Talk:Democrat Party (phrase)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democrat Party (phrase) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Old Discussion

There was quite a discussion a few months back and the Wiki decision was to not have the article by this title. Perhaps Democrat Party (Phrase) would be ok. Rjensen 09:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please cite the discussion? --Asbl 05:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
How disingenuous -- and typical -- of you. A debate was held in June 2006 about this topic, and it was agree do redirect this to the Democratic Party article. Two months later, rjensen tries again, beating his hobby horse as usual. Please see the discussion about this article from June here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_%28United_States%29. And please note how rjensen circumvented the Wiki users decision for his own ends, as per usual. 05:46, 27 November 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.41.216 (talk • contribs).
He did the right thing. This is a valid topic for an article. A great deal has been written about this in the media; it's a well-known phenomenon and it should not be ignored simply because it is a political tactic subtley employed by Republicans. It's obvious Republicans liked it better when it was subliminal. 66.188.6.131 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The decision to close the AfD as a redirect was admitted by the closing editor to be a very close thing, hardly a consensus, and even then, WP:CCC. More to the point, the article as it is now is absolutely without doubt worthy of being a separate article, as opposed to not being in wikipedia at all, or part of another article: it's interesting, of reasonable length, very well sourced, and likely to expand over time as things change and people find more sources and information. It's time to stop discussing whether the article is worthy of existing and focus exclusively on what it says. John Broughton | Talk 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: to avoid two conversations on the same topic, those wanting to comment on this should post at #Redirect Needed?, below. John Broughton | Talk 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic Party

  • It is not "original research", rather it is a fact to say that the linguistic equivalent to "Democratic Party" is "Republic Party". It is also noteworthy in the context of discussing whether language is moving in this direction. Kgwo1972 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It is original research because (1) it is not supported by a citation stating that that equivalent has not been used, and (2) it's your assessment that "Republic Party" would be the equivalent; other permutations might exist / could exist. "Facts" aren't the threshold for inclusion here; verifiability is. Feel free to add a citation; otherwise, I will remove it again per WP:V. Dylan 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The phrase preciding mine -- "The use of 'Democrat' as an adjective could be part of a linguistic trend" -- is obviously speculation and falls within your definition of original research. (As is, frankly, much of this page.) If you want to remove that entire section, fine with me. In the meantime I will look for a cite to verify that "Republic Party" is not used, although proving a negative can be difficult. Kgwo1972 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
        • It would be WP:OR (not according to me, but to the official policy), but it is actually a paraphrasing of the following-mentioned CSM article, which deals entirely with exactly that kind of inflection loss. So it is cited, even though the citation does not appear right after that statement (it appears after all the material included in the article). By all means, please do remove other uncited material. Dylan 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • After doing research I see I was wrong in saying that "Republic Party" has not been used. I have therefore changed my note about this term. Kgwo1972 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official name?

  • Can anyone confirm whether or not the official name of the party is the "Democratic Party"? Kgwo1972 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the official site is titled "THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY." I'm not sure that they spell out in so many words, "Our official name is 'The Democratic Party,'" but I don't see why that can't be taken as indicating their official name. If you're looking for more, maybe there's some kind of official government register of American political parties? Dylan 19:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Found something - Bartleby says explicitly that the official name is the Democratic Party. Dylan 21:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DemocRAT

Obviously, the point of calling it the Democrat Party is to emphasize the last three letters -- rat. Let's not pussyfoot around this and include it in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.0.12 (talk • contribs) 17:31, November 14, 2006.

Please read WP:V - you may be right that emphasizing "rat" is the purpose of saying "Democrat Party," but right or not, you need a citation to support it. Dylan 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of random Google searches being used as sources, but it's easily verified that some modern opposition partisans use "rat party" to describe the Democratic Party. It's debatable whether or not it was part of the original partisan intent from 60 years ago or whatever. Settler 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
On a related note, there is this article: Bush says 'RATS' ad not meant as subliminal message Settler 00:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Good points, and I found a few citations supporting the claim anyway - I've incorporated them into the article. Dylan 00:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been told that Republicans used "Democrat Party" because they were self-concious that the term "Democratic Party" negatively implies that the GOP is somehow less democratic. This is the explanation I've always believed, but it's noticably absent.Mingusboodle 21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

I have modified some of the edits by 71.139.0.12 for the following reasons:

  1. Saying "it has been suggested" is not a weasel word because it has been suggested, and there are two citations at the end of that statement to support it. That is only a weasel phrase without citations. We can't state as fact that the purpose of the term is to emphasize "rat," because not all our sources agree that it is.
  2. If it was first used in 1890, than it cannot "first have come into use" in the 1930s, as pointed out by Nat Krause. I rephrased this to make it more clear, and avoided using "popularity."
  3. The edits to the grammaticality section are POV, because there are conflicting opinions over whether or not it is grammatical; the whole point of that section is to emphasize that sometimes nouns can be used as adjectives, which means that the issue of whether "Democrat Party" is grammatical is totally open. Besides, we can't say for sure that it is grammatical or is not, as we have people who argue both ways. I reworded to try to reflect the intent of 71.139.0.12. Dylan 14:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding local use of "Democrat Party" names

The existence of "County Democrat" parties is currently mentioned at the end of the Grammaticality section. I don't think it should be mentioned in the lead for a few reasons:

  • First of all, this article is about the epithet; coincidental use of the same term in a different sense (i.e. the County Democrat parties obviously aren't using it disparagingly) is interesting but not really relevant.
  • It's irrelevant because it's the official name of those parties, whereas it is not the official name of the national Democratic Party. The "incorrectness" of this term comes from that fact that officially it's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. For the local parties, it is the official name. However, just because local parties use it doesn't make it correct for the national party.

Just wanted to lay that out as an explanation for edits I make to this effect. Dylan 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    • The official name of the party is the "Democratic Party of the United Stats of America." thatt name is rarely used. If the article says some Dems dislike the term it should also add that some Dems use the term on their website (as Christiuan Science Monitor reported). Rjensen 22:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You're missing the point: this article is about a term for the Democratic Party of the United States of America. What separate parties call themselves is irrelevant, even if they are associated with the national party. Nassau County Democrat Party, for example, doesn't call the national party "Democrat," just their own party -- which is totally off the table here. We're not talking about the real name for the Nassau County party, we're talking about a nickname for the national Democratic Party. I agree, it's interesting that local parties use it. But you're conflating two ideas: that some Dems are upset that people call the national party "Democrat," but that some Dems call their local parties Democrat. Do you see the disparity there? Dylan 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed Some local Democratic Party organizations use the term "Democrat Party" in their names. Though indeed, the cited sites contain the words "Democrat Party", both of them are to http://www.lipolitics.com, and the links on that site point to official pages that do not use the "democrat" form, but rather the canonical "democratic". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding editing conflict

Let me go through point by point the changes I made here:

  • Typo fix ("unemocratic" to "undemocratic")
  • Removed uncited "but hundreds of local Democratic party organizations use it routinely" - it's uncited that "HUNDREDS" use it (only two are shown), and see above for why this shouldn't be in the lead -- it's the use of the same term in a totally unrelated context
  • Removed uncited "The adjective form appears in most Republican party national platforms since 1948." Add a citation or it should not be included.
  • Ditto on "It is the standard term in WHite House speeches and presidential announcements since 2001." No citation yet supports this claim.
  • Removed "'Georgia peach' and 'Washington's farewell letter'" as examples just because this was getting clunky with four examples. People get the point. I'm not sure why Rjensen reverted this.
  • Removed claim of "hundreds" and replaced with "some," as above: uncited.

All this changes are justified per WP:V, with the arguable exception of the local party thing, which is being addressed above. Dylan 22:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the point that Democrat is the noun is irrelevant, too -- we're talking about the phrase "Democrat Party" specifically, not every instance of the word "Democrat." It's just distracting. Dylan 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some evidence for challenged points:
  1. "but hundreds of local Democratic party organizations use it routinely" Google gives about 1000 hits for "county Democratic Party. [1]
  2. in " most Republican party national platforms since 1948." Porter and Johnson book is cited
  3. "It is the standard term in WHite House speeches and presidential announcements since 2001." several authors point to Bush's usage as does the White House Web site
  4. *Removed "'Georgia peach' and 'Washington's farewell letter'" I agree  :)
  5. Democrat is the noun is irrelevant, too. No -- the standard usage of Democrat as a noun proves that it's not a nasty word that uses "rat" as one blogger seems to believe. The point is to tell users there is no dispute whatever about the NOUN "Democrat" only about its use as an adjective. Rjensen 06:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect Needed?

Should this article be redirected to "Democratic Party (United States)? The wiki editors came to this consensus in June of 2006. Two months later, one of those editors, in defiance of the consensus reached in June, tried again, and created this "Democrat Party" wiki entry against the decision of the other editors. You can read about it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat Party (United States). I really think we should honor editors' decisions on the Wikipedia and not go off the reservation because we disagree with a consensus or we so earnestly want to push our own wee little political agenda.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.38.76 (talk • contribs).

Based on my recollection of the earlier article, this is fundamentally the same as the earlier one, and therefore should not be revived without a Deletion Review. Fan-1967 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we then redirect it until such time as it has received a Deletion Review? I believe that is the correct procedure. Until permission is given for the article to be revived, it should be redirected, as per the concensus reached in the June discussion?
No the previous review recommended the title be changed to emphasize this is a phrase, rather than a party name as used in previous version. Rjensen 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Provided this article refers to the "Democrat Party" as a slur used by conservatives, I see no reason why this should be deleted. In fact, re-directing it only serves to reinforce its use as an insult, since few people would know that "Democrat Party" is not just another term for the Democratic Party. That said, it is important to abide by decisions that have bee made. --Tjss(Talk) 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The ruling before was as follows:

The result of the debate was Redirect to Democratic Party (United States). OK, this was a tough one. There is a lot to read here and consensus is not clear cut. A careful review of the material in the article itself suggests that there might be SOME value in some of it. By leaving it as a redirect, that material is accessible to people that want to move it to the target article. I have half an expectation that this will go to DRV, which is fine, I may be reading the sense wrong, but that's what it feels like to me. I welcome review by others. --++Lar: t/c 03:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If the people who revived this topic want to take it to a Deletion Review, that is fine, but as for now, they are obliged, I think, to stand by the official Wiki ruling. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat Party (United States). )

The old issue was whether "Democrat Party (United States)" was legit. That issue is resolved. As several people suggested, "Democrat Party (phrase)" would be a solutiona and that is what we are doing., The problem is that some peopel do NOT want this information available to Wiki users because of their own POV. Rjensen 20:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No, the problem is simple. Some people don't want to abide by a ruling....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.150.10.200 (talk • contribs).
Wikipedia:Consensus can change. Gamaliel 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is unnecessary and its inclusion on Wikipedia has been settled for the time being in the negative. Bjsiders 07:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The decision to close the AfD as a redirect was admitted by the closing editor to be a very close thing, hardly a consensus, and even then, WP:CCC, as Gamaliel says. More to the point, the article as it is now is absolutely without doubt worthy of being a separate article, as opposed to not being in wikipedia at all, or part of another article: it's interesting, of reasonable length, very well sourced, and likely to expand over time as things change and people find more sources and information.
It's time to stop discussing whether the old AfD can properly be used to try to kill this article, since the article as is is worthy of existing. Instead, let's focus on improving what the article says. John Broughton | Talk 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The article isn't worthy simply because you say so. Bjsiders 05:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The article should go. That was decided before. It's puffery. Half-arsed scholarship. Griot 09:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Griot seems to disagree with the many scholars and linguists over the last 50 years who have given the term serious attention (see the bibliography for starters). Rjensen 09:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the phrase by Democrats?

The article says Senator Joe Lieberman,[12] a prominent Democrat who won reelection in 2006 as an independent, has used the term as well. The source for this is a blog, which says Joe's campaign just sent out a fundraising solicitation using the term 'the Democrat Party', which is a traditionally dismissive term and a code word to Republicans that Joe is with them.

I note the following problems:

  • A blog (WP:RS problem) as the source
  • Lieberman didn't "USE" the term - it appear in (one piece of?) campaign literature
  • Lieberman, at the time, was running as an independent, and high-level Republican Party folks were working to support Lieberman (running against the Democrat who beat him in the primary). That makes this a rather unusual case, not exactly a good example.

In short, I don't think this should be in the article.

Moreover, the article says at the top: ... while other [Democrats] use [the phrase] on their web pages. That statement is unsupported by any sources - what is the basis for that sentence? John Broughton | Talk 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The source is the Lieberman ad (as reported by the Blog--the bloggers opinion is not much good the the report there is such an ad seems usable). A candidate is fully responsible for the contents of ads. (In TV commercials they actually have to appear in person and say that.) Lieberman is fascinating--as a Dem candidate he did not use the phrase but as an independnet he did (presumably to appeal to GOP voters). A google.com search on "County Deomcrat Party" gives thousands of hits with Nassau County and Suffolk County Dems parties listed and many others (this was pointed out in the Christian Science Monitor story that is cited). Rjensen 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So provide a good example; what was there, wasn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, the Christian Science Monitor story also is using lipolitics.com as a source for the Nassau and Suffolk nomenclatures. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Examples of use by local Dem parties? try these:
  1. Watauga County Democrat Party P O Box 3124 Boone, N.C. 28607. [2]
  2. Mission statement of the Democrats of the 17th and 6th Districts [3]
  3. Indiana 3rd District Democrat Party [4]
  4. "This week I've joined the local Navajo County Democrat Party in Arizona, met the County Chair and he has put me to work making up web pages and searching..." [communityviews.blogspot.com/2006_09_03_communityviews_archive.html]
  5. Oct 12, 2006 Henry County Democrat Party Rally [www.kydemocrat.com/ht/display/Events/archive/Y/pid/324164] Rjensen 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
So, to summarize, if I may: no Democratic Senator (50 or so) or Democratic House member (200+) is known to have ever used the phrase, with one exception: Lieberman, while running as an independent, in one campaign piece (NOT television ad). There are certainly some local Democratic organizations (and one person writing in a blog - item 4, above) who do or have used the phrase. On the other side, a long list of notable Republicans, starting with G.W. Bush and going down, has used the phrase, on many different occasions. (Is that a fair summary?) John Broughton | Talk 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, I ran a google search on "State Democrat Party". Interestingly, while Idaho and Utah Democratic party websites are at the top of the results, the pages don't actually seem to contain the phrase. (As you may be aware, getting a site to rank high on google with a given search term, even though it doesn't actually contain the term, can be accomplished with a google bomb.) All of the remaining top 20 results are either (a) GOP sites or (b) right-wing websites or (c) blogs. So I conclude that it's rare to never that a Democratic state website uses the phrase. (Corrections welcomed.) John Broughton | Talk 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What's rare? If you look for "county Democrat party" you get 9000+ websites, many of them from local (county) Dem parties and local newspapers. What we have is that Washington Dems rarely or never use the term but people out in the states are more comfortable with it. Mostly though it's used by Republicans--in an noinjudgmental way these days, I think. Rjensen 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep looking more closely at those links. For example, the Henry County link is not to the Henry County Democratic Party, but rather to an event listing that mentions them; the actual website of the Henry County (KY) party calls it the Democratic Party. Likewise, [5] isn't anything official, and both "democrat party" listings in it actually link to sites that call it Democratic Party. Same thing with the "mission statement"; and the Watauga County one is consistantly Democratic Party except that one mention (which could very well be one web designers typo, who knows?). Have you found any actual official usage of the term Democrat Party? If you want to say "occasionally Democrats use the term unofficially", that's OK, but it might be giving undue weight to say more than a sentence. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
#2 is actually a disident group, not the official party. So, to recap, of the five examples, one is from a dissident group, one is a typo, one is a blog, and one is an unofficial event listing. In short, the only clearly valid example is #3, a very local (and amateurish) website, where "Democrat" is consisently used as a noun. John Broughton | Talk 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 22 examples

OOps--it's true I pulled those [prior section - JB] at random without looking at them. Try these, which I think are real and which show lots of casual usage of the adjective in official names & announcements of local party organizations: Rjensen 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. [6] Kansas --lists meeting of "Democrat Party Central Committee"
  2. [7] Indiana "Copyright © 2003 Owen County Democrat Central Committee"
  3. [8] So Carolina "2004 at our Georgetown County Democrat Party general and executive committee meeting, I was elected to serve as interim chairperson for our party."
  4. [9] "Haskell County Democrat Party Fundraising Event " Oklahoma
  5. [10] "Jefferson County Democrat Party " Colorado (I live in this country myself)
  6. [11] "Illinois Democrat County Chairmen's Annual Governor's Day at the Fair"
  7. [12] "welcome to the Monroe County Democrat Party website" Ohio
  8. [13] "final 2006 meeting of the Decatur Township Democrat Club" Indiana
  9. [14] "Vermilion County Democrat party " Illinois
  10. [15] "Vermillion County Indiana Democrat Central Committee Officers"
  11. [16] "Indiana 8th U.S. Congressional District Democrat County Parties & Organizations"
  12. [17] Indiana "Please Join The Democrat Club"
  13. [18] "Mercer County Democrat Party Picnic" "vote straight democrat" West Virginia
  14. [19] "Cecil County Democrat Club is open to all registered Democrats " Maryland
  15. [20] "view the current list of Democrat candidates" Indiana
  16. [21] "Call Cheryl at The Vanderburgh Democrat Party Headquarters" Indiana
  17. [22] "speeches from Yolo County Democrat electeds." California
  18. [23] Indiana county
  19. [24] New York county from LIPolitics
  20. [25] Tennessee county
  21. [26] New York county
  22. [27] here's a press release from a national organization (Dem Leadership Council) in which Vilsak & Sen Clinton are leaders: "New Democrat Electeds to Participate in DLC New Economy Forum ". Note also some 269,000 google hits for for "Democrat candidate", compared to about 1,070,000 for "Democratic candidate" Rjensen 04:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, now, which of these are actual official uses of the phrase? Nobody is contesting that it is used casually -- and lord knows incorrect usage of language isn't confined to Republicanists. I notice, for example, you're again using lipolitics.com as a source -- in fact, this new list contains several that we've already seen and discounted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe all the 22 new numered sites I annotated are official; I did look at each one. The 269,00 hits for "Democrat candidate" include a vast range of sources, obviously. The point is that there is now a 4:1 ratio between "Democratic candidate" and "Democrat candidate:, sugesting the adjective is making major headway. only one is from LIpolitics.com Rjensen 04:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait, "official" means "some typist typed it"? Are there any Democratic Party bodies that officially (as opposed to casually and/or in passing) use the phrase? "Democrat candidate" is pretty much irrelevant; the article is about "Democrat party". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
re: Official websites--I think the local party is responsible for it, just as they are responsible for pamphlets typeset at the local print shop. The article is actually about the noun "Democrat" used an an adjective to refer to the Democratic party. So all the cites seem relevant. Rjensen 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, yeah, you're a good editor and wouldn't have brought them in if they didn't seem that way. What I'm really looking for is an example of an official usage -- a Democratic Party organization at any level with the official name of "Democrat Party". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I live in Jefferson County (Colorado) and "Democrat party" is how the Democrats talk here. No one seems to think it embarassing. They write like this: "Members of the Jefferson County Democrat State Senate District 21 Vacancy Committee have been notified in an "Official Call" to meet... to select a replacement for Senate Deanna Hanna." [28]
    • But for "official usage" I have found hard evidence. In Indiana all organizations that legally incorporate have their information online and you can search the names for free (they charge to look at the incorporation papers). In Indiana there are 34 incorporated groups with "Democrat" as part of their legal name) versus 226 that use "Democratic"). These seem to be active local clubs. (Brown County is the official county organization). Alphabetically the first few are as follows: 17TH DISTRICT DEMOCRAT CLUB, INC.; INDIANAPOLIS, IN 17TH WARD DEMOCRAT CLUB INC; ANDREW JACKSON DEMOCRAT CLUB OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY IN; BLOOMFIELD DEMOCRAT INCORP; BROWN COUNTY DEMOCRAT CENTRAL COMMITTEE CORPORATION; CITY OF PORTAGE DEMOCRAT CLUB; CLARK COUNTY DEMOCRAT MEN'S CLUB, INC.; and CLINTON COUNTY DEMOCRAT CLUB INC. source: [29]. Rjensen 08:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Correct JPGordon. None of the references cited mentions "Democrat Party", which would be germaine to the article. Also many examples being cited may refer to the correct use of the noun form "Democrat" as opposed to misusing the noun as an adjective, which is a point of the article as well. Strawman arguments and examples should not be used.open_mind 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen - thanks for all the work to come up with the list of 22 usages at local party levels. My evaluation (best examples of your point are italicized):

  1. - "Democratic Party" in heading of page, used twice elsewhere; "Democrat Party Central Committee" and other similar uses on page, where "party" is NOT final noun (Kansas)
  2. - two uses of "Democratic Party", none of "Democrat Party"
  3. - five uses of "Democratic Party", including heading; two uses (same paragraph) of "Democrat Party"
  4. - Google calendar entry.
  5. - Chair's newsletter, used repeatedly (Missouri)
  6. - Used repeatedly (Illinois)
  7. - one each "Democratic party" and "Democrat Party"
  8. - ic outnumbers non-ic, 5 to 2
  9. - very mixed, lots of examples of both (Illinios)
  10. - "Democrat" only (Indiana)
  11. - same website as #10
  12. - mixed (2 each); cheesy local website
  13. - local is "Democrat"; links to state and national parties use "Democratic" (W.Va)
  14. - five cases of "Democratic party"; only use of "Democrat" is in "Democrat Club" (a club for Democrats; borderline)
  15. - minimal case - one use of Democrat, none of Democratic (Indiana)
  16. - four "Democratic party", one "Democrat Party"
  17. - 7 to 5, Democratic versus Democrat
  18. - 9 to 5, Democrat preferred (Indiana)
  19. - lipolitics.com, not a Democratic Party website, as mentioned above
  20. - 2 to 2 (Tennessee)
  21. - 5 to 1, "Democratic Party" used
  22. - National press release where "Democrat" is used twice as a noun in a stacked noun list ("New Democrat Electeds") (as in "New Television Show Successes") and "House New Democrat Coalition Congressmen", and NOT as "Democrat Party". (I admit that "Democrat" could easily be "Democratic", but this is still a grey area, NOT clearcut evidence of use by the Democrats at the national level of this phrase.)


In summary, what the pattern seems to be is (a) "Democrat Party" is often used with a noun following it: so "Democrat Party Central Committee" is common, but not "the County Democrat Party did X"; (b) Rarely does "Democrat Party" appear without "Democratic Party" also being used on the same page (this is somewhat of a corollary to (a); and (c) primary/preferred use of "Democrat Party" is ONLY a middle-of-the-county thing: Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia,

Or, to repeat my summary from above, which wasn't objected to (here's another chance!), with a few tweaks:

No Democratic Senator (50 or so) or Democratic House member (200+) is known to have ever used the phrase, with one exception: Lieberman, while running as an independent, in one campaign piece (NOT television ad). No Democratic national or state organization is known to have used the phrase. There are a lot of county organizations in Midwest states that DO use say "Democrat Party", though rarely is this exclusive; more typical is a mix of "Democratic Party" and "Democrat Party". By contrast, a long list of notable Republicans, starting with G.W. Bush and going down, has used the phrase, on many different occasions, in official documents and speeches. John Broughton | Talk 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google searches on "Democrat candidate" (and so on) may not be useful

I recently ran a google search to find every incident of "Democrat Party" in wikipedia articles. What I found was that there are parties in many other countries (Thailand, UK, New Zealand, Sweden, etc.) with names like "Christian Democrat Party", "Social Democrat Party", Liberal Democrat Party, and so on; those produce a large number of "false positives". From which I conclude that comparing "Democrat candidate" to "Democratic candidate" via google seaching is absolutely NOT valid for determining anything about usage patterns - unless countries outside the U.S. are excluded. John Broughton | Talk 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Broughtn raises an interesting point: in other English language countries like UK and New Zealand, "Democrat party" is considered standard English. It seems to be used in common usage by all parties and journalists. Only in the US do some people get angry at the term. The answer seems pretty clear to me: Democrats get angry because they think Republicans are insulting them. Rjensen 09:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-judgmental?

Mostly though it's used by Republicans--in an noinjudgmental way these days, I think. Rjensen 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How exactly would you measure that ("mostly")? Plus there are several articles that say that Republicans use the term pejoratively - are there any articles, in contrast, that specifically say that Republicans do use it in a nonjudgmental way, these days? John Broughton | Talk 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nassau County Democrat Party

Why is LIpolitics.com being used as a source (from the CS Monitor article)? The actual website of the Nassau County Democratic Committee doesn't seem to use the term "Democrat Party," but uses "Democratic Party." The voter registration form linked to on their website uses "Democratic Party." Settler 07:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am removing it. Only official satellite groups of the Democratic Party should be cited. Settler 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real life in Colorado

Well I live in Colorado in Jefferson County, a large suburb to the west of Denver that is highly competitive. The Democrats routinely use the noun-as-adjective probably a third-to-half of the time. For example look at the official Democratic newsletter from March 2006 at [30]. Notice the routine announcements like:
  1. "Election of Precinct Committeepeople (Democrat Party leaders in a precinct"
  2. "presentation of resolutions for Jefferson County Democrat Party Platform.
  3. "selecting delegates who will nominate the Democrat candidates"
  4. "Members of the Jefferson County Democrat State Senate District 21 Vacancy Committee have been notified"
  5. "Members of the Jefferson County Democrat State House District 26 Vacancy Committee"
  6. "great networking of the for-profit and non-profit businesspeople in Jeffco for candidates and elected officials and Democrat businesspeople."

I submit that in Colorado the noun-as-adjective is part of everyone's vocabulary. The Dems here by the way did well last month, picking up a Congressional seat that had been held by the GOP. Rjensen 08:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While the Jefferson County Democratic Party website makes use of both "Democratic Party" and "Democrat Party" (more specifically the chair's newsletter), "Democratic Party" is used more frequently as well as is featured as its prominent appellation on their main page. Settler 08:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly believe that "Democratic" is used far more often than "Democrat" as an adjective by Democrats. That's not the issue. The question is whether most Democrats or large % strongly dislike the term, or is it acceptable usage to most Democrats? It's inconveivable that the county chairman near Denver would routinely use the term if there was vocal objection. In terms of actual formal usage the Indiana data seems most useful. When a Democratic party organization gets a lawyer and takes out formal incorporation papers with the state government (and pays $ and an annual renewal fee), 20% use "Democrat" and 80% use Democratic. Rjensen 09:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From American Speech

This item from American Speech describes it as a new term, with a "heavy and concentrated barrage" of use in 1956, while noting prior history to 1946. It does confirm that the term was resented and opposed by Democrats, despite occasional use. I don't have time to put all of this in. Septentrionalis 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but the link is limited - I get We're sorry. You do not have access to JSTOR from your current location. when I try to access it. It's okay to cite a source that's offline, of course; perhaps you could mention the details of the American Speech article here (date, author, title) so that others with different types of access might be able to look it up elsewise? John Broughton | Talk 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I got it through the web, so I assumed it was unlimited: "Democrat Party" by Ignace Feuerlicht; American Speech, Vol. 32, No. 3. (Oct., 1957), pp. 228-231. at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1283%28195710%2932%3A3%3C228%3ADP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

[edit] Democratics

If it is to be called the Democratic Party, then why aren't its members called Democratics? Members of the Republican Party are called Republicans, after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.17.226.254 (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

For much of the same reason Jewish people are called "Jews."
I bring that example up particularly because they face a similar situation to the Democrats when their critics use Jew as an adjective instead of a noun in order to denigrate them. Settler 06:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is an apt comparison. "Democratics" would be a noun similar to "Republicans." While the word Jewish is an adjective, the word Democratic in this context would not be an adjective because it would be used as a name; therefore it is a noun. If they want to be called Democrats, the party should be the Democrat Party. Personally, I don't see anything hateful in using that phrase just like I don't see anything hateful about the word Jew. Any word can be twisted to sound hateful. Since this is Christmastime, we should all be happy and gay - or should we eliminate the word gay from everyday conversation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.17.226.254 (talk • contribs).

It is a similar comparison. *1* The noun is party; the adjective is Democratic. Typically "party" was not capitalized (and many times neither was "democratic") unless it was in a title of a book or an address or something along those lines at the beginning of its usage. Contrary to what you may believe, proper nouns can be derived from combining an adjective and a noun.
Anyway, autocratic people are called autocrats. Despotic people are despots. Theocratic people are called theocrats. Democratic people are called democrats. Jewish people are called Jews. Political is an adjective; politics is a noun. Bureaucratic institutions are staffed by bureaucrats. In the early 19th century, "democratic" was used to modify "republican," thus creating a democratic republican. Their rival was the "Federal party" (which is called at the present the "Federalist Party"...all a topic for another discussion) of the which the newspaper the "Federal Republican" was published in Baltimore--federal being an adjective. National is an adjective. Nation is a noun. National was used to modify "republican" in the early 19th century, thus creating the "National Republican" name.
I suggest you read documents from the late 18th and from the 19th century as the Democratic Party name (and others) came about. Settler 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Gads, what a bunch of cry babies the "Democratics" are. If you don't like it so much, then call the Republican Party the Republic Party. Of course that would be stupid, cuz the Republican Party is full of Republicans, not Republics. But as we all know, the Democratic Party is full of ... Democratics. Hmmm... just doesn't work does it? Maybe that's why Democrat Party works better. --Mactographer 07:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you even read the message you just responded to. "autocratic people are called autocrats. Despotic people are despots. Theocratic people are called theocrats. Democratic people are called democrats. Jewish people are called Jews." Your argument doesn't work. I guess we should say despotics, theocratics, Jewishes. Anyway this about improving the article not stating your opinions. Gdo01 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So by your argument, Republican people are called Republics? Don't wash dude. And by the way, democratic people are also Republicans and liberals and Jews and what have you. Being democratic means you believe in democratic principles. Being a democrat means you are a democrat and believe in the principles of the Democrat Party. Why be ashamed of that? And if this isn’t a place to express an opinion, why’d you give me yours? --Mactographer 09:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What argument did I have? I was just saying that the "rules" that work for certain words cannot be applied to all of them. Strawman arguments about how things should be called is what you are doing, not what I am doing. Gdo01 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
No. A democrat is one that believes in democratic principles. A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party. (Capitalization matters! A dolphin is an aquatic mammal; a Dolphin is a football player. Note also that "hooters" are owls, while "Hooters" is a restaurant.)--HughGRex 11:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

Can't believe this is a separate, independent article. Vidor 15:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs to be separate article

This article refers to a misuse of the English language or even an idiom... more akin to a derogatory statement. If it's merged, it justifies a misuse of the "Democratic Party" just as "Republikan" now used to describe neo-conservatives or the Republican Party. That too would be an error. Noles1984 17:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect for discussion

I've started an RFD for Democrat Party (United States). As many who have read this page know, the phrase is not accurate and is mostly used by conservatives in a semi-slur and completely incorrect way. I see no reason why Democrat Party (United States) should link the Democratic Party (United States) given what I have read on this page. Any opinions can be expressed on the RFD page. Gdo01 18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemocrat_Party_%28phrase%29_f4c8.html"