I’m not going to go deeply into the the Hawaii special election since I have to catch my ride to the airport but I will leave you with this question:
In Pa-12 a republican loses a special election in a district where A republican hasn’t won since 1972, although it has gone back and forth in presidential elections over the last decade. The election takes place on the same day as he faces a contested primary. That is a sign the Republicans are in trouble.
In Hawaii a republican wins a special election in a district where a republican hasn’t won since 1990 in a place where Democrats have not lost on the presidential level since 1984 and the district where the president is born and took 70% of the vote, and it is due to democratic infighting.
Why is one due to infighting and the other not? Why is one a sign of Republican weakness and the other not a sign of democratic weakness?
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
Here’s my view: both of those districts are very, very liberal. Both have huge Dem registration advantages. If the Dems want to bicker about who ran the better campaign, candidate, etc. in districts that they’ve controlled for decades, let them. If that is the new battleground, I’m thrilled.