Once again, dear reader, you have the advantage: writing Monday about a Tuesday election, you know the results as you read, but I do not as I write. Whatever the outcome of the Connecticut primary though, Joe Lieberman has suffered significant travails from which other incumbents can learn:

Keep the base engaged. There is nothing new, nor particularly insightful in this conclusion, but the lesson apparently needs regular re-learning. After 2002, our polling found an activist base disaffected from a Democratic Party they considered too accommodationist, too capitulationist vis-à-vis Bush. This column discussed that phenomenon in 2003. Somehow Senator Lieberman, in truth an ardent Democrat, allowed himself to become the symbol of accommodation in a party that wanted none of it.

The folks back home have all the power. All the influence an incumbent wields on the national stage derives from the votes of his or her constituents. Fourth grade civics you say— but many incumbents “go national,” forgetting about the reverberations at home. Despite all he has done for Connecticut, many in the state thought Lieberman had become increasingly disconnected from it. A story illustrates the point. When a friend repeated to a high-level Lieberman staffer the complaint of a local reporter who could not get on to the Senator’s schedule for an interview, the staffer replied, “They have to understand, he is a national figure now, he can’t spend so much time with the local press.” This suggests a Senate office in the grip of a deadly disease. The symptoms are not unique. Local leaders hear from you less as you deal with national and international dignitaries. Your carefully cultivated image precludes you from casting the vote constituents so fervently desire. You no longer do the small parades and high school graduations because you now grace national stages. None of it is obnoxious. None of it is egomaniacal. It’s just the reality of your transformed identity.  And when it happens, check yourself in for rehab. Those voters at the high school graduation, who read those local reporters, and care about their lives more than about your persona, are invested with the power to decide whether you continue to exercise national influence.

Money counts. Ned Lamont’s rise was not driven solely, or even mainly, by money. But Lamont had sufficient resources to communicate his message and it is sufficiency that often matters in situations like this. If Lamont only had the $1.6 million he raised from others, he would not have developed into a serious threat. The over $3 million he contributed to himself moved him from an also-ran to a contender.

When big waves hit, do not take solace in your strong numbers. Lieberman won his last two races with 63 percent and 67 percent of the vote, including 87 percent of Democrats. In February 2006, 61 percent of Democrats thought Lieberman deserved to be reelected and he enjoyed a 57-30 percent approval rating within his party. Lieberman led Lamont by 68-13. By May the Quinnipiac pollsters were still proclaiming “Anti-Bush, Anti-War Feeling Does Not Hurt Lieberman” as his approval rating and lead were largely intact, even though 55 percent knew he had supported the war, because only 12 percent of Democrats said they would vote against a candidate on that basis. By August, Lieberman was well behind and 44 percent identified the war as the main reason for voting against him. Just as the sand shifts beneath your feet when an ocean wave hits the beach, political waves transform the landscape, rendering old assumptions and even recent numbers obsolete. And this lesson from Connecticut should be giving Republicans nightmares until November.

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982, including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.