Online Democrat Primary starts tomorrow, goes 24 hr.

[finboy]

Make sure you vote as many times as you can for your favorite loser:

http://www.moveon.org/index.html

I'm voting for Rev. Al!!!!

[maxelson]

Taking a break from fundraising, are we?

[finboy]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Taking a break from fundraising, are we?

Huh? Who's fundraising?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by finboy:

I'm voting for Rev. Al!!!!
Me TOO!!! Sorry Joe, I know you're my senator but Al's my MAN!!!

[maxelson]

[highly inappropriate comment]I know I'll get virtually hung for saying this but... of all the instruments of death in this world... the best that guy could do was an ICE PICK!?!? It probably never even pierced the track suit![/highly inapproporiate comment]

[daimoni]

.

[finboy]

Ah, come on! The represent the "core of the party". They're showing us the future of Democrats everywhere, today!

[maxelson]

If they are the future of democrats everywhere... shoot me. Shoot me now.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by finboy:
Topic: Online Democrat Primary starts tomorrow, goes 24 hr.I don't know anything about this primary, but I'm wondering about this phrase 'Democrat primary.'

The most natural phrase would be "Democratic primary" with a large 'D' to distinguish it from a primary that was run in a democratic manner. But many conservative Republicans say "Democrat party." It's almost a litmus test for right-wingedness. Listen to the Limbaughs and other liberal-haters, and they always say "Democrat party" and "Democrat politician" whereas more neutral people or moderate Republicans say the nicer-sounding and more natural "Democratic primary."

It seemed to start around the time of Gingrich, which would make sense, but I don't know for sure. Anyone know the origins of this?

[finboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:


It seemed to start around the time of Gingrich, which would make sense, but I don't know for sure. Anyone know the origins of this?

I think it might be a Southern thing, but I've heard it all of my life. I remember in high school thinking that it should always be "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" since all parties were about being democratic. This was many moons prior to Newtism or Rush Windbag. I think you might be right to ask why members of the Democrat party have never been referred to as "Democratics" instead of "Democrats."

What's the origin of calling members of the Democratic party "Democrats" instead of "Democratics"? Maybe it's some kind of plot to make people think that other parties aren't really democratic (tee-hee).

I think it comes down to proper grammer, and/or some folks at the Democrat party deciding to give themselves (ex post) a misleading moniker.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It seemed to start around the time of Gingrich, which would make sense, but I don't know for sure. Anyone know the origins of this?
My guess is, it's an attempt to draw a distinction between an adjective meaning "pertaining to the political party which uses a donkey as its emblem" versus an adjective meaning "pertaining to the concept of democracy".

This could be taken to mean that the Democrats are not the only party advocating democracy, or a veiled accusation that the Democrats do not advocate democracy. Take your pick.

[Jacket]

Originally posted by maxelson:
If they are the future of democrats everywhere... shoot me. Shoot me now.

that is of course, if the democrats have a future...

[vmarks]

Originally posted by finboy:
What's the origin of calling members of the Democratic party "Democrats" instead of "Democratics"? Maybe it's some kind of plot to make people think that other parties aren't really democratic (tee-hee).


Considering that it's a Republican form of government that we're founded on, based in Liberty, the Libertarians and Republicans have a leg up on being named closer to the form of government that America is. (tee-hee).

John Adams said:
A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern English men, to mention in their company the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke, Milton, Nedham, Neville, Burnet, and Hoadly. No small fortitude is necessary to confess that one has read them. The wretched condition of this country, however, for ten or fifteen years past, has frequently reminded me of their principles and reasonings. They will convince any candid mind, that there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is "an empire of laws, and not of men." That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics.

Democracy is a government of men, not laws. We're a republic. Why would anyone want to name themselves so far from what the country is, and what one of the founders said is the only good kind of government possible? (gentle jab at your ribs) :)

[finboy]

Originally posted by vmarks:


Democracy is a government of men, not laws. We're a republic. Why would anyone want to name themselves so far from what the country is, and what one of the founders said is the only good kind of government possible? (gentle jab at your ribs) :)

Perhaps they're preying on the collective ignorance and innocence. If you go back and look at some of the history of the "Democrat" party, it was a populist experiment from day one.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by finboy:
Perhaps they're preying on the collective ignorance and innocence. If you go back and look at some of the history of the "Democrat" party, it was a populist experiment from day one.

actaully, be careful with the word populist- it has it's origins in American political history as a Republican agrarian movement.

Thurtell, Craig M. ?The Populist-Republican Fusion in North Carolina: Origins to Ascendancy, 1876-1896.? Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1998.

The Supreme Court tortured logic June 13 2001, when it threw out congressional districts that were drawn to elect minorities in Texas and North Carolina. The court found that oddly shaped districts, drawn to enable black and Hispanic voters to elect their own representatives, unlawfully disfranchised white voters who had become minorities in those districts. If race is not allowed to be taken into account in drawing districts, as the court demands, few districts with a ready black majority will remain. This predicament gives Congress an excellent reason to switch from single-member districts to a more equitable proportional representation plan.

In North Carolina, blacks comprise 24 percent of the population but none had been elected to Congress since the late 1890s, when a Populist-Republican coalition allowed a number of black Republicans to be elected.

Of course a violent white supremacist reaction left blacks disfranchised throughout the South - with the tacit approval of the Supreme Court - for nearly 70 years. Even after passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, it took 27 more years before some creative drawing connected enough Carolina blacks to allow election of two black members of Congress in a 12-member delegation under the single-member district system.

Basically, the Democrats won in the 1890s in NC, and they've been dominant ever since until last year, although power hasn't shifted decisively one way or the other- in many ways, it's just been held for a hundred years in the state legislature by the descendants of the richest in what was a poor southern state- The Democrats.

History isn't often pleasant, certainly not in this case. The poll taxes and other ugly things were a Democrat response to Black Republican Populists.

[finboy]

Originally posted by vmarks:

Basically, the Democrats won in the 1890s in NC, and they've been dominant ever since until last year, although power hasn't shifted decisively one way or the other- in many ways, it's just been held for a hundred years in the state legislature by the descendants of the richest in what was a poor southern state- The Democrats.


Thanks for the response. Have you seen maps of the districts that were disputed? Unbelievable.

I grew up in NC, and the power base there (outside of Raleigh-Durham) was never so concentrated. Democrat, sure, but that was a backlash against forced rule during Reconstruction by Republicans. There wasn't much hereditary power there to speak of, outside of a few families that controlled their own little fiefdoms. Nothing like it is in other Southern states, or even in places like Philly or Baltimore.

[finboy]

Hey, the website says the results will be announced on Friday. Seems these folks have trouble counting even when it's their own frigging ballot.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by finboy:
Thanks for the response. Have you seen maps of the districts that were disputed? Unbelievable.

I grew up in NC, and the power base there (outside of Raleigh-Durham) was never so concentrated. Democrat, sure, but that was a backlash against forced rule during Reconstruction by Republicans. There wasn't much hereditary power there to speak of, outside of a few families that controlled their own little fiefdoms. Nothing like it is in other Southern states, or even in places like Philly or Baltimore.

Controlling all of state agriculture, or the Governer's office is not a fiefdom. Governer Kerr Scott, then Governer Bob Scott, and most recently his daughter, the now-disgraced Meg Scott Phipps.

The backlash that gave the Democrats a hundred-year reign in NC was against the folks in Washington, but it certainly also was against the Black Republican populists in the state. Remember, it was after that when the Dems started up with poll taxes.