That begs the question of then why aren’t Republicans called “Republics”? “He’s a Republic. She’s a Republic. Those are the Republics over there.”?
It seems like a silly issue to take stand on to me.
Suppose you know a guy named Steven. And he hates to be called Steve. Okay, fine, you call him Steven. You know him.
But you and Steven would be foolish to claim that everyone knows this and anyone who calls him Steve is knowingly insulting him. The reality is a lot of people are going to call him Steve merely because they don’t know his preference on the issue and have no ill intent behind it. And when you and Steven start screaming at them, they’re going to think you’re a couple of jerks.
Fine, if Steven has repeatedly told somebody to call him Steven and they keep calling him Steve, he’s entitled to go off on them. And somebody who calls him Stevie, Steve-o, Stephanie, Steverino, or the Stevester is also fair game. But Steve/Steven is a silly place to draw the line and claim anyone on the wrong side of it is being willfully insulting.
But who is claiming that every single instance is willful? Many/most might not be, but plenty are, and I think it’s reasonable to ask those folks who are doing it willfully to stop.
Except that they *are *being willfully insulting. It’s not like they don’t know the name of the Party.
…His Steveness, or Stever, or El Steverino…
To them- “Liberal” is a insult. Fuck 'em. I dont define myself by what assholes think.
Why can’t seemingly literate Republicans tell the difference between a noun and an adjective? Is this just a matter of remedial training in how to ‘sound it out’?
Since they are currently doing nothing in Congress anyway but draw pay, get fat, and smirk like Shkreli, maybe now would be a good time to offer a free course in one of the committee rooms.
The pages could even remind them on the floor every time they get it wrong.
I think that in addition to reasons stated above, “Democrat Party” sounds less euphonious than “Democratic Party”. Also the point about “big-D” and “little-d” needing a distinction seems to imply that the speaker doesn’t really believe that Democrats hold democratic ideals, and that everyone should know that. Which is a bit odious.
I don’t agree that it implies that.
To the extent that you confuse the Democratic Party with the democratic party, it implies that that party is uniquely democratic as opposed to other parties. Which is incorrect - that just happens to be the historic name of the party.
Ironically that could apply to “conservatives” calling a liberal a liberal…and it could apply to a liberal getting butthurt about being called a “liberal”.
As for the “democrat” thing…people using it on purpose? Grow up. People who get upset about it…get over it and grow a pair or two (IMO of course).
This “democrat party thing” is like the retarded equivalent of kids in the backseat of the car going “he’s almost touching me…but she’s looking at me!”.
A bunch of you whiners/jerks should be embarrassed…and crap like this is why we can’t have nice stuff around here.
Market research.
Seriously. The Republican pollsters discovered people liked the word “Democratic,” because it reminded them of democracy. But “Democrat” gets a more negative reaction, probably because it’s close to “bureaucrat.”* Republicans were advised to use “Democrat Party” to make the connection.
*What do you call someone who carries out government rules and regulations consistently to all parties? A bureaucrat.
Right, like my Jewish example. “She is a Jewish Lady” is correct as an adjective. “Many Jews have immigrated to New York over the last century” is correct as a noun. “That Jew woman immigrated to New York” is incorrect and typically intended as an insult.
It’s no mistake that the whole “Democrat Party” thing has entered the GOP lexicon. Rush Limbaugh uses it always and has admitted to doing so intentionally, in part due to protest that the Democratic Party isn’t really democratic (:rolleyes:) and in part to annoy them.
But, hey, just like Steven and Steve, the test is easy – politely correct them once and see if they insist on using it. For people in the political sphere (politicians, pundits, etc) there’s no excuse and no reason for the benefit of the doubt that a guy on the radio or news channel didn’t know the correct name of 50% of the US’s major political parties.
I see there’s a whole Wiki page on it: Democrat Party (epithet) - Wikipedia
So, you think that Republicans and only Republicans have republican values (that is, want to live in a republic, as opposed to an autocracy)?
Don’t get me started on those Whig guys! 
No, but I do think that - as with the Democratic Party - the term could be misinterpreted as carrying that incorrect implication.
Big difference is that it’s an implication that no one really cares about.
It’s really not crazy to allow a party to choose to name itself for something it values (or purports to value, for those who must maintain a negative attitude).
The “Progressive Party” and the “Green Party” for example. In Europe, you have “Christian Democrats”. None of those parties has a monopoly on people who would fit those descriptions.
How would things work otherwise? Suppose you and I came together and formed a party today with honest intentions of enforcing good grammar upon the nation, and in the interest of honesty and plain speaking, we call ourselves the “Grammarian Party”. If we gain traction and do well, we could become a national party. We would have to cover a lot of other issues besides just grammar. Some of our followers might not actually “talk so good”. It’s possible that the best grammarian in the nation may belong to a rival party. Over time our core values may slowly shift (as it has for both the Democratic and Republican Parties); at what point should we be compelled to change our name, and by whom?
I’m not advocating that anyone use the term “Democrat Party”.
What we’re discussing is why that term came into use.
To the extent that there’s an answer to the question, it’s the one RealityChuck gave - research showed that ‘Democratic Party’ had positive associations with the people, but that ‘Democrat Party’ had negative ones. Also, it’s easier to snarl - fewer syllables, nice hard ‘t’ sound at the end. Influential jerks started using it for those reasons, and before you know it it’s a staple of jerks everywhere.
It’s puerile and silly, but when has that ever stopped people who wanted to be jerks?
Well nothing against RealityChuck or you - I’m sure you’re a couple of the finest posters on this board - but that kind of factual assertion is virtually worthless without a cite.
If you look at the Wiki link in my earlier post you’ll see some speculation by various commentators. None of them mention any actual research being done on this, which increases my skepticism.