Talk Elections

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/03/arpaio-wont-run-for-governor-in-arizona/

It's frightening, but he's right in thinking he could win.

It would have been interesting, at least. :P

He doesn't need to get in the race, his main objective was being tough on immigration and Brewer took that away from him and now Brewer is leading in the polls.

Why is he sitting on millions of dollars in campaign cash if he doesn't want higher office??!

Governor Arpaio
Senator Hayworth

Arizona--the new Idaho? ;D

Arpaio will probably end up getting killed at some point. Then some seriously bad things will happen. Just a random prediction, but it often ends like that.

And you got upset at me for talking about electoral scenarios in the event certain >90 year old senators were to face serious illness? 

Probably the tramadol talking, or something. I say a lot of weird things at this hour.

I heard him say something similar in 2007 on a C-Span clip. He said "I could be Governor if I wanted to, I can arrest the Governor right now, I don't need to be Governor to have power". 

First, I told azmagic several weeks ago that Joe would not run for Governor.

Second, its really funny to see candidates for public office trying to claim that they are endorsed by Sheriff Joe.  Bitter-Smith is a case in  point.

Third, Arpaio likes being Sheriff, especially being billed as America's toughest Sheriff.

Is Arpaio really that popular in Maricopa County?
???

I can't think of any politician in the US closer to being a fascist than Joe Arpaio.

Yes he is. Americans in general love law and order type people. Even in many swing and liberal areas.

The guy is a disgusting, racist slob.

I would respectfully disagree with my German friend. He merely does what everyone else is too afriad to do, his job. :P

Does his job really include forcing inmates to wear pink underwear, to live in a tent city....and blatantly discriminatory methods of policing? :)

1. The tent city and pink underwear are brilliant idea. Makes you want to stay out of jail.


2. So far, there hasn't been a single incident of discrimination and all these the lawsuits have gone nowhere. The reason he is so despised by liberals and left leaning indies such as yourself is somewhere he got the notion to rock the boat and you don't like it. :P

Looks like Brewer is going to be the nominee. What ever happened to Martin he was leading in all the polls and now he's in third. I know the immigration bill helped Brewer but what happened to him?

Again, can anyone help me with this?  The guy has like a million and a half dollars he's sitting on...for what?  A sheriff's race?

When I saw that kind of money, I presumed he had a strong interest in governor.  I don't know about Arizona, but those types of contributions can typically be difficult to transfer from a state account to a federal one.

Look, he can transfer much of it to contributions to candidates for state legislature.

He has too much power now and he's not about to give that up to be Governor.

I dunno but I'd move there to vote for him.

Yes, anyone who doesn't support liberal policies is, on planet Eraserhead.

Remember that Arizona has a bit of a tradition of electing crazies as governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Mecham).

We apologize for Napolitano.  She only got initially elected due to a three way general election in which she did NOT win a majority of the vote (just a narrow plurality) over a Republican candidate liked to Qwest (in that year slightly more toxic than being linked to AIG is today).

And what's your excuse for her landslide win four years later?

In any case, you deftly overlooked Bacon King's tacit reference to Evan Mecham, and I may as well throw Fife "crafts of unknown origin" Symington into the mix too.  As you well know, both nutcases ended their terms early in disgrace.

First, 2006 was a Democrat year.

Second, the Republican party was in the initial stages of a civil war at that time, which has been substantially resolved today.

Third, the Republican nominee in 2006, while a nice man, was inept politically.

Fourth, Symington did make mistakes in his life, including saving the life of a scumbag, when he (Symington) was a lifeguard.

That may be, but we're talking about Arizona, not Thailand here.  ::)

The Democrats gained a couple of Congressional seats in Arizona in 2006, as well as other offices.

Don't know why you decided to insert "Thailand," into this thread.  Was it just a matter of trying to change the subject?

Correct, the Democrats representing the Democratic Party did so.


What?  You're the one who started talking about the Democrat Party!  You tell me why you decided to insert Thai politics into a discussion about Arizona?!

Well, I guess you're making as much sense as you usually do (zero equals zero).

Is Carl really this dense?

From the Seattle Times:

By Kyung M. Song

Seattle Times Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — For the second time in three months, an unexpected event has opened up a plum job for U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks.

But this time, the Bremerton Democrat

-----

Hmm.

I suppose a certain poster at this forum would have us believe that the writer is referring to a party in Thailand.

Another poster would have us believe that anyone who disagrees is "dense."

Now, drop the stupidity or I'll post other examples!

A member of the Democratic Party is a Democrat....nobody is disputing this. Do you really not see what this is about? Really?

Yes.

You're being 'dense.'

What's it about then?

1) Let's try this: Carl, are you a citizen of the State of "Arizonian"? "Democrat" is a personal adjective; "Democratic" is a noun.

2) 2006 being a good year for Democrats is a pretty flimsy excuse for Napolitano winning reelection by almost a 2-1 margin and sweeping every county in the state by double-digits. Sorry Carl, but she must've done something right.

Regarding others' comments about Arpaio being electorally invulnerable, I wouldn't be so sure. In 08 he won reelection with only 55% of the vote. Not great for a 16 year incumbent in a Republican County while McCain was simultaneously carrying Maricopa by over 10 points. It might be county residents realize Sheriff Joe isn't so much uniquely "tough" as a "media whore".

Of course not, silly bean.  That example clearly describes a member of the U.S. Democratic Party.

If, on the other hand, it had described Norm Dicks as a "Democrat Representative" or something similar, then for some reason it would have been ascribing him to the Thai Democrat Party.  As everybody knows, there is no party in the U.S. in which "Democrat" is used as an adjective as well as a noun, so logically it could only be talking about the Thai party that shares a similar name.

Get it?

First, from Merriam-Webster Onlince Dictionary:

Main Entry: dem·o·crat
Pronunciation: \ˈde-mə-ˌkrat\
Function: noun

Second, guess you are in to making things up.  Where did you get "arizonian"? 

Third, if you bothered to read my post you would see that not only did I point out that 1986 was a bad year for Republicans, and a good year for Democrats, biut, that in addition the Republican candidate for Governor was unusually weak candidate (a nice guy, but weak).

Nobody disputes Democrat is a noun, just your missuse of it as an adjective dawg.

But, Badget posted that "'Democrat' is a personal adjective."

Or, didn't you read his post?

Badger seems to have got it mixed up, but the rest of us have hopefully helped to educate you.

Perhaps you might want to "educate" the gentleman (a 'progressive Democrat') who runs Pollster (used to be Mystery Pollster), who in his reported polls on the generic ballot uses the term "Democrat" as a party identifier.

I can cite many others if you want.

Being a noun in that context, it is therefore a correct usage.

Next example?

Either you failed to understand my most recent post, or you are now agreeing with me.

Given your record of being disagreeable, I will presume the former.

The truth is that both terms 'Democrat party' and 'Democratic party' are used interchangeably.

The difference is merely in connotation.

It is very similiar to referring to the 'Obama regime' or the 'Obama administration.'

Sure, but only among illiterate right-wingers.  The actual truth is that the term 'Democrat party' is not grammatically correct when describing the U.S. Democratic Party.  You can use it to describe the aforementioned Thai party, however.  A party in Romania as well, I believe.

I'm glad to have helped educate you!  It's always a pleasure to point out your errors, and it's lucky for me that the opportunity arises so often.  :)

No, Democratic is the correct term for the Romanian party in English (though it is Democrat in Romanian).

Teabagger is the inappropriate name to call Tea Partiers as well. If you're calling out pejoratives......

First, I'll have to tell Mark at Pollster that he's being called an 'illiterate right=winger' for referring to the Democrat party.  He'll get a laugh out of that.

Second, the truth is that both terms are used interchangeably, as I previously pointed out. 

Third, your knowledge of 'grammar' is excretable.

Fourth, you believe a lot of things, which does not make your beliefs correct.

Oh, and I am not the one in error.



personal attack removed

As I also previously pointed out, this is only the case among illiterate right-wingers.  To use the term "Democrat party" in the context of the U.S. Democratic Party is incorrect, quite simply.

"Mark at Pollster" used the noun correctly.

Again, I'm glad to be of help to you!  :)

Who mentioned anything about a "pejorative"?  I'm merely correcting Carl's incorrect grammar; nothing more.

Only CARLHAYDEN could continue to argue about this for two pages.

You continue to be wrong.

Mark used the term in exactly the same way a I have.



personal attack removed

CARL is without question one of the stupidest men I have ever encountered.

People have used the term Democrat instead of Democratic because they believe the party is no longer Democratic in nature. They are making the term "Democrat" be the label for liberals as a brand name. Rush or one of them explained it as that one day. Take that as you will.

No, not quite.  You see, in the American context, 'Democrat' can only be used as a noun, and not as an adjective.

"Mark" used it as a noun, whereas you used it as an adjective.

Once again, I'm glad to have provided you with this education.  ;)

Oh, I know the reason behind the attempt on behalf of the right wing to alter the English language.  ;)

First: You're right the term "democrat" is a noun. My bad. Just like you talking about "1986" being a good Democratic year. (It was, but obviously you meant 2006). ;)

Secondly, regarding some of your subsequent posts, you are partially correct: The term "Democrat" and "Democratic" are MIS-used interchangeably by Limbaugh, Beck and the like. But the correct term for the party is "Democratic Party", a member of which is a "Democrat".

Third, this is exactly what I (and everyone else) are patiently trying to get you to understand. I am a member of the "Democratic Party". This makes me a "Democrat", but the name of my party is not "The Democrat Party". You live in the state of "Arizona". You are an "Arizonan" (excuse the previous spelling error, Mr. 1986 ;)), but this does not make where you live the "State of Arizonan".

If you can't follow that you're either hopeless or jerking our collective chain (hopefully the latter ;)). Either way I'm done explaining it.

Finally, I'll readily take your word that Janet N's 2006 GOP opponent was in way over his head. But still, if Napo was doing such a poor job shouldn't even a sacrificial lamb be able to avoid being beat by double digits in every single county in what you repeatedly profess is a conservative Republican state? More importantly, if she wasn't so popular and doing a good job as gov, shouldn't she have drawn significantly better opposition? It's not like the AZ GOP lacks a deep bench, Carl.

Badger,

First, let me admit that I meant to type 2006 instead of 1986, but was dealing with another matter at the time and made an error.

Second, let me give you the primary definition from Merriam-Webster for "democratic":

Main Entry: dem·o·crat·ic
Pronunciation: \ˌde-mə-ˈkra-tik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1602
1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy

So you see, its an adjective.

Third, I realize that like Joe, you believe in explaining your position whereas I have cited sources to support my contention.

Fourth, you really shouldn't comment on matters where you knowledge is incredibly inadequate.  There are a couple of small (population wise) counties in Arizona that are heavily Democrat.  Further, the war within the Republican party which has seen the routs of Senators in Pennsylvania, Utah and the Governor of Florida began in 2006 in Arizona.  So, 2006 was a weak year for Republicans in Arizona.

Here's another good word.

Main Entry: hom·onym
Pronunciation: \ˈhä-mə-ˌnim, ˈhō-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin homonymum, from Greek homōnymon, from neuter of homōnymos
Date: 1697

1 a : homophone b : homograph c : one of two or more words spelled and pronounced alike but different in meaning (as the noun quail and the verb quail)
2 : namesake
3 : a taxonomic designation rejected as invalid because the identical term has been used to designate another group of the same rank — compare synonym

— hom·onym·ic \ˌhä-mə-ˈni-mik, ˌhō-\ adjective

Here's a good example of where you're going wrong, Carl.  In that sentence, you used the noun 'Democrat' in a context where the adjective form (i.e. 'Democratic') should have been used instead.

Imagine if you had typed a sentence where you had described something as being "very doorknob" or "really teacup", and you'll understand what I mean.

You are still incorrect.

Merely repeating your opinions is valueless.

But I've merely pointed out your recurring mistake for you.  You even made my case for me by providing two quotes from Merriam-Webster that showed you the difference between the variants of the word!  Firstly in Reply #39 of this thread, proving that 'democrat' is a noun, and again in Reply #60 proving that 'democratic' is an adjective.  So now you certainly have no excuse for misusing the word again.

I'm not asking for you to thank me, or apologize, but you should at least accept that you were wrong.  :)

Joe,

I cited that Democrat was a noun, correcting Badger (I cited authority on this matter).

I then corrected yoou in asserting that democratic is an adjective, again citing authority.




personal attacks removed

But you cited a dictionary that confirms what we've been telling you!

Tell me, is the word at the end of the following sentence a noun or an adjective?

This thread is even more entertaining with Carl on ignore.

I put him on ignore to see. You're right.

See below:



What an utter red herring. AGAIN, Carl, Napo didn't just win the few heavily Democratic counties like Apache and Santa Cruz, nor the relative swing counties like Pinal, but EVERY county in your professedly conservative state, including heavily Republican ones like Graham and Mojave--all by double digits. (BTW: Did I get the political leaning of those specific counties correct? Or even their names? I suffer deeply, you see, from "inadequate knowledge".)

Yes, we all know 2006 was a bad year for Republicans, Carl, both nationally and in AZ. However that same year highly conservative GOP Sen. Kyl was being reelected by a healthy 10 point margin against a well (mostly self) funded candidate (Jim Pederson) in a race that had been picked up on the national radar as a possible upset chance for Democrats. Kyl carried all but 4 counties statewide, winning 11, some by 20 points or more, and carrying Graham County by almost 40!

By my math, even if 99+% of Pederson voters also voted for Napo, as well as 2/3 of the Libertarian senate candidate's voters (highly unlikely she'd even a get a majority, but just assume), Janet still picked up about a third of Kyl voters.

And this is all due to 2006 being a bad GOP year? The anti-GOP tide didn't keep Republicans from still winning open seat governors races in places like Nevada and Florida that year.

Still want to go on about how she's teed everyone off with her lousy job as governor? I have no doubt before she moved on to DHS Sec. her popularity waned, like most governors, along with the national economy. To be reelected that convincingly, though, in what you constantly profess is a staunchly conservative and Republican state---well, she must have done more than a couple things right.