I thought Democrat was the party of frivolous lawsuits?

It's not frivolous; he's suing them for trying to put two different candidates on the ticket from the same party. They need to choose one or the other.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: I thought Democrat was the party of frivolous lawsuits?

Um, no such party in the USA. Thanks for playing, though

Whoever wrote that article should stick to covering the weather.

Shaggy_C: It's not frivolous; he's suing them for trying to put two different candidates on the ticket from the same party. They need to choose one or the other.

Pick a side, we're at war.

Q-Redux: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: I thought Democrat was the party of frivolous lawsuits?

Um, no such party in the USA. Thanks for playing, though

No, I think you only use "Democratic" as an adjective, i.e. "the Democratic Party". When you refer to the party itself, it's "Democrat".

But I could be wrong. Anyone out there who could clear this up?

Falcc: Pick a side, we're at war.

What I think would get confusing would be if someone were running as a true independent vs a member of the Independence party. Would they both have an 'I' by their name?

This seems fair. And just

Hideously Gigantic Smurf:
No, I think you only use "Democratic" as an adjective, i.e. "the Democratic Party". When you refer to the party itself, it's "Democrat".


You cannot refer to either party as a collective noun without using both words: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party. It just doesn't work without.

I love the GOPers who think this is clever. Dan Smoot (self-proclaimed defender from liberal Commie infiltration) was doing it in 1962.

This article is a perfect example of the old maxim:

YOUR POLITICS ARE BORING AS FARK!

Just avert your eyes from the sideshow, kids. It'll never get any better.

/If Obama gets elected, will I be called a racist for calling him a fascist?

Token Anarchist: /If Obama gets elected, will I be called a racist for calling him a fascist?

No, but you'll be called a frickin' moron and with good cause.

Shaggy_C: Falcc: Pick a side, we're at war.

What I think would get confusing would be if someone were running as a true independent vs a member of the Independence party. Would they both have an 'I' by their name?

I think it'd be interesting if people started using the internet method. Big I, small i based on their views. Of course I'd prefer people just split into different parties than have Big D and small r and whatnot candidates.

Lawnchair: I love the GOPers who think this is clever. Dan Smoot (self-proclaimed defender from liberal Commie infiltration) was doing it in 1962

It was lame back in 62 when Smoot did it, it's uber lame now.

One still encounters folks in blogworld who think they made it up themselves and that it's actually any kind of clever.

Note to these folks: You didn't. It's not.

/On Topic? I don't get it I thought Lou Dobbs wasn't running.

Just an FYI for non-New York farkers. In elections in NY, the votes for the same canidate on different party lines are added together. So 500 votes for John Smith on the Republican line is added to the 200 votes for John Smith on the Independence line for a total of 700 votes.

The real irony of this story is that the Independence party in NY is run by people who are in Joe Bruno's (Sentate Majority leader for life and defacto head of the state's Republican party) back pocket and have done their very best to replace every local party offical with a Republican stooge.

After seeing what they did in Onodaga county first hand I am just sitting back and enjoying this.

Token Anarchist: This article is a perfect example of the old maxim:

YOUR POLITICS ARE BORING AS FARK!

Just avert your eyes from the sideshow, kids. It'll never get any better.

/If Obama gets elected, will I be called a racist for calling him a fascist?

Nah, you'd just be either correct or an idiot, depending on how he executes his duties as president. Now, if he were a second-generation German or Italian immigrant and you arbitrarily accused him of being fascist, that would probaby be racial profiling, though I suppose not necessarily.

Shaggy_C: It's not frivolous; he's suing them for trying to put two different candidates on the ticket from the same party. They need to choose one or the other.

This was so much less confusing than the article. Thank you!

/ Confusing, Independents and Independence Party.

Lawnchair: Hideously Gigantic Smurf:
No, I think you only use "Democratic" as an adjective, i.e. "the Democratic Party". When you refer to the party itself, it's "Democrat".


You cannot refer to either party as a collective noun without using both words: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party. It just doesn't work without.

I love the GOPers who think this is clever. Dan Smoot (self-proclaimed defender from liberal Commie infiltration) was doing it in 1962.

Are the (D) grammar Nazis STILL hyperventilating over this?

//English is FULL of irregular usages - this is just one more to live with.

It's the Republican Party, "he's a Republican", "they're all Republicans".
It's the Democrat Party, "he's a Democrat", "they're all Democrats".

is more consistent (and just plain sounds better) than
It's the Democratic Party, "he's a Democratic", "they're all Democratics".
or even
It's the Democratic Party, "he's a Democrat", "they're all Democrats".

No one is actually confused at what you mean when you refer to the "Democrat" party,
nor is "Democrat" some disparaging or insulting variant - to any sane individual.
The (D)s that obsess-compulse over this need to spend their time and energy better.