Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Let's add centrist to center-left in the infobox

Analysis by political scientists — such as, but not exclusively, Bahr and Caplow (1994), Scott (2009), Campbell and Pedersen (2014), Grossman and Hopkins (2016), The Manifesto Project (2018), Rowe (2019), et. al — consistently and overwhelmingly describe the modern Democratic party as centrist to center-left. These designations on the political spectrum are not disputed by any reputable political scientist that I've come across and can be easily found in over a dozen sources.

The only objections I've seen to inclusion are:

1.) Extremely general criticism of Wikipedia's policy of listing political parties placement on the political spectrum, which would require removal of all listings on Wikipedia, and not specific to this article.

2.) The notion that "open parties" make it impossible to list party ideology in an infobox. This would remove a good portion of current parties on Wikipedia as well.

Both #1 and #2 are not listed as criteria anywhere, only seem to apply to this specific article, and qualify all/good part of political parties from having a placement on the ideological spectrum on Wikipedia. The notion that Democrats are "center-left to centrist" has an overwhelming consensus among political scientists, and the majority of Wikipedia users in the discussion above agree with this placement. Let's add their placement to the lead.—MarvellingLiked (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This proposal has been continuously and consistently rejected for the last decade here because there is no mythical international political spectrum, and using such a spectrum to define big tent American parties would be ridiculous. Using European labels to judge American parties does not give the reader any actual benefit. Both parties are big-tent parties encompassing the left and right, respectively, and the info boxes instead use actual factions and coalitions to demonstrate what they believe. Moreover, you have provided no actual text for any of these claimed sources. Toa Nidhiki05 14:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Both centrist and center-left mean different things according to context. If you are going to call the Democrats centrist or center-left, you need to explain the context. Your first source btw says, "Both major parties are centrist parties, although they occupy different portions of the center of the spectrum, and this changes somewhat over time....[T]he Democratic party, nationally, moved from left-center toward the center in the 1940s and 1950s, then moved further toward the right-center in the 1970s and 1980s." (p. 337) So that would make it a center-center-right party, according to the source.

Also, news media use short-hand terms to convey information quickly, not necessarily to provide nuance. For example using the terms center-left and right to British a audience would convey that the U.S. parties were rough equivalents of the Conservatives and Labour. In some senses they are, but the histories and ethos are vastly different. Tony Blair had to prove he was a socialist, Barack Obama had to prove he wasn't. And bear in mind this article is not strictly about the Democratic Party today, but the party historically also.

TFD (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

MarvellingLiked, as per the points I made recently in an earlier section of this talk page, you left out one major objection to the proposed inclusion of this term: Absent context (which can't realistically be provided in an infobox), the term is so vague and amorphous that it doesn't mean much of anything. I agree with Toa Nidhiki05: Leave the category blank. SunCrow (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

MarvellingLiked best move on as political science like evolution is believed a fallacy here.--Moxy 🍁 22:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Voter Base - African Americans - Need to mention Southern Strategy

The end of the first paragraph should state that "In addition, the use of a so-called Southern Strategy by the Republican Party to transform the southern states into a stronghold for itself has served to drive many African Americans away." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.41.117.182 (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2016

Political position discussion

The main blurb that appears on Google Search is:""This liberalism favors a generous welfare state" as well as another characteristic or two. No faction besides a critical opposing party would agree. The quote is outdated and taken from a source that's far from neutral. This defining statement should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.219.141 (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Since it seems the issue will keep resurfacing (I just reverted an unagreed upon change on the main page), I thought I'd just add in a pre-made section on the topic. Some previous discussions can be found here, here, here, and here. Surveys were taken on both the first and the last links listed for future reference, and discussions often included sources to back up the claims. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 07:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Center-left - Democratic Party (United States) is similar to the Labour Party (UK), despite it is more moderate than Labour.Paul Lincoln (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It depends which political faction you refer to. Some on the left of the party such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be considered left-wing by international standards, others such as Clinton, Obama, Biden would be considered centre-left to centre-right, whilst some such as Joe Manchin may be even considered right-wing.

If it were up to me, I would put "Left-Wing to Right-Wing" in the infobox. The editorrrr (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with my previous sourced response of Center to center-left, to reflect the impact moderates/centrists have. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Center-left, just like other mainstream left-leaning parties in the world.Marxistfounder (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Didn't have to type your response twice by the way. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 06:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Center to center-left is correct for the majority of the party. Manchin is center-right and AOC is probably just left, but the majority falls in this range. Zellfire999 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Since this discussion occurs over numerous different articles, I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 27#Political position TFD (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I may have something to add here. Think about it this way: Anybody can register as a Democrat, Republican, or whatever. They could be a fascist or a communist; it doesn't matter. If we thought about it that way, the positions could be listed as "far left to far right", but that is obviously absurd. Bringing up Joe Manchin types, however, does exactly this: it indicates that one person can swing the positions of a party. The positions of a party have nothing to do with the positions of its members; they have to do with the party's ACTUAL positions. Like, their platform, on their website. https://democrats.org/. For the most part, the positions here, and of party leadership, would be accurately described as center-left within the American political spectrum. There are always rebels, on both sides, Blue Dogs and Main Streeters alike. But as a whole, Democrats are center-left and Republicans center-right; it could also read "Center-left (plurality)" (or majority), since I doubt many would dispute that a plurality of the Democratic party, party members or congress members, are center-left. PerhapsXarb (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I would remove the field as it is confusing. TFD (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not here as of now, and literally every other major political party's Wikipedia page has it, so if you really hate political spectra then fine. I don't know what is confusing about the field as long as someone knows what left and right mean. PerhapsXarb (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think TFD or someone else proposed it in village pump. I agree with his idea: the political positions field is vague and frankly not that useful. Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. SunCrow (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I personally agree with Center to Center-left for the Democratic party, reflecting the moderates being about even with the more progressive faction, and seeing that social liberalism is very commonly associated with the center (such as Denmark's Social Liberal Party). I see the UK's Liberal Democrats as probably the strongest international parallel, and they are listed center to center-left. We don't need to account for a small portion of the party being left wing or center-right, precedent is not to do so. If we included the farthest reach of every individual in every party, we would probably end up with every party being far left to far right. Ninja0428 (talk) 0:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the positions would be Center to Right-wing. Particularly because for the past couple of decades, no ruling faction of the Democratic party has resembled the economic positions of labour parties in other countries. I argue that the economic positions of Neoliberalism, which has been dominant in the Democratic party, should be considered Right-wing. Many people on an international scale still consider the Democrats to at least be Centre-right. With the new progressive movement, however, it's likely that the Democratic Party could have a viable Centre-left faction, and possibly majority in the future. (Unsigned)

Just to point out.. I did NOT write the comment above ^ , it had no IP address and was already there when I went to add my comment which is below Dava4444 (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I personally agree with 99% of what Ninja said.. but I just think there is too few 'leftist' in the party to say 'left', I feel it makes it misaligned for the reader. Bernie is/was a rare case of a Center-Left European Socialist (like Canada) There's not many like him in the party, this is much due to McCarthyism of the 1950s. I digress.. perhaps 'Center Broad-Church' would appease all. My FM Nicola Sturgeon uses it a lot when talking about the SNP.. 'Center-Left Broad-Church'. Just a suggestion.

Dava4444 (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The modern Democratic Party has little to do with Neoliberalism. Just look at the article you posted, and compare the beliefs listed with the platforms of the party and its candidates. Deregulation, privatization, austerity are the main points. Nobody in the party is arguing for these things. The article doesn't even go beyond the 90s in the United States, because real neoliberalism has little to no influence anymore. And compare the party with other right wing parties throughout the world, there is no reason to put the Democrats in the same category. The Democratic Party is by no means a leftist socialist party, but there is no basis to consider it anywhere on the right. We would create a new precedent by saying the Democrats are right wing, that would mean the UK's Labour Party is center-right and the Conservatives are far right, for example, because the Democrats fall between the two. Nonsense. Ninja0428 (talk) 3:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. SunCrow (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There should be a clear consensus on the position of the party. There is already a consensus on what the views and ideologies of the Democratic party are, and there is already a consensus in all other instances on where these ideologies and views fall on the political spectrum. It has already been determined that the majority of the party believes in Social Liberalism, and ideology which has been defined has generally in the center leaning slightly to the left in some instances, with a significant faction of the party supporting more Social Democratic policies, a consensus center-left ideology. Given this already implied consensus, along with the lack of recent discussion, I move for center to center-left to be considered the political position of the Democratic Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja0428 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The paradigm of both Democrats and Republicans switched from social liberalism to neo-liberalism in the late 1970s to early 80s. TFD (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ninja, the neoliberals still have strong hold over the "sober" "adult" "responsible" Democratic establishment, the "sensible moderates" who continue to control the DNC, the DSCC, DCCC, DGA, etc. They damned well are still pushing for "deregulation, privatization and austerity": ask any public employee or former public employee. [Full disclosure: I'm a proud AFSCME leader.] They had a fat contingent in the Clinton and Obama White Houses, and will be found in many City Halls, often masquerading as "realistic liberals". The best you can say is that the present party ranges from center-left to conservative. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say about the Party's ideology? SunCrow (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That it does not have one. See Party Ideologies in America, 1828-1996, p. 3. TFD (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally centrist to center-left or the above.MarvellingLiked (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

OrangeMike, you do not have sources backing your claim which is made from a completely biased point of view, obviously so from a public Sanders supporter. You can say your talking points all you want, that does not put them in the realm of reality. You have not presented a record within the last decade or so of right wing policies being consistently supported by the Democractic party, rather something sounding more like a conspiracy. Wikipedia is a place for truth, not political talking points. Ninja0428 (talk 17:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1420:B120:E0F2:C8C:C8C6:998E (talk)

*Centrist to center-left*. It's what actual political scientists consistently and near-unanimously say, not the opinions of random Wikipedia editors.MarvellingLiked (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2019

Update senate from 45 to 46 as Bernie Sanders is running for President as a Demcrat 64.222.180.90 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: senate.gov lists him as an independent still. Sceptre (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Sceptre (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

Was it true that Democrats were conservative during the 19th century? I heard Republicans were liberal back in the 1800s but in the 20th century, it switched. WildEric19 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)WildEric19

That's best answered at the reference desk, not here. The short summary is: it's complicated. Acroterion (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

What reference desk? Isn't the talk page about discussing the matters of an article? WildEric19 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)WildEric19

19c yes--Check out Grover Cleveland and his Bourbon Democrat faction as arch conservative, and Radical Republicans as on the left. Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Article talkpages are for discussion of ways to improve the article, not for general discussion. The humanities reference desk, which is better suited to this kind of question, can be found at WP:RD/H. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Collapse discussion thread started by a confirmed sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The question of the political positions on the spectrum for the Democratic Party, and possible WP:OWN violations and obstructionism over the past few years I am opening this discussion regarding the question of Democratic Party political positions, because as I have mentioned earlier in my edit summary, in case anything about my revision is flawed or fallacious in any way, I am willing to engage in dispute resolution through discussion. My first question is, the listed positions were backed up by reliable and factual sources, scholarly analyses, and relevant articles for the centrist segments and the centre-left to leftwing factions of the Democrats, respectively, and in spite of that, they were almost instantenously reverted by a contributor by the name of "Toa Nidhiki", with a vague and unclear reasoning of "no consensus". Why exactly was my revision problematic enough to warrant an instant rollback and being warned for "incorrect information"? And secondly, contrary to Toa Nidhiki's claims of there being "no consensus" the Democratic Party has a set position, there have been in fact numerous peer-reviewed analyses and studies listed in the previous discussions on this same topic, and an overwhelming majority of research done on the contemporary DP indicates that at the very least, the party's orientation, policy, and ideology is of the centre-left, both within America and on the international sphere. Clearly, there is consensus among researchers, political scientists and analysts over the Democratic Party's ideology and political position on the spectrum. So why does Toa Nidhiki vigorously revert or outright obstruct any attempt to insert a political position irrespective of how well sourced or factually correct it is? Especially since as mentioned earlier, Lega Nord and the Five Star Movement in Italy also have diverse factions among them, similiarly to the two main parties in American politics, and yet their political positions are listed without someone repeatedly removing them in less than 5 seconds. The more I look at all the discussions on the topic of giving American political parties a political spectrum classification, the more it looks like obstructionism and blatant censorship is being committed by editors such as Toa Nidhiki and Suncrow whenever a proposal to finally resolve this dispute is drafted, especially so once one realizes that the consensus by researchers and political scientists does indeed classify the Democratic Party as centre-left, socially and economically, and the vast majority of Democratic politicians do engage in some forms of Keynesian economic policy, a hallmark of those left of centre. If there is any reliable indication that the Democratic Party does not have a set ideology and that it is not classified as centre-left by analysts, then I am open to being provided such sources for further research. But until then, unless Toa Nidhiki makes a factual and logically sound case for why adding political positions in any form to any American political party is "VERBOTEN" or "HARAM", then his conduct is periliously close to a violation of WP:OWN. Scott Shelby (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Scott Shelby, for reasons I have stated in earlier posts on this talk page, I continue to agree with Toa Nidhiki05 that it's best not to include the Democratic Party's position on the political spectrum in the infobox. For the record, however, I do not believe I have ever made any edits to the infobox regarding the Democratic Party's position on the political spectrum. So there is not the slightest basis for you to accuse me of "obstructionism", "blatant censorship", or anything else. Dial down the drama. SunCrow (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC) You should start a RfC to resolve this. And yes, it's annoying and frankly embarrassing to see Wikipedia editors use their own analyses to dispute peer-reviewed publications without bringing any reviewed publications or RS to the table themselves. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC) It’s incredible how this guy claims the political spectrum is “center-left” but that’s not what his edit even was! I’m tempted to just immediately hat and close this thread for the OP lying about his edit and then attacking me for reverting an edit he didn’t actually make. There have already been multiple discussions and RfCs throughout the last five years or so on this and the consensus has been to leave that infobox tab blank. Toa Nidhiki05 10:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC) "It’s incredible how this guy claims the political spectrum is “center-left” but that’s not what his edit even was!" The center-left is in fact a part of the umbrella term of "left-wing politics", as stated below: "The spectrum of left-wing politics ranges from center-left to far-left (or ultra-left). The term center-left describes a position within the political mainstream. The terms far-left and ultra-left refer to positions that are more radical. The center-left includes social democrats, social liberals, progressives and also some democratic socialists and greens (including some eco-socialists). Center-left supporters accept market allocation of resources in a mixed economy with a significant public sector and a thriving private sector. Center-left policies tend to favour limited state intervention in matters pertaining to the public interest." So no, I wasn't lying when I stated the Democrats are classified as "center-left", and considering a sizeable portion of the party are supportive of actual socialism, writing the positions as "Centre to Centre-left to Left-wing" would seem pretty redundant, and frankly, erroneous. Scott Shelby (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Your edit was “center” to “left-wing”, not “center-left”. Regardless, this has all been discussed before and discussed in an above thread. There are a number of reasons this page (and the Republican Party page) lack this infobox item: Both are big-tent parties of the left and right Both lack any control over their members and candidates, none of whom are obligated to agree with a platform The criteria itself is unclear (what is the “political spectrum”? Is it international? If so, why are we judging US parties on European standards?) Scholars are increasingly finding the standard left-right divide to be not useful. It doesn’t actually add any value that can’t already be seen from the factions and ideology sections. There’s a ton of reasons this has not been included. This isn’t some ownership thing - it’s been the case for years. Toa Nidhiki05 13:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC) If you're going to be making claims as to what scholars are saying, you should really be citing sources. It's complete and utter nonsense that the left-right divide is not considered useful by scholars. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC) It’s not complete nonsense. Multiple scholars have noted the inadequacy of an 18th-century one-dimensional scale based on Europe. See here. In the United States specifically, the terms are redundant as both parties are big-tent parties of the right and left, respectively. This isn’t a multiparty system. Toa Nidhiki05 13:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Ok, so that's a Wikipedia page (and a bad one at that), and even that does not show a single peer-reviewed publication by a recognized expert that describes the right-left divide as invalid. In the future, if you're going to be dismissing peer-reviewed research with "scholars disagree", you better cite some goddamn scholars. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans, Toa Nidhiki05 has laid out five reasons not to include the party's position on the political spectrum. He has not just pointed to scholarly disagreement; that is only one of the five reasons. If you don't find those reasons persuasive, stop whining and cursing and start an RfC on the topic. SunCrow (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC) Point by point rebuttal of Toa Nidhiki's "reasons": "Both are big-tent parties of the left and right" And so is SYRIZA, Lega Nord, and the Five Star Movement in Italy, and yet they are classified on the political spectrum based on consensus from reliable sources. In SYRIZA's case, their position was "Left-wing (Big-tent)", which covers the party's diverse ideologies ranging from outright trotskyism and revolutionary Marxism to social democracy, which would be on the far-left and centre-left respectively. A similiar compromise could be adopted for the Democratic and Republican parties, with the Republicans classified as "right-wing (Big-tent)" (Virtually no Republican is left of centre today, that is clear), and the Democrats classified as "Left-wing (Big-Tent), encompassing everyone from social democrats and progressives to social liberals . "Both lack any control over their members and candidates, none of whom are obligated to agree with a platform" A member disagreeing with a political platform and seeking to adopt a new approach is nothing new in politics, and is a documented phenomenon in parties all over the world, from the notoriously malcontent Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party during Blairism to the struggle between pro-europeans and anti-EU radicals within SYRIZA. And all political platforms published and adopted by the Democrats and Republicans since the 1990s-2000s indicate, at the very least, that they are of the centre-left and right-wing, respectively. None of their members or candidates have a following sufficiently large enough to overrule the majority position within their respective parties, and consensus by researchers and political analysts clearly and definitively indicate that the Democrats are centre-left and the Republicans are right-wing. "The criteria itself is unclear. How do we define the "political spectrum"?" We define a party's position on the political spectrum in accordance with consensus from researchers, scholars, political analysts, and to an extent, reliable journalistic sources with minimal bias, such as Reuters, Associated Press, et al. And consensus from researchers and political analysts and political scientists clearly indicates that the Democratic Party is of the centre-left, economically and socially. Toa is welcome to provide equally strong consensus from reliable sources stating otherwise if it does exist, but the overwhelming majority of analysts place the Democratic Party on the centre-left side of the political spectrum. "Scholars are increasingly finding the standard left-right divide to be not useful" Which scholars though? Is their research and material reliable? Are they large enough in number to overrule the prevailing consensus? Has their research been published in peer-reviewed journals? In addition to that, you yourself stated that the American political system is heavily rigged in favour of a duopoly, thus limiting the diversity of political movements in America and enforcing the classic left-right divide. Ergo, even if said scholars were correct and the left-right divide was obsolete, the American political system institutionally enforces it through First-past-the-post, and hence the standard left-right system still applies unless consensus states otherwise. "It doesn’t actually add any value that can’t already be seen from the factions and ideology sections" It does indeed add value to the infobox, such as providing clarity of the Democratic Party's general political orientation in a unambiguous and concise fashion, because with all the numerous factions in the DP such as "conservatism", "centrism", "social democracy", "democratic socialism", "social liberalism" et al, one could erroneously classify the party as "centrist", "centre-right", or "far-left" based solely on looking at the factions and singling one out, and thus a adequately sourced and reliable indication of their political position is paramount. It has been the precedent for virtually every other political party on the English Wikipedia for more than a decade to have a classification on the political spectrum, and unless there is some sort of a mystical exceptionalist ethos that shapes American politics, I see no reason why the GOP and DP should be "untouchable" when it comes to adding a statistic to their infobox. I rest my case. Scott Shelby (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC) While I agree that the terms left and right are still useful, they are only meaningful if the context is known. Also, it is quite correct that neither major party polices its choice of candidates and members. The Labour Party of Great Britain for example expelled both Kenneth Livingstone and George Galloway as members, while David Duke managed to be a candidate for both the Democratic and Republican parties. Furthermore, neither party has a stated ideology. Robert Altemeyer shows the results of a left-right mapping of Democratic and Republican legislators on p. 201 of his book The Authoritarians. Note that Democrats range from 65 to 125 on his right-wing scale, where 100 is the center and higher numbers represent the right (p. 201). But in his chart for Canada, legislators of the center left New Democratic Party ranged from 50 to 80 (p. 208). Curiously Canadian center-right legislators scored between 110 and 130, which is within the range of the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC) And keep in mind that's a ranking of state-level parties, where the brunt of the politics of the country come from. The Connecticut GOP is to the left of almost half of the state Democratic parties, for example - this sort of overlap isn't uncommon. The Rhode Island Democrats were divided on gay marriage because of a substantial conservative wing, while the state GOP's senate caucus unanimously backed it. This tends to happen when you are a big-tent party with no control over political officials or even the platform of state parties. Toa Nidhiki05 02:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Except that David Duke was a lone demagogic white supremacist that failed to gain any form of influence in the major political parties and did not found any faction on par with the Justice Democrat PAC led by the social democrats for example, and was ultimately repudiated and routinely denounced on several occassions. Same with Lyndon LaRouche, whose fringe movement repeatedly tried to infiltrate the Democratic Party through entryism and even went as far as to run in their primaries, but ultimately failed to create a influential LaRouchist faction within the DP and thus he has no influence on its orientation. We classify a political party's orientation based on reliable politological consensus, not the positions of fringe ideologues. The Libertarians in Florida had a occultist neo-nazi by the name of "Augustus Sol Invictus" run in their primaries in Florida for example, and yet nobody seriously considered reclassifying them as far right. As for the supposed "progressive" Connecticut and Rhode Island Republicans, their economic policy is still of the right. Heavily pro-business, opposing welfare state policies and labour unionization, favouring low taxes on the upper middle-class and the wealthy, deregulation, unrestricted access to guns, you name it, and them backing same-sex marriage is based on their more libertarian "small government" approach to governance, as is typical of the political right, and the Libertarian Party is still considered right-wing by the vast majority of analysts, scholars, journalists, commentators, and researchers. It will take much more than the simple act of allowing gay marriage before the Connecticut and Rhode Island GOP can be reliably classified as "left-wing" and thus incompatible with the GOP's platform.Scott Shelby (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC) But David Duke would not be allowed to join any democratic socialist or social democratic party anywhere or any other mainstream party for that matter. And there is a conservative faction within the Democratic Party, the Blue Dogs. (In the past, this was even more pronounced with George Wallace and Henry Jackson.) You don't see that in typical social democratic and democratic socialist parties. TFD (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Straight from the Blue Dog Coalition's article: "The Blue Dog Coalition, commonly known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify as fiscally-responsible, centrist Democrats. The caucus professes a pragmatic approach to governance, an independence from leadership of both parties, and a mission of fiscal responsibility and promoting national defense." That doesn't seem like rightwing conservatism to me, and they are classified as centrists by most observers and sources, exactly how I proposed it in the "Centre to Left-wing" classification for the Democratic Party. And in no way did I ever insinuate that the Democrats are social democrats or democratic socialists, especially since the vast majority of their members are social liberals, a centre-left ideology, and the social democrats aren't yet in control. Scott Shelby (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC) I altered the heading per "New topics and headings on talk pages": "Don't criticize in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may interpret the heading as an attack on them." It's questionable whether the majority are social liberals. Most sources see the mainstream of the party as lying between neo-classical and social liberalism. But then Republicans are too: they support social security, medicare and limited health, welfare and education spending. So too do mainstream parties across the political spectrum throughout the world, with the exception of tiny libertarian parties. The big difference in the 2008 U.S. election for example was whether the top tax rate should be 36% or 38%. Is that the dividing line between left and right? TFD (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Republicans don't support the government-provided social safety net. In fact, they have been trying to privatize and oppose Medicare and Social Security for decades, and especially so since Ronald Reagan's laissez faire ideology took the party by storm, which they consistently advocated. Democrats, even though they are not a "socdem" party, seek to defend and expand social security and medicare, and favour a social market economy over a laissez-faire economy.. And unless I am living in some sort of alternate reality where the GOP is a centrist party, I strongly doubt Republicans agree with Democrats on this one. Check out this source for instance: https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/11/02/republican-public-opposition-to-social-security-and-medicare/ Scott Shelby (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC) The Forbes article says that 33% of Republicans opposed social security when it was enacted. (The actual vote was 77 to 18.[1]) But Republican opposition then[2] and now was about how the program should be administered rather than whether it would exist. While you could argue that Republican changes would ultimately eliminate social security, medicare and all welfare spending, that's not their stated position. The point is that both parties have broadly agreed on government policy but have portrayed each other in extreme terms. And Democrats happily bought into the Reagan revolution of decreased government spending, lower tax rates and increased incarceration rates. TFD (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC) "And Democrats happily bought into the Reagan revolution of decreased government spending, lower tax rates and increased incarceration rates" That would be indicative of a centrist position, which I have already inserted and adequately sourced before it was speedily removed by none other than Toa Nidhiki. The consensus position of researchers, politologists, analysts, and scholars is that the Democratic Party is currently a centre to centre-left party, and even a majority of Wikipedia editors on the topic of the Dems' political position settled on centre to centre-left as the final proposal. And once again, unless there is any serious and irreconciliable objection or flaw that permanently prevents the Democratic Party from being classified on the English Wikipedia, I see no reason why the field should be permanently blank, or in what way are American parties special and above political science for that matter, as Toa Nidhiki insists. Scott Shelby (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC) There's no requirement to fill in every blank and in fact the field causes disputes over many, many articles. Ironically, the dispute is always based not on the ideological classification of parties, but where that ideology lies along the left-right spectrum. So the field offers no additional information and merely confuses. It's like going to a restaurant and being asked if you want a regular, medium, large or jumbo sized drink. It's clear that these are different sizes but you don't know how large each size is without asking. Anyway, why do you assume that an objective linear spectrum has the dividing line between Democrats and Republicans at its center? TFD (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC) I base my classification of the Democrats as a centre to centre-left party based on the fact that social liberalism, also known as modern liberalism in the United States, is the dominant faction of the Democratic Party today, and centrism because it has a sizeable portion of its members who support either the "New Democrats", who are of the Third Way, and the "Blue Dogs", who are a more fiscally conservative and bipartisan segment with a centrist view on policy, as stated in their article on this very website. In addition, the following political positions of the Democratic Party, as stated through sources, are heavily indicative of a socially liberal orientation, which is also classified as centre to centre-left, depending on its emphasis on the working class: Economic policy: Expand social security and safety net programs.[115] Increase top capital gains tax and dividend tax rates to above 28%.[116] Across the board tax-cuts for the low and middle class and small businesses.[117] Change tax rules to not encourage shipping jobs overseas.[117] Increase federal and state minimum wages.[118] Modernize and expand access to public education and provide universal preschool education.[119][120] Support for universal health care.[121] Greater investment in infrastructure development.[120] Increase investments in scientific and technological research and development.[122] Expand the use of renewable energy and diminish the use of fossil fuels.[123] Implement a carbon tax.[124] Uphold labor protections and the right to unionize.[125][126] Reform the student loan system and allow for refinancing student loans.[127] Expand free college.[118] Mandate equal pay for equal work regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity.[128] Social policy: Decriminalization or legalization of marijuana.[118] Uphold network neutrality.[129] Implement campaign finance reform and electoral reform.[29] Uphold voting rights and easy access to voting.[130][131] Support for same-sex marriage and civil unions. Bans on conversion therapy.[118] Allow legal access to abortions and women's reproductive health care. Reform the immigration system and allow for a pathway to citizenship. Support for gun background checks and stricter gun control regulations. Improve privacy laws and curtail government surveillance. Opposition to the use of torture.[132][133] Recognize and defend Internet freedom worldwide.[117]" That most definitely does not resemble the Republican Party's platform, which is characterized by a heavy emphasis on social conservatism, "Judeo-Christian values", an unilateralist and neoconservative foreign policy, climate change denial (The vast majority of Republican congressmen and lawmakers reject the scientific consensus that climate change today is caused by human activity and CO2 emissions), anti-environmentalism, and free-market capitalism, including the gradual dismantling of the welfare state, suppressing trade unions, and upholding the interests of large corporations and business lobbyists. In addition, social liberalism is overwhelmingly considered to be centre to centre-left, per the below description: "Social liberalism, also known as left liberalism in Germany, modern liberalism in the United States and new liberalism in the United Kingdom,[5][6] is a political ideology and a variety of liberalism that endorses a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights. A social liberal government is expected to address economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, education and the climate using government intervention whilst also emphasising the rights and autonomy of the individual. Under social liberalism, the common good is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left. In the United States, current political usage of the term social liberalism describes progressivism or cultural liberalism as opposed to social conservatism or cultural conservatism. A social liberal in this sense may hold either more interventionist or liberal views on fiscal policy." These sources clearly describe social liberalism as centre to centre-left: Adams, Ian (2001). Political Ideology Today (Politics Today). Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719060206. Slomp, Hans (2000). European Politics Into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0275968146. Ortiz, Cansino; Gellner, Ernest; Merquior, José Guilherme; Emil, César Cansino (1996). Liberalism in Modern Times: Essays in Honour of Jose G. Merquior. Budapest: Central European University Press. 185866053X. Hombach, Bodo (2000). The politics of the new centre. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780745624600. Matland, Richard E.; Montgomery, Kathleen A. (2003). Women's access to political power in post-communist Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-924685-4. These sources describe the Democratic Party's majority faction to be socially liberal: "Arnold, N. Scott (2009). Imposing values: an essay on liberalism and regulation. Florence: Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-495-50112-1. "Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States." "President Obama, the Democratic Party, and Socialism: A Political Science Perspective". The Huffington Post. June 29, 2012. Retrieved January 9, 2015. Paul Starr. "Center-Left Liberalism". Princeton University. Retrieved June 9, 2014." Clearly, there is overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that the Democratic Party is a socially liberal party, and that despite its notable factionalism, its political platform and policy positions do not match up with the Republican Party, while not being exactly social democratic either. Ergo, the political position of the Democratic Party on the traditional political spectrum is centre to centre-left, per the aforementioned consensus of both reputable sources and Wikipedia editors. The only question is, will this dispute be eventually resolved in the future? Because it's clear that leaving both major parties in the world's foremost superpower blank in spite of the fact that every other political party on Wikipedia has a clearly stated political position without persistent year-long edit wars being conducted over whether it should even be classified is a glaring inconsistency, which can only be resolved by adding the consensus position, or setting a new precedent and removing political classifications on Wikipedia entirely, which would generate even further controversy and edit wars, and thus would not be a constructive solution. Scott Shelby (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC) I would point out that Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. Furthermore saying that the Democrats are social liberal, social liberals are center-left, therefore the Democrats are center-left is synthesis. We could argue all day about how close a party that receives most of its funding from corporations is to ones that depend on members and labor unions. You mention Ian Adams. He wrote, "Essentially [Democrats and Republicans] espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone." (p. 33)[3] He doesn't say they are social liberals but that both parties accept a degree of social liberalism. Ironically he refers to the Democrats as "the Left," which of course in a relative sense in the two party system it is. Social Liberalism in the U.S. was developed by various writers including John Dewey, but never became the dominant ideology of the Democratic Party. Slomp identifies social liberalism as dead center, not center-left. (p. 103)[4] TFD (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC) "I would point out that Wikipedia articles are considered to be unreliable sources" Wikipedia articles on their own aren't reliable, but the sources they derive their conclusions from are, as shown in the list below: "Sargent, Greg (March 13, 2014). "Push to expand Social Security (not cut it) gets another boost". Washington Post. Mufson, Steven (January 2015). "Obama's budget proposal will take aim at the wealthy". Washingtonpost.com. "On The Issues : Every Issue - Every Politician". Ontheissues.org. Retrieved January 19, 2015. Jr, Perry Bacon (May 28, 2019). "What Republicans And Democrats Are Doing In The States Where They Have Total Power". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved June 5, 2019. "Education". Democrats.org. "Congressional Progressive Caucus : Back to Work Budget". Cpc.grijalva.house.gov. Retrieved January 19, 2015. "Health Care". Democrats.org. "Science & Technology". Democrats.org. Meg Handley. "6 Energy Policy Highlights from the Democratic Party Platform". US News & World Report. Zack Colman (March 12, 2013). "Democrats circulate carbon tax bill". TheHill. "THE ALLIANCE OF U.S. LABOR UNIONS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY" (PDF). Scholarsstrategynetwork.org. Retrieved January 19, 2015. "Worker Rights". Archived from the original on August 21, 2014. Asma Khalid (June 9, 2014). "Obama Endorses Sen. Warren's Student Loan Refinancing Bill". wbur. "Democrats highlight equal pay in political push". CNN. April 7, 2014. Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). "Obama Net Neutrality". The New York Times. Retrieved January 19, 2015. "A Call for Election Reform, Beginning with New York". The Huffington Post. June 15, 2013. "Voting Rights". Democrats.org. "For Torture and Surveillance Commission via H.R. 104, Target The Congressional Progressive Caucus". Irregular Times. Archived from the original on May 29, 2014. Retrieved May 29, 2014. "Democratic Party on Crime". Ontheissues.org. Retrieved January 19, 2015. "Jobs and the Economy". Democrats.org." In addition, there is no consensus that the Democratic Party endorses classical liberalism, and in fact, more scholars reject the proposition that the Democrats are supporting classical liberalism in the Lockean tradition. Instead, that role has been largely adopted by the laissez-faire conservatism of the Republican Party we see today, as stated below: Nathan Schlueter; Nikolai Wenzel (2 November 2016). Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives?: The Foundations of the Libertarian-Conservative Debate. Stanford University Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-5036-0029-4. "American conservatism is a form of classical liberalism." John Micklethwait; Adrian Wooldridge (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America. Penguin. p. 343. ISBN 978-1-59420-020-5. "Whichever way you look at it, American conservatism has embraced a great chunk of classical liberalism-so much of it that many observers have argued that American conservatism was an oxymoron; that it is basically classical liberalism in disguise." James R. Kirth (17 May 2016). "A History of Inherent Contradictions: The Origins and Ends of American Conservatism". In Sanford V. Levinson (ed.). American Conservatism: NOMOS LVI. Melissa S. Williams, Joel Parker. NYU Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-4798-6518-5. "Of course, the original conservatives had not really been conservatives either. They were merely classical liberals. It seems to be the case in American that most so-called conservatives have really been something else. This has confused not only external observers of American conservatism (be they on the European Right or on the American Left), but it has confused American conservatives as well." Robert C. Smith (9 September 2010). Conservatism and Racism, and Why in America They Are the Same. SUNY Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-4384-3234-2. "Locke's classical liberalism is American conservatism, a conservatism whose core ideas went virtually unchallenged until the New Deal." Robert Lerner; Althea K. Nagai; Stanley Rothman (1996). American Elites. Yale University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-300-06534-3. "Moreover, Americans do not use the term liberalism in the same way that Europeans do. In fact, classical European liberalism more closely resembles what we (and what Americans generally) call conservatism." And lastly, in the category of "Classical liberal parties in the United States", there is absolutely no mention of the contemporary Democratic Party. Only the Democratic-Republicans, who have been defunct since the mid 19th century, and there is no reliable source cited in the DP's ideologies to indicate a influential classical liberal discourse. Scott Shelby (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Bear in mind that you were the one who suggested Ian Adams book as your first source and now say its wrong. But all your sources agree. The Democratic and Republican parties espouse Lockean liberalism tempered to varying degrees by social liberalism. TFD (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC) There is no reliable consensus indicating that the contemporary Democratic Party follows laissez-faire (Or Lockean) liberalism. Moreover, the party I was describing that was listed as a classical liberal one was the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792, in opposition to a so called "centralization of power" by the Hamiltonian Federalists, who were protectionist rightwingers. The DRP has been defunct since the 1820s, and the majority of Democratic lawmakers and politicans do not support a Lockean laissez-faire system. In addition, there is not a single trace of social liberalism in the Republican Party today, and the most "moderate" Republican lawmakers still advocate solidly right-wing economic policy.Scott Shelby (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC) The first source your presented says, "Essentially [Democrats and Republicans] espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone." Can you tell me why you presented this source? TFD (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC) I was intending on quoting every citation that followed the sentence describing social liberalism as centre to centre-left (Because if I only cited the article, I would be condemned for using Wikipedia as a source), including Ian Adams, who I now have realized is a erroneous example, especially since I was in a hurry to cite reliable sources for this discussion and didn't have time to read it in full. I apologize for this inconvenience, and from now on, I shall make sure to double-check everything I cite before I post it in case it doesn't have a specific quote. Either way, the Democratic Party is in no way advocating laissez-faire economic policy and its majority faction is modern (or social) liberalism per their aforementioned party platform. Scott Shelby (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC) This is a pointless conversation. SunCrow (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC) So where do we go from here then? It is abundantly clear that the consensus by researchers, academics, scholars, political analysts and peer-reviewed publications overwhelmingly indicates that the contemporary Democratic Party has a centre to centre-left orientation per its socially liberal ideology, and whatever "classically liberal" laissez-faire faction they may have had in the past as TFD insists is by now dead and buried. The problem is that Toa Nidhiki is continually resistant towards accepting any attempt at resolving this dispute by adding the consensus position in, and judging by the fact this has gone on for years without any resolution, unless he relents and reviews the consensus of both editors and reliable sources, this will be a chronically recurring issue with ad nauseam talk page disputes and edit wars unless all other political parties have their political positions removed too, to assure the consistency of the English Wikipedia, in the event the blanking of the field is rendered permanent. Scott Shelby (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Somehow I’m the problem here, of course lol, not the quixotic quest to add something a years-long consensus has been not to include. Toa Nidhiki05 02:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Since when are reliable sources "quixotic"? Wikipedia is based on reliable, peer-reviewed literature and reputable sources, not personal commentary, opinions or beliefs of editors, per the statement below: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Again, you are perfectly welcome to provide a equally strong amount of reliable peer-reviewed sources stating that the Democratic Party is not classified as "centre to centre-left", if such sources exist. But as long as you don't have a clear, definitive, objective, factually correct and irrefutable reason for why the Democratic Party should receive special treatment when it comes to classifying it on the spectrum, I see no empirical reasoning that ipso facto permanently prevents the infobox from being updated. Scott Shelby (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Checkuser note I've blocked Scott Shelby as a  Confirmed sock. This entire section can be hatted or removed if the participants deem it unuseful.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Related RfC

There is an ongoing request for comment at Talk:Democrat Party that concerns this page. Please comment there. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Warren is not a progressive

Warren is not a progressive. There are way more people to her left that you could call a progressive and have a picture of. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Librab103 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Librab103 We describe politicians as independent reliable sources describe them, not as any individual Wikipedia editor describes them. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

331dot What sources are we using to determine a politicians polticial ideology on a spectrum? The media, political science papers, what the poltician calls themselves? Librab103 (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

As I noted, independent reliable sources are used. Senator Warren herself would not be an independent source as to her own political ideology. If you find that independent sources like the media or independent academics describe her differently, please offer those sources. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Progressive is not an ideology. Its contemporary use comes from the Congressional Progressive Caucus and founded by Bernie Sanders and other congressmen in 1991 in reaction to the "New Democrats" which became the faction associated with Biden, Gore, Kerry and Bill Clinton. While I appreciate your point that there is little separating Warren from the New Democrats, the same can be said about most Progressive Democrats. In this case it makes sense to use media descriptions. TFD (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Ideology

In the infobox, is Ideology, its leaders or its members. Despite the name, Modern liberalism in the United States, really doesn't exist anymore and really was only a concept until the late 20th century. If you're talking about leaders of the party, I would say swap Centrism and Modern Liberalism, given that Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, and Al Gore all all considered to be "New Democrats". If you're talking about the actual beliefs of its members, It seems pretty clear that "centrists" and "liberals" dominate when it comes to ideology of its members (just look at elections since 2008, especially in 2016, 2018, and 2020). New Democrats, and either left wing populism, progressivism, or social democracy would be a better fit in this case for the majority section. GeekInParadise (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

EDIT I think even saying, "centrism", "progressivism" and "modern liberalism" would be more accurate. Really you have the Bernie wing, the Clinton wing, and the wing that contains what used to be "liberal republicans". Limiting it to two when there's really 3 major ideological groups makes more sense and lead to less disputes about this in the future. GeekInParadise (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Should we consider a separate article for 'Leaders of the Democratic Party'? --Will d601 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, although if you are looking to decrease the size of the article, I would rather split of an article titles 'Voting base of the Democratic Party'. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Welfare recipients and food stamp users are not a faction of the Democratic Party

The editor GlassBones has edit-warred text into the lead, saying that welfare recipients and food stamp users are a Democratic demographic faction (like African-Americans, millennials, women etc.). Not only is it nonsensical to list groups by form of welfare they've used in the lead as if they were important demographic groups (we wouldn't say that Medicare users primarily vote Republican), but it's the result of survey responses where individuals self-select party affiliation and welfare use. There are good reasons to believe that a Republican would be more inclined not to admit to using welfare than a Democrat. Furthermore, the text isn't covered in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of this content is inappropriate for the reasons why identify. Neutrality^talk 23:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source that says they are a demographic faction of the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

change LGBT to LGBTQ Nolan Van Schmus (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The article concerned is entitled LGBT rights in the United States, and the use of "LGBT" over "LGBTQ" was affirmed in Talk:LGBT/Archive 2#Requested move 14 February 2018. feminist (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Article appears incomplete

While the article mentions the Democratic Party's support for slavery, it side-steps the inherent racism in slavery and associated events such as Dred Scott v. Sanford, as well as in presidential proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527 paving the way to the development of concentration camps and other aspects of the internment of Japanese Americans during the Roosevelt administration. 24.3.154.180 (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC Discussion about Democratic Party at Talk:David Clarke (sheriff)

There is currently an RFC at Talk:David Clarke (sheriff) which may be of interest to editors that edit this page. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

98.176.3.16 (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 KATRINA JAVELLANA DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism

There is a disagreement on the Democratic Party page if Democratic Socialism should be included on the Faction of Democratic Party. So give feedback if you agree or disagree. Apha9 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you are misrepresenting me. Democratic socialism is not a significant enough ideological faction of the Democratic Party, just as paleoconservatism is not a significant enough ideological faction of the Republican Party. Out of 250+ Democrats in Congress, there are two self-identified "democratic socialists" (three if you count independent Bernie Sanders), and commentators ([5], [6], [7], for instance) have generally noted that these politicians are better described as social democrats despite their preferred self-description.

On the other hand, a much greater portion of the politicians on the left of the Democratic Party (including these "democratic socialists") self-identify as and can be broadly categorized as progressive (and perhaps also left-populist). This is why these are more fitting factions for the infobox.

For comparison, there are only 2 "democratic socialists" in the Democratic House Caucus, along with 25 "conservatives" and 103 "centrists" per their affiliations (Democratic Socialists of America, Blue Dog Coalition, New Democrat Coalition). RedHotPear (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead should only mention the organized factions: Blue Dogs, New Democrats and Progressive Democrats. While there are two DSA members in Congress, they belong to the Progressive Caucus. Obviously as a party anyone can belong to, the Democrats will have people of every possible ideology, but not all of them will form factions. TFD (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not the oldest party in the world

Please correct, it is ONE-OF the oldest parties. The UK Tories/Conservative Party is well over 50 years older. The Tories had been a coalition that more often than not formed the government from 1760 until the Reform Act 1832. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denniskuhn (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Denniskuhn Please offer a reliable source to support your claim. I would note that Conservative Party (UK) states "The Conservative Party was founded in 1834", and the claim in this article is cited. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Biden is no longer the presumptive nominee he’s made over 1991 delegates I wanna change the word that says that. 45.37.204.29 (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Technically he's the presumptive nominee until he is confirmed at the national convention, when that happens. Also, this is not the page to request additional user rights, if you want that then because of technical limitations and concerns about IP address sharing, you'll have to create an account. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Not the oldest party in the world

Please correct, it is ONE-OF the oldest parties. The UK Tories/Conservative Party is well over 50 years older. The Tories had been a coalition that more often than not formed the government from 1760 until the Reform Act 1832. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denniskuhn (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Denniskuhn Please offer a reliable source to support your claim. I would note that Conservative Party (UK) states "The Conservative Party was founded in 1834", and the claim in this article is cited. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Biden is no longer the presumptive nominee he’s made over 1991 delegates I wanna change the word that says that. 45.37.204.29 (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Technically he's the presumptive nominee until he is confirmed at the national convention, when that happens. Also, this is not the page to request additional user rights, if you want that then because of technical limitations and concerns about IP address sharing, you'll have to create an account. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding a historical factions section

The Democratic Party is one of the oldest parties in the world. I think it might be worth adding a section for its historical ideologies as a comparison to what it looks like today. Jacksonian democracy, agrarianism, classical liberalism (Bourbon Democrats), etc. Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that belongs in the history section because each faction rose and fell due to historical circumstances. For an example see "Contending liberalisms." The author explains the grandees and levellers, whigs and radicals, classical and social liberals historically. Obviously what grandees believed would seem strange to us today, since society has changed in the past 380 years. It's odd to put it side by side with the Liberal Democratic platform in the last election. TFD (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Political position?

THIS ENTIRE PAGE IS BROKEN!!!! DEMOCRATIC IS AN ADJECTIVE!!!! IT IS NOT THE PLURAL VERSION, OF DEMOCRAT!!! GET IT TOGETHER!!!!! THIS ENTIRE PAGE IS FASCIST PROPAGANDA!!!!!2601:1C2:600:2E50:14E1:4276:666F:2C80 (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC) There is not currently a political position listed. There should be one - all the state level Democratic Party articles have one. "Centre to centre-left with left-wing and left-wing to far-left factions" sounds like a reasonable approximation to me This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to the Maoist wing of the party? That would correspond to far-left. The Obama administration was frequently compared to the Republican platform of Eisenhower, by contrast. Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree it really needs to have a political position. Exempting the US parties from a simple ideological rating when every other country has one is a bad look. I would say far-left is generally reserved for anti-capitalism, and there is really no far-left faction in the Dem Party. One could say center-left (Sanders, AOC, Tlaib) to center-right (Manchin, Warner, Jones), but I'd just say center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We decided to exclude it. While there is general agreement that most political parties can be placed along a left-right spectrum where the Dems would be to the left of the Reps, there's little agreement on where along the spectrum each party is. in this case, the info-box described the ideology as modern liberalism/social liberalism. While we all agree on that, it is not clear where in the spectrum that lies. We can let readers decide for themselves where they want to place this.

Also, the two major U.S. parties are not like parties in other countries. They have no stated ideology and some states don't even have members. In other countries members are regularly expelled for ideological heresy, but that cannot happen in the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, @Zellfire999:, how about this, since they’re both big tent parties, the democrats should be listed as far left to center-right and the republicans should be listed as center-left to far right. This should show each party as sufficiently independently differed, but also shows where they are against each other, as well as specifically notes the blue dogs and the liberal republicans. -Navarre0107 (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Far left and right as normally defined don't play a major role in either party. By definition, they are outside the major parties. So again it comes down to where we think the ideologies of the two parties belong. As a parallel, articles about pet animals report how large they usually are. Now suppose you wanted to create a "size" field that categorized them as very large, large, somewhat large, medium, somewhat small, small and very small. That would be a recipe for countless arguments across many pages and would not provide meaningful information for readers. TFD (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Photos spot check

I just did a spot check of the photos on this page. They generally look pretty good — there are a variety of types of people (not just presidents), and the pictures are of high quality. The portraits are balanced out by some non-portrait photos, although the page could use a few more photos of grassroots-level activism. In the modern era, women and racial minorities are well-represented with several images, so there don't appear to be any issues with system bias (notably, every single image at Republican Party (United States) is of a white man, but that is probably appropriate given the demographic makeup of that party). Sizes are appropriate (with one exception I just fixed), and layout does not seem to be causing any issues. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

On the "Political Positions" Section

In one of the economic policies, "tax cuts for working and middle classes" is listed. However, even center-left liberal Democrats today aren't doing that. Obama didn't. And Biden not only will he not cut taxes for the non-rich, he is set to raise them. Furthermore, the reference attached to this piece of information seems outdated.

So, short of a better reference, I suggest this particular position be omitted, because it is basically unsupported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJoe24 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiJoe24, raise taxes on the non-rich? Biden says he won't raise taxes for people earning less than $400,000. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

---

@Muboshgu -- Okay, great. Although, the folks over at the Americans for Tax Reform are saying he'll be raising other types of taxes than income like Obama has that'll affect large segments of the taxpayer.

https://www.atr.org/full-list-ACA-tax-hikes-a6996

But okay, even taking his word for it, my point still remains that evidence for tax cuts on middle- and lower-earners on the part of the Democratic Party has been scant, and so that bullet point (or its reference) should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJoe24 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The information is sourced to On the Issues which provides supporting quotes from the 2000, 2004 and 2012 platforms.[8] I don't know if they have it in their platform today. It is questionable to use party platforms as a source for their policies, since they basically change depending on circumstances and there is no method for ensuring conformity for their elected officials. TFD (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

How is it that there is nothing about their support for slavery and segregation? 50.32.99.71 (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you read Democratic Party (United States)#History? It mentions both. More information is at History of the United States Democratic Party. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu, I just came across it. Thanks. 50.32.99.71 (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

73.150.108.27 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Democrat Party supported slavery throughout the South.

There is no Democrat party. This article is about the Democratic party. Please limit your requests for efits to the subject of the article. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed HeartGlow ^(talk) 12:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done due to ludicrous claims. Also please state what you want in the form of change x to y please. Thanks! HeartGlow ^(talk) 12:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the page for the Democratic National Committee be merged with this page. Dswitz10734 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"Democratican" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Democratican. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 3#Democratican until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Slavery

I'm not trying to stir anything up. I just want to see the facts reported correctly because that's why we're here. neither this page nor the page on the political positions of the democratic party lists their support for slavery. Mentions the fact that abolishing slavery had to be voted on multiple times because the Democratic party fought against it tooth and nail. If the Republican party had done that you know it would be on their page. we're supposed to be unbiased it belongs here. I'm not going to add it because well I don't want to stir up shit but it should be here for sure. Sickboy254698 (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sickboy254698 Wikipedia actually does not claim to be free of bias; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are presented to readers so they can be evaluated and judged by said readers for themselves.

That said, please offer any sourced changes you feel are needed. I think the 19th century section discusses some of what you say. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not listed as a political position because the Democratic Party does not officially support slavery today. The article does say that anti-slavery Democrats left the party, implying the party was pro-slavery, at least until slavery was abolished. TFD (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles on political parties are typically minor on the history side, if they include an overview at all, and are more focused on their contemporary nature.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

Change "In Congress, the party is a big-tent coalition has influential centrist, progressive, and conservative wings." to " In Congress, the party is a big-tent coalition with influential centrist, progressive, and conservative wings." Nbeam (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Odd Malinowski Quote

The Tom Malinowski Quote:

We're now the party of fiscal responsibility in America. We didn't just add $2 trillion to the national debt for that tax cut that Warren Buffett didn't want ... We're the party of law enforcement in America; we don't vilify the Federal Bureau of Investigation every single day. We're the party of family values. We don't ... take kids from their parents at the border. We're the party of patriotism in America that wants to defend this country against our foreign adversaries."

seems odd and out-of-place, serving as rhetoric and opinion rather than meaningful insight on the parties views and positions. I would propose removing this. Numerator*over*Denominator (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Merging Request

I would like to suggest that this page be merged with Democratic National Committee. That page looks like a start-class article and should be combined with this A-class article. Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The Democratic National Committee is a valid subject for it's own article per WP:ORG. Your opinion on how the page "looks like a start-class article" is not a reason for merging.Two, twice^talk 04:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the first reply. Democratic National Committee is not the entire party but the leading cadre. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Position

I think this needs to be discussed. I start it with the following statement:

Democratic Party, by party platform and national comittee cadres, a neoliberal center-right political party.

This is of course open to discussion and a topic that really needs a resolution in all pages related to the party. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You will need to offer independent reliable sources that describe the party that way; it cannot be your conclusion from your opinions about their platform. Republicans, of course, would likely disagree with such a definition. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot determining a party's political position is only possible by 2 ways, I think: One is looking to its first-party agenda, and other way is looking to second-hand analysis of the party. The problem is that the second one vary, so the Wikipedia community must arrive to a consensus, mostly by comparing it to other major political parties that have similar agendas. Otherwise it will be and endless cycle of abstract discussion. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to summarize what independent reliable sources state, not to draw conclusions based on what an article subject says about itself, or to make our own definition, those are both original research. As I said, if you want to change how this article describes the party, you will need to offer independent reliable sources that describe the party as you feel it should be. You are, of course, free to use your own website or social media to describe the Democratic Party as you wish. I am aware of many people that describe it as you do. But you can't do it here without sources. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Problem is that there can't be an independent source defining a political party's position, especially in a bipartisan system. Nearly all of the parties have their allignments written in regards of common sense formed by wikipedians, except for DNC. What I ask is not specifically endorsing my statement but demanding a consensus of position of this party. As stated, its impossible to have a totally independent source stating x party is alligned with a particular political scale and positions of many major parties on the wiki are stated according to common sense at a point. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a problem at all. I think you are confusing an independent source for a source without bias. There is no such thing as a source without bias, but there are sources not affiliated with the Democratic Party itself that describe the Party. That's what we want to do- summarize how others describe the party, not create a definition ourselves or report what the party says about itself. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have a source other than the Democratic Party itself, such as a news story that says "The Democratic Party describes itself as center-right", then that's a start. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I made an edit with sources today, that got reverted. Maybe you would like to check it via history. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It was reverted because you did not have consensus. You can develop that consensus here. With your edit you removed the note "Do not include a position here until a consensus has been reached on the talk page". 331dot (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no discussion being taken place. Should it be taken to one of the main Wikipedia talk pages because there is an absolute obscurity regarding consensus on position. It can't remain blank for so long, because at the same time people make up positions of Democratic Party's assets without any source as party's one is non-defined here. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Center to center-left, with some left-wing factions or Big Tent

I think the political position "Center to center left, with some left-wing factions" would be appropriate. The two major ideological caucuses in the House of Representatives, the New Democrat Coalition and the Congressional Progressive Caucus are described next to "Political Position" as "Center to center-left" and "Left-wing" respectively. The political position could also be described as "Center to left-wing". Alternatively, the Democratic Party could be described as "Big tent", due to having such a broad ideological range, from Joe Manchin to Bernie Sanders. JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Socialism

Political ideology of the party should be corrected to include socialism.188.57.79.79 (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Please offer multiple independent reliable sources that describe the Democratic Party as socialist- not just your own personal worldview. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The democratic party is moderate and does not include socialism. Socialist voters often vote for democratic candidates, but the democratic party has never endorsed socialism.72.134.116.163 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should include the fact that a minor socialist faction exists in the Democratic Party. That is worth noting, considering that Bernie Sanders (a self-proclaimed socialist) nearly won their primary in 2016 and was leading it for some time in 2020, leading to the presumptive nominee and now president-elect adopting many of his policies. The best place to put this may be in the Progressive section, since Progressive and Democratic Socialist means nearly the same thing within the party.

I think that it is already covered under the Social democracy faction. There is a minority of Democratic politicians who identify as democratic "socialist," but are technically social democrats, because social democracy is a more left-wing version of capitalism with historical connections to socialist movements, while democratic socialism is a genuinely anti-capitalistic ideology that supports full workplace democracy and social ownership of the economy. JoeSmoe2828 (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Steny Hoyer

Indeed, Pelosi outranks Hoyer in the House. But Hoyer still belongs in the infobox as theoretically, the Speaker is independent. The House majority leader belongs. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (2)

Hello I would like to ask you a question, There is a typo error that the number of US senators are not 46 dems there are actually 50 becuase and I would like for the ediotors to update it, I perfer to you to update it becuase im not an expert pn wiki so please do that. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug3584030 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Already answered, above. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Doug3584030 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello I was curious to check something online so I google dems wiki and while I was browsing the article, there had not been an update the senate seats were 46 and right now its 50 seats, I can't edit it because its lock so if you have time one of the editors can update it technically I perfer the experts edit it because i'm not an expert on wiki and dont know how to use it and just would love to be updated. Thanks

Right now the Democrats hold 47 seats. Three new senators will be sworn in tomorrow, then there will be 50. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually there are 45 right now, with two independents. The infobox hasn't been updated for Harris' resignation. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Updated to 45, as Harris resigned on Jan 18. Will be further updated to 48 on the afternoon of Jan 20, when Padilla, Ossoff & Warnock are sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Update senate chairs

Please change blue senate seats from 48/100 to 50/100 in the info box.

 Not done. Angus King and Bernie Sanders are independents. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)