improve the political process?

Zeke: There’s definitely going to be more of it. Just yesterday the Federal Election Commission allowed the doubling of individual donations to national committees to fund conventions. (Shameless self-plug.) Citizens United and McCutcheon have dealt major blows to campaign finance advocates, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court takes another step on that front. What a lot of campaign finance reform advocates are coming to grips with right now is the prospect of a world where there’s no individual limit. The Republican National Committee has already filed suit to lift the individual contribution limit, which would drastically change our current system. Barring a constitutional amendment, what the Supreme Court decides is/will be the law of the land. But in a universe where super PACs and shadowy 501(c)4s can spend can spend unlimited sums, would allowing individuals to do the same be the worst thing? Moving outside money back to the inside could improve accountability. Only time will tell.

deconstructiva asks, How do you three answer this – “The 2014 midterm election is mainly about _________ ?” What do y’all think are the hottest of hot button issues that decides who goes to Congress and become the next governors?

Alex: I don’t think there’s a single unifying issue this time. Obamacare is not the political cudgel it was in 2010. The economy has improved since 2012, flat wages aside. Increasingly, the Republicans’ closing argument seems to be that the world is on fire and the President has failed to put it out. That’s why you see ads and rhetoric harping on ISIS, Ebola, border security, chaos in the Middle East, Russia’s incursions into Ukraine. The GOP wants voters to think Obama’s attempts to fix these big, scary problems have been ineffectual, and they are painting vulnerable incumbent Democrats as pawns of the President.

Zeke: I’ve been workshoping this theory in the bureau for a few weeks now, but the best theme for 2014 I’ve come up with is “bad candidate, worse candidate.” It’s not universally true, but in a large number of races this cycle we’re seeing unpopular, unlikeable candidates who are running mediocre-to-bad campaigns going up against unpopular, unlikeable candidates who are doing the same. There’s not a lot of “hope and change” or “believe in our future” or really any inspiration. What’s deciding these races is who’s just slightly more likeable on the margin.

Jay: I know Zeke thinks this is an election about nothing, but I think it’s an election about women: the fight for the female vote. Married women vote Republican, single women Democratic. Democrats are just beginning to realize the power of these voters: thus the “war on women” and the competing women’s economic agendas. This is also the year women will finally breach 20 percent of Congress. The most interesting races out there involve women: Michelle Nunn, Joni Ernst, Alison Lundergan Grimes, the ladies from West Virginia, Martha Coakley, Gina Raimondo in Rhode Island, the list goes on. And the biggest issues this year have been about women: Hobby Lobby, equal pay, domestic abuse. To me, this is the beginning of a larger discussion about women in politics and in the workplace– but I’m biased because I’m writing a book about this subject!

hivemaster asks, How soon do you think same-sex marriage will become legal in all 50 states? Did the Supreme Court’s recent punt on the issue clear the way for it?

Zeke: Given how quickly the Supreme Court (and public opinion!) has moved on this issue over the last two or three years, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it in all 50 states by November 2016. That’s why you’re seeing Republican presidential contenders in such a tough spot – their base isn’t in favor, but independents, and increasingly moderate Republicans, are supportive, or at least accepting.

DonQuixotic asks, Alex, Zeke, and Jay: How do you think the midterm elections will shape Obama’s remaining time in the Oval Office if either A) Republicans take the Senate or B) Democrats take the House? Policy changes? New proposals/initiatives? Etc.

Zeke: First off, Democrats aren’t taking back the House. It’s not going to happen. Regardless of the outcome this November, President Obama will be a lame duck, as all eyes quickly shift to Hillary, the GOP field and 2016. In a lot of ways he’s already a lame duck. He’s toxic on the stump in all but a handful of races, and he’s exhausted his political juice in Washington. Either way the president will be looking to do more overseas in his last two years, whether refocusing on his “Asia pivot” or continuing the fight against ISIS. What November will primarily determine is the pace/makeup of the president’s nominations (particularly judicial) and the likelihood of fiscal showdowns in the president’s final two years. On the latter front, I’d suggest that Republicans will likely be burdened with actually showing something for holding control of both chambers and the likelihood of a major showdown (shutdown and the like) would probably decrease. We’ll see.