Post Politics Hour

Don't want to miss out on the latest in politics? Start each day with The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post national political editor John F. Harris was online Tuesday, Aug. 8, at 11 a.m. ET .

The transcript follows.

____________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: If Lieberman decides to run as an independent (assuming he loses today's primary) will he have to "start over" his years as a Democrat? In other words, after 17 years as a Democrat, he starts back at ground zero as a freshman Senator with little clout.

John F. Harris: Good morning. LOTS of Lieberman-Lamont questions today, and I am open for business. As we chat, I am on the phone with Shailagh Murray, who covers Congress for us and is up in Connecticut with Dan Balz covering this race.

says she believes--though she did not sound 100 percent sure, I must confess--this would be up to the Democratic caucus--whether to accord Lieberman his old seniority. Sen. Lautenberg, who returned to the Senate after an absence, was allowed to keep his cumulative seniority rather than starting from scratch.

By the way, for people expecting White House reporter Mike Abramowitz--he's on vacation in Spain. I'm filling in.

_______________________

Fort Myers, Fla.: What is the usual voter turnout in contested primaries in Connecticut? How big a role will voter turnout have on the Connecticut primary results, and who stands to benefit from either high or low turnout?

John F. Harris: My understanding from this morning's stories--I can't remember if it was in Balz's or Murray's, but we'll post 'em both--is that the record primary turnout in Connecticut was in a Democratic gubernatorial primary in 1994. That was 25 percent. Given the interest this race has excited, that record might well be broken, I expect.

Even so, primary turnouts are always relatively low compared to general elections, so the question of which side's voters turnout is always pivotal. It had been received wisdom a week ago that low turnout probably helped Ned Lamont, since his fervently anti-war voters are certain to vote, while Lieberman supporters might have less intensity.

To be honest, I'm not so sure that received wisdom is not baloney (to use a washingtonpost.com-approved word in place of the one I would ordinarily use.) It's clear from Connecticut polls that Lamont has been ahead, but not so far ahead that we should be shocked if Lieberman comes back and wins. I don't know what turnout will be and don't really place much stock in karom-shot calculations about what the implications are of various turnout percentages.

I'm very much looking forward to real results--as opposed to heated speculation--this evening. Polls close at 8 p.m. and I do not think it's going to take very long to count voters. Start clicking on post.com at say 9 p.m., or maybe earlier.

_______________________

Long Island, N.Y.: John,

In regards to the CT primary today, in listening/reading some commentators recently, you think that the idea of an incumbent losing would signal the end of the Democratic Party or even the Republic itself.

Could it be as simple as CT Dems have grown tired of Lieberman after 18 years and want change? Its not unheard of - NY GOPers a few decades back nominated Al D'Amato over Jacob Javits for Senate in part because Javits was left of the Republican center (of course there was Javits health issues in play then as well).

John F. Harris: Wait a minute...are you trying to dampen our fervid speculation and analysis with a dose of level-headed perspective?

I'm not buying. A Lamont victory would demonstrate in a very clear fashion the power of the anti-war movement in Democratic politics.

The example you cite--Javits losing to D'Amato in 1980--seems to me to prove the point. Javits was a liberal Republican, and his defeat showed the ascendancy of conservatives in the GOP.

Of course there are always local and other idiosyncratic factors at play in these races. But I think there is potentially quite a lot of significance in this race.

I'd ask the chat host to post two very relevant Dan Balz stories...One that ran on Sunday about the significance of this race for Democrats nationally, and a portrait of Lieberman that ran in today's paper.

Both are superb pieces and a reminder of why Balz is the best in the business. (Thank goodness he did not take the recent Washington Post buyout offer.)

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Conn. Race Could Be Democratic Watershed , ( Post, Aug. 6, 2006 )

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Lieberman's Troubles Go Beyond War , ( Post, Aug. 8, 2006 )

_______________________

Ontario, Calif.: John,

Assuming that the left wing of the Democrat Party prevails today, and Lieberman loses, what is the general consensus as to his prospects as an independent in a three way race?

Thanks.

John F. Harris: I'm not sure I'd characterize a Lamont victory as strictly speaking a victory for the "left wing" of the Democratic party. Certainly many liberals are Lamont backers, and many have bridled at Lieberman's more centrist politics for a long time. But the anti-war wave that Lamont appears to be riding likely crosses ideological lines.

I think there is not yet an informed consensus (as opposed to people popping off without real knowledge) about Lieberman's independent prospects. A lot of people I have spoken with are skeptical that Lieberman will actually follow through on his vow to run as an independent if he loses. In any event, a lot would depend on whether he loses by a little or a lot.

_______________________

Glenside, Pa.: People have talked about Hilary Clinton's response to the Conn. senate primary, but what do you think it would do for someone like Evan Bayh or Mark Warner?

John F. Harris: You can be sure that both those guys--and a lot of other likely presidential candidates--are watching the race closely.

In Warner's case, he is from Connecticut originally and I'm assuming must know Lieberman well. Both he and Bayh are representatives of the centrist/Democratic Leadership Council wing of the part of which Lieberman is a long-time leader.

They are going to be studying the race closely to see what it portends for their own brand of politics. As I said earlier, I think a Lamont victory would be seen as an anti-war statement, not necessarily a repudiation of centrist Democrats generally. But it would underscore the power of the anti-war wing of the party, in the unlikely event that Hillary Clinton, Warner or Bayh needed any reminders.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: It seems as though some members of the media are portraying a potential Lamont win as a victory for radical liberal antiwar Democrats. When a strong majority of Americans (60%) agree that the war was a mistake, do you think it is inaccurate to categorize mainstream public opinion this way?

John F. Harris: You and I are in rough agreement, I think, as I suggested in earlier answers. Anti-war sentiment is strong--especially in the Democratic party but to some degree even in the Republican party. A Lamont victory, if it happens, would not mean the triumph of "radical liberal" politics.

_______________________

Charleston, S.C.: John,

Are Republicans pulling for Ned Lamont? Would a Lamont victory signal centrist democrats to move left and allow republicans to portray the democratic party as controlled by the far left? After all, The far left drives republicans to the polls in far greater numbers than the far right driving Democrats to the polls. Your thoughts?

John F. Harris: I don't think Republicans are expecting much success in Connecticut under any circumstances. It is a strong Democratic state in statewide elections in recent years. It's conceivable that Republicans could maybe pick up the Senate seat if Lieberman runs as an independent and splits the vote with Lamont, but most people I have spoken to do not consider that likely. The GOP candidate, Alan Schlesinger, has yet to demonstrate statewide strength.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Why hasn't there been more coverage of Hillary Clinton's sudden change in tone on the war, upbraiding Rumsfeld at a hearing last week and then calling for his resignation? Given how exceedingly cautious she's been, isn't that an interesting development? What do you make of it? Is that the Lamont effect on other Democrats now at play?

John F. Harris: I am sure she would say--and I think in fairness it's true--that the strong views she expressed the other day at the Rumsfeld hearing are not a "sudden change in tone." She's not renounced her initial support for the war, but she has been been voicing dissent about the administration's strategy and execution for some time.

That said, it was hard not to interpret her outspokenness as a response to events in the news--in particular, the desire to demonstrate to the anti-war wing of the party that she shares many of their views and does not wish to have that group turn on her in the same fashion it has turned on Lieberman.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: You wrote that great book on Clinton -- do you think, notwithstanding his perfunctory campaigning for Lieberman, that he'll be secretly happy if the Senator who denounced him on the floor in 1998 goes down to defeat? And how much do you think Democratic backlash against Lieberman moralizing on Clinton plays a role in the home-state dissatisfaction with him?

John F. Harris: Who is this playing to the vanity of the chatter from my hometown? Thanks for the shout-out.

I was struck by how little effect Clinton's appearance for Lieberman seemed to have based on the polls immediately afterward.

On the other hand, if Lieberman wins--and I consider that a distinct possibility, given the closeness of the race and the imponderability of primary races--probably Clinton would deserve some of the credit.

Did you consider Clinton's endorsement perfunctory? I'm not sure I did but I guess it depends on what the meaning of perfunctory is.

Clinton was irked at Lieberman at the time of his 1998 floor speech denouncing the president's behavior in the Lewinsky matter, but over time he came to believe that Lieberman did him a favor--by giving voice to a lot of people who were distressed by the behavior but did not believe it was an impeachable offense.

_______________________

Macon, Ga.: You write, "a Lamont victory, if it happens, would not mean the triumph of 'radical liberal' politics." But in fact, even if many people across the ideological spectrum are upset about the war and ultimately support him, isn't it true that his campaign was driven by the radical liberal wing of his party, in terms of the Web and activist base? Would he have become a national cause celebre without the liberal base making him their project?

John F. Harris: There will be a lot to study and debate if there is a Lamont victory. Unquestionably, Lamont's candidacy has been driven by the anti-war movement, and a lot of people in that movement are liberals, but not all.

I think it is true he would not have become a national figure were it not for the enthusiasm he generated among the "netroots" on the war issue. These netroots have propelled other candidacies, including Howard Dean's in late 2003, but so far they do not have many important victories. We'll see what happens tonight.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: If Lieberman wins will he have gotten the message from the disgruntled electorate or will he keep on going his course of support for the administration and appearances on Fox TV?

John F. Harris: Lieberman has made pretty clear in recent days that he has gotten the message of the discontent toward him within the party. I'm guessing if he wins he would be much less prone than in years past to deliberately running against the grain of his party.

By the way, I just got an e-mail from the Post's Department of Marketing Hype and Cross-Platform Synergies. They ask me to remind people to tune into Washington Post radio (you can link off the Web site) on Thursday at 1 p.m. when we'll have Dan Balz and several analysts on air talking about the results of the Lieberman-Lamont primary and what we should make of them.

_______________________

Saint Paul, Minn.: What significance would a Ned Lamont win have on a Gore campaign in 2008.

(I'm secretly hoping he'll run.)

John F. Harris: I bet a Lamont victory would excite interest in a Gore candidacy in 2008, with the former vice president running on a similar anti-war message.

Indeed, I predicted to a colleague the other day that Gore will get in if Lamont wins. So far, I have precious little evidence on which to support this prediction--which flies in the face of Gore's repeated statements that he does not plan to run--but this has never stopped me before.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that my record of predictions coming true is probably worse than if they were based solely on a random coin toss.

That's why I am not making one tonight. Let's just see what happens, and we'll chew it over here tomorrow.

Thanks very much.

We'll see.

Thanks for the questions

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.