<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cramer Endorses Griffith</title>
	<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/</link>
	<description>&#038; Home of Lawn Mower Repair</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:19:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: PoliticalJunkie</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22218</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22218</guid>
					<description>Re: SamfordDem
My fault, I should have been clear.  Re-reading I can see that my comment could have easily been read that way.

Re: Montgomery 
I couldn’t agree more.  This election will be completely different, which is why is I think it’s naive to think that Griffith wins “unless there is a major upset.” (Emphasis on major.)  No doubt that Griffith can win, but there’s a very good reason why every objective source (Cook’s Political, Politico, etc.) have listed the race as “toss-up” (or equivalent).  
To assume a walk-off win for Griffith is to fundamentally misconstrue, or misunderstand, the state of politics in the state of Alabama and how it’s changed from 1994 to now.
In 1994 we had what basically amounted to a Blue Dog Governor (Fob James), a Supreme Court that was entirely Democratic in composition (with the first Republican ever elected to the court that year), and a state legislature that was dominated by Democrats.  Compare that to now when we have a true Republican governor (not commenting on James’ conservative merits just party affiliation), a Supreme Court completely dominated by Republicans, and caucuses in both bodies of the legislature that are fairly close to majorities.  That’s an enormous shift in one decade.
Furthermore, you completely discount the power of incumbency in evaluating Wayne’s losses.  If the race in 1994 or in 1996 is for an open seat Wayne wins.  I think that’s pretty uncontroversial as it relates to ’94, though I’m sure you’ll disagree on ’96 but the incumbency is worth a substantial percentage.
Wayne also has a substantial level of grassroots support.  That was the real reason for his substantial showing in 1994, not the money from the national party.  He still has that grassroots support and it will payoff as the campaign unfolds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: SamfordDem<br />
My fault, I should have been clear.  Re-reading I can see that my comment could have easily been read that way.</p>
<p>Re: Montgomery<br />
I couldn’t agree more.  This election will be completely different, which is why is I think it’s naive to think that Griffith wins “unless there is a major upset.” (Emphasis on major.)  No doubt that Griffith can win, but there’s a very good reason why every objective source (Cook’s Political, Politico, etc.) have listed the race as “toss-up” (or equivalent).<br />
To assume a walk-off win for Griffith is to fundamentally misconstrue, or misunderstand, the state of politics in the state of Alabama and how it’s changed from 1994 to now.<br />
In 1994 we had what basically amounted to a Blue Dog Governor (Fob James), a Supreme Court that was entirely Democratic in composition (with the first Republican ever elected to the court that year), and a state legislature that was dominated by Democrats.  Compare that to now when we have a true Republican governor (not commenting on James’ conservative merits just party affiliation), a Supreme Court completely dominated by Republicans, and caucuses in both bodies of the legislature that are fairly close to majorities.  That’s an enormous shift in one decade.<br />
Furthermore, you completely discount the power of incumbency in evaluating Wayne’s losses.  If the race in 1994 or in 1996 is for an open seat Wayne wins.  I think that’s pretty uncontroversial as it relates to ’94, though I’m sure you’ll disagree on ’96 but the incumbency is worth a substantial percentage.<br />
Wayne also has a substantial level of grassroots support.  That was the real reason for his substantial showing in 1994, not the money from the national party.  He still has that grassroots support and it will payoff as the campaign unfolds.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: SamfordDem</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22146</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:57:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22146</guid>
					<description>Apologies, I thought you meant relatively liberal for the district.  I think Griffith will likely chart much the same path that as Cramer, who apparently had a pretty good grasp of the district.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apologies, I thought you meant relatively liberal for the district.  I think Griffith will likely chart much the same path that as Cramer, who apparently had a pretty good grasp of the district.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Montgomery</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22128</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:02:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22128</guid>
					<description>COmparing Wayne Parker's run in 1994 to this year is comparing apples to oranges -- no, make that to cucumbers. In 1994, his father-in-law was able to direct HUGE amounts of national Republican money to the race, Bill Clinton was the most unpopular President in recent history until more recent history, and the nation was in the middle of a Republican sweep that led Republicans back to a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, and swept out numerous Democratic Governors across the country, including every one in the South other than Zell Miller in Georgia, who survived by about the same margin as Bud Cramer.

Let's look only two years later when Bud, with minimally more seniority, and having been "reduced" to serving in the minority was again opposed by Wayne Parker. The result then - Bud Cramer 56%, Wayne Parker 42%. Griffith wins this race, unless there is a major upset - although there were Republicans that would have had a much better chance, and possibly a better than 50/50 chance, at victory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>COmparing Wayne Parker&#8217;s run in 1994 to this year is comparing apples to oranges &#8212; no, make that to cucumbers. In 1994, his father-in-law was able to direct HUGE amounts of national Republican money to the race, Bill Clinton was the most unpopular President in recent history until more recent history, and the nation was in the middle of a Republican sweep that led Republicans back to a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, and swept out numerous Democratic Governors across the country, including every one in the South other than Zell Miller in Georgia, who survived by about the same margin as Bud Cramer.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s look only two years later when Bud, with minimally more seniority, and having been &#8220;reduced&#8221; to serving in the minority was again opposed by Wayne Parker. The result then - Bud Cramer 56%, Wayne Parker 42%. Griffith wins this race, unless there is a major upset - although there were Republicans that would have had a much better chance, and possibly a better than 50/50 chance, at victory.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: PoliticalJunkie</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22085</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:50:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22085</guid>
					<description>Haha I knew somebody wouldn't read carefully!  He's relatively liberal compared to Wayne Parker.  Of course he's relatively conservative (Blue Dog! Yay!) compared to Obama, but so is Hillary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Haha I knew somebody wouldn&#8217;t read carefully!  He&#8217;s relatively liberal compared to Wayne Parker.  Of course he&#8217;s relatively conservative (Blue Dog! Yay!) compared to Obama, but so is Hillary.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: SamfordDem</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22061</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22061</guid>
					<description>How is Parker Griffith "relatively liberal"?  He seems like a pretty darn conservative Blue Dog through and through to me.  I just don't see a two-time loser who last came close a decade ago pulling this one out.  If Clinton's at the top of the ticket, maybe, but, even then I doubt it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is Parker Griffith &#8220;relatively liberal&#8221;?  He seems like a pretty darn conservative Blue Dog through and through to me.  I just don&#8217;t see a two-time loser who last came close a decade ago pulling this one out.  If Clinton&#8217;s at the top of the ticket, maybe, but, even then I doubt it.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: PoliticalJunkie</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22055</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:40:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22055</guid>
					<description>I agree with "Hunts4me."  If Wayne could come close against an incumbent, he should be able to roll over a relatively liberal democrat in a conservative district.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with &#8220;Hunts4me.&#8221;  If Wayne could come close against an incumbent, he should be able to roll over a relatively liberal democrat in a conservative district.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Hunts4me</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22038</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:56:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22038</guid>
					<description>Doesn't matter much anyway - Griffith will lose when the seat goes Rep. in the fall.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doesn&#8217;t matter much anyway - Griffith will lose when the seat goes Rep. in the fall.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: dan t</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22031</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:11:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22031</guid>
					<description>You also have to keep in mind that Griffith has huge name id in the district right now because of his two previous runs for office. So that could be another reason why Bud endorsed him. One democrat in Florence jokingly told me yesterday that Griffith flooded the airwaves so much in '04 and '06 that people in southern middle Tennessee probably know more about him than they do their own politicians.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You also have to keep in mind that Griffith has huge name id in the district right now because of his two previous runs for office. So that could be another reason why Bud endorsed him. One democrat in Florence jokingly told me yesterday that Griffith flooded the airwaves so much in &#8216;04 and &#8216;06 that people in southern middle Tennessee probably know more about him than they do their own politicians.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Danny</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22015</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:40:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22015</guid>
					<description>D2 Voter, I'm with Gunney Highway in comment 7... I'd be interested to know what you mean by "that crook Griffith."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>D2 Voter, I&#8217;m with Gunney Highway in comment 7&#8230; I&#8217;d be interested to know what you mean by &#8220;that crook Griffith.&#8221;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Reactionary</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22000</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:11:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/04/08/cramer-endorses-griffith/#comment-22000</guid>
					<description>walt - I didn't think that the tanker contract affected Davis' district, other than it being good for Alabama.  The Dems want to kill it anyway...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>walt - I didn&#8217;t think that the tanker contract affected Davis&#8217; district, other than it being good for Alabama.  The Dems want to kill it anyway&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
