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.

Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com political blogger, was online Thursday, March 20 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news.

The transcript follows.

Get the latest campaign news live on washingtonpost.com's The Trail, or subscribe to the daily Post Politics Podcast.

Archive: Post Politics Hour discussion transcripts

____________________

Chris Cillizza: Good morning everyone. We are now 60 minutes away from the start of the greatest three weeks of the year -- the NCAA tournament. The Fix has filled out roughly 100 brackets and in each the Hoyas come out on top!

On the political front, the big news of the day is the retirement of New York Rep. Tom Reynolds (R), the immediate past chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Not only does Reynolds' retirement open up another competitive seat this fall, it also means that five of the six Republicans leaders in charge of the House as recently as the summer of 2006 have left office. Amazing.

And did we mention that the Democratic presidential race continues on with no end in sight? What a year!

_______________________

Washington: What effect do you think the Michigan and Florida debacles will have on states moving up their primaries in future elections? Will states continue to do this unless the Democratic National Committee holds firm on not seating their delegates and not counting their election results?

Chris Cillizza: When Florida and Michigan moved their primaries up, they assumed one of two things would happen: The Democratic National Committee would not follow through on its threat to ban their delegates from the convention, or the nominee would be decided long before the convention and he or she would (of course) seat the Florida and Michigan delegations.

Well, both assumptions were wrong, and I do think that the problems those mistaken assumptions have caused the two states will serve as a warning for other states considering similar moves in 2012 and beyond.

Remember that when voting in this race started way back on Jan. 3, the big concern was that the front-loading of the calendar would mean the nominee would be chosen before February -- robbing dozens of states of their chance to weight in. The exact opposite has happened with the race emerging as the most protracted fight for the Democratic nomination in more than two decades.

I'm interested to see how this drawn out fight will impact how states position themselves in the calendar in the next open primary fight.

_______________________

New York: Re: Your electoral college blog -- Clinton has won states worth 263 electoral college vote. I believe 270 are required to win the election. Obama has 202 -- many of which are in states unlikely to go Democratic. I think these numbers are far more important than most of the numerical stats talked about on the chat shows. Also, I read on another blog that the Democratic rules that were "violated" by Michigan and Florida were also violated by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. It's rule 11A on page 12 of the DNC rule book -- could you look into this?

washingtonpost.com: The Fix: The Electoral College Prediction Map (washingtonpost.com, March 20)

Chris Cillizza: While your math may well be right, the premise behind it, I think, is somewhat flawed.

The Clinton campaign argues that her victories in "big states" like California, New York, New Jersey and perhaps Pennsylvania are symbolic of her strength (and Obama's weakness) in a general election. But -- regardless of who the Democratic nominee is -- it seem very likely that California, New York and New Jersey will be painted blue on election night. Pennsylvania is slightly more iffy, but the Democratic nominee, whomever he or she is, will be the favorite to win there too.

By the same token, the Obama campaign's argument that his victories in red states in the nomination fight means that he can expand the playing field in November seems a bit far-fetched too. Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Wyoming and many other "red" states that Obama has won this year are almost certain to stay with the Republican candidate in the fall -- unless this is truly a watershed election in which the entire political map is realigned in one fell swoop.

Arguments about which Democrat is more electable dominate the nomination fight at the moment, but seem to be grounded in assumptions that, if not false, certainly are far-fetched. The dynamics of a general election are almost always fundamentally different from the dynamics of a primary.

_______________________

Washington: Chris I have the 'Zags in Round 2 over your boys, I hope that doesn't force you to ignore my query! If Obama loses Pennsylvania, isn't it almost a certainty he also loses North Carolina, given how tight the current polling is? Should he lose Pennsylvania and North Carolina, is he going to have a bigger electability problem than we thought Hillary had?

Chris Cillizza: Despite your obvious ignorance of college basketball (I kid -- sort of), I will be the better man and answer your question.

It remains to be seen what a "big" Clinton win (15 points or more) in Pennsylvania would mean for the rest of the schedule.

Obama starts as the favorite in North Carolina because of the significant black vote in the state and his demonstrated ability to win African American voters by a nine-to-one margin -- but much can change in a day or a week in presidential politics, and there will be two weeks between Pennsylvania on April 22 and North Carolina and Indiana on May 6.

I actually would watch Indiana to see where the race stands. It is perhaps the only state where Obama and Clinton both believe they will win.

_______________________

Washington: Maybe in the future the Democrats will follow the Republicans by cutting 50 percent of the delegates from states that vote too early. The more moderate penalty is easier to enforce.

Chris Cillizza: And that may be the ultimate solution (after much wrangling between Clinton and Obama) in this situation too.

_______________________

Washington: Two separate polls in two days in a row showing that Clinton is pulling ahead. The mainstream media seems to be ignoring this and keep falling all over themselves for Obama.

washingtonpost.com: Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll (Reuters, March 20)

Chris Cillizza: The Clinton campaign has a memo out from "chief strategist" Mark Penn this morning entitled "The Shift to Hillary" that makes this exact point.

"A look at the polls shows that Sen. Obama's lead nationally with Democrats has been evaporating," writes Penn, adding later: "This suggests a strong swing in momentum in the race to Hillary since the Texas and Ohio primaries earlier this month."

Maybe. Our sense is that Clinton's wins on March 4 took her off life support in the campaign, but did not eliminate Obama's fundamental advantages in the race -- more money, more delegates and a larger share of the popular vote.

The controversy about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments and Obama's association with the controversial pastor have clearly taken his campaign off track for the past week. His speech on Tuesday in Philadelphia was an attempt to put the matter behind him, but the (short-term) damage at least was done.

This is and continues to be a roller coaster campaign. Clinton has picked up a bit of momentum lately thanks to Obama's problems with Wright and the endorsement of Rep. John Murtha (Pa.) -- her first superdelegate in some time -- but don't read too much into one poll or even a few polls. This race has many twists and turns left in it...

_______________________

Fairfax County, Va.: What was the logic (for both Obama and Clinton) of agreeing to a Pennsylvania debate, but making it practically on the eve of the primary, meaning no time to regroup or adjust afterwards? And will the other debate happen, the one Obama has agreed to and Clinton hasn't yet?

Chris Cillizza: The debate is set for April 14 -- eight days before the Pennsylvania vote.

My sense is that while people like you and I -- total political junkies -- are monitoring the developments in this race on a minute-by-minute basis, most people are not following it anywhere near that closely. Folks tend to really focus on a vote about a week or 10 days before they have to cast their ballot, so I think the debate is being staged when it is to ensure the maximum amount of interest and impact in the campaign.

As for the North Carolina debate three days later, it looks like it is on as well, as Clinton and Obama have agreed to it according to this story -- produced by a quick Google search.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Chris -- thank you for taking my question -- I always learn a lot from your chats. I saw this morning that a new poll shows McCain ahead of both Clinton and Obama -- this despite the fact that Bush's approval rating is stuck in the low 30s, two-thirds of the country think we're on the wrong track, a majority still think the war was a mistake, etc., etc. What's going on here? Can we expect to see the race tighten as McCain gets more scrutiny, or is the prolonged nomination fight between Obama and Clinton starting to take a toll that will be more difficult to reverse as time goes on?

Chris Cillizza: As I said in response to a question above, I would be leery of putting too much into general election polls at this point.

McCain has now been the de facto Republican nominee for the better part of a month and has sought to paint himself as a statesman rather than a politician during that time. The Democrats meanwhile continue to claw tooth and nail every day for their own party's nomination -- a less "presidential" image being put before the average voter.

Once the nominees on both sides are settled, voters likely will reassess their take on the race. So, while all of this general election polling is good fodder for the weeks in between now and the Pennsylvania primary, it doesn't amount to all that much in terms of determining what the race will look like this fall.

_______________________

Williamsburg, Va.: Regarding electability, you make a good point about both candidates' claims being far-fetched. But isn't the real issue who will do better in the swing states? Obama did much, much better than Clinton in Iowa, Colorado, Washington, Wisconsin and Virginia; Clinton did better in Ohio (and may do much better in Pennsylvania); Missouri, Nevada and New Mexico basically were even. Seems like a wash.

Chris Cillizza: Williamsburg, thank you for the (rare) common sense in a nomination fight that has been woefully short on it! The truth of the matter is that in places like Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, New Mexico, Florida and Ohio, either Clinton or Obama will be very competitive. Neither have any of those states "in the bag," and neither can be seen as foreclosing the party's chances of winning them if they are the nominee.

Does Obama run a bit stronger in Virginia and Iowa and even Colorado? Sure. Does Clinton run better in Ohio and Florida? Yes. But remember that polling at this stage is a snapshot in time, not a predictive device about where things will stand in November. So, take a deep breath and realize that we are still eight months or so from the general election and that much will change between now and then.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: With Reynolds's retirement and the Democrats' win in Dennis Hastert's district, isn't this further evidence of a congressional Republican collapse in the fall? It certainly doesn't look good for them at all. Could there be a reverse coattail affect, in that Democrats congressional success could help the presidential candidate?

Chris Cillizza: On to the House and Senate questions ... keep them coming!

I think the fact that five out of the six Republican leaders from the last election cycle have left office is a telling symbol of the state of congressional GOPers these days. Reynolds is the 29th Republican to call it quits in this election cycle as compared to just seven House Democrats.

The problem for Republicans is not just that they have four times as many retirements as their Democratic counterparts, but rather where these retirements are. Reynolds's Buffalo area district is very problematic for Republicans to hold, as is the 26th District in New York being vacated by Rep. Jim Walsh. Retirements in Ohio, Minnesota, Virginia and New Mexico are similarly problematic because of the underlying demographics of the seats.

Of the 29 retirements, nearly half are likely to feature competitive races in the fall. Of the Democrats' seven open seats just two -- Oregon's 5th and Alabama's 5th -- are likely to be seriously contested by Republicans. That sort of disparity -- when coupled with House Republicans' ongoing fundraising problems -- makes for a potentially disastrous election cycle.

_______________________

Dale, Texas: Great to have you online; thanks. Any info on the race for Tom DeLay's old seat down here?

Chris Cillizza: Sure. There is a runoff between former Rep. Shelley Sekula Gibbs and Pete Olson, former chief of staff to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on April 8.

The establishment of the party has lined up behind Olson under the belief that Sekula Gibbs did not, let's say, distinguish herself during her brief stint in Congress in 2006. But, Sekula Gibbs has a considerable advantage over Olson in terms of name identification and held a solid lead in the March 4 primary.

If she is the nominee, Rep. Nick Lampson (D) has a legitimate chance to be re-elected in a district that should, by the numbers, elect a Republican without much thought. If it's Olson, this seat is probably Republicans' best chance to make a pickup, with the exception of the two open seats I mentioned above.

_______________________

Ferguson, Mo.: I see from Ms. Akers' Sleuth column that at least the liberal Democrats are upset with Debbie Wasserman Schultz for refusing to back Democratic challengers to three "Cuban" incumbents. Three questions: Didn't the Clinton administration's handling of the deporting of that Cuban boy to his father perhaps cost Gore the state in 2000? Why does the Cuban community continue to exert undue influence over Florida politics? And finally, any chance of a change in that delegation's makeup come November? (I know you love congressional questions.) Thanks.

washingtonpost.com: The Sleuth: Wasserman Schultz Under Siege from Liberal Bloggers (washingtonpost.com, March 19)

Chris Cillizza: I read that item with great interest too. Wasserman Schultz is a major rising star within the national party (she is knee-deep in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's efforts this cycle) so it struck me as slightly odd that she would take a pass on endorsing three Democratic challengers to potentially vulnerable Republican members in the Sunshine State.

While we occasionally see these nonaggression pacts in the Senate (Harry Reid and John Ensign being the most obvious example), it rarely happens in the House, where there is far less camaraderie and less of a tradition of gentility.

We're baffled and look forward to seeing how this situation resolves itself -- if it does.

_______________________

House Seats: Chris, I know you don't think that a lot of the retiring Republicans will be replaced by raging liberal Democrats, but do you suspect we will end up with a more moderate GOP minority?

Chris Cillizza: I don't know about "raging liberal Democrats" but I do think that to win some of these open seats in the fall, Republicans will have to nominate candidates with more moderate stances.

That's especially true in places like New York, New Jersey, Virginia, New Mexico, Illinois and Ohio, where the demographics of the open seats almost necessitate both sides picking candidates somewhere in the middle of the ideological spectrum.

I think it's hard to generalize, however, what sorts of candidates will run and win this fall. House races are often as much about a candidate's relationship with his or her district or a particularly important local issue than they are about national trends or any particular ideology. It's possible that 2008 -- like 2006 before it -- will be a nationalized election, but it's probably too soon to make the assumption just yet.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: During the National Governors Association winter meeting a few weeks ago, you interviewed gubernatorial hottie Sarah Palin. Days later, she revealed she was seven months pregnant. What did Chris Cillizza know, and when did her know it?

washingtonpost.com: PostTalk: Sarah Palin (washingtonpost.com, Feb. 26)

Chris Cillizza: Um, what?

_______________________

Abingdon, Md.: So Chris, what are you going to write about in 2009?

Chris Cillizza: Don't worry about little old me. First of all, we've got the Virginia governor's race that is going to be a doozy. New Jersey, with free-spending Gov. Jon Corzine (D) likely standing for re-election, is also going to be good stuff.

Plus, 36 governors races are up in 2010 -- a key year because of redistricting in 2011 -- and a full slate of Senate and House contests are on tap. And, by 2009, the speculation about the 2012 presidential race will have begun in earnest.

God bless politics.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over 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.