Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 18

The Democratic Party (United States) has never belonged to any "international"

A handful of obscure Democrats attended the meeting of the "we used to be Socialists but now we're embarrassed to admit it" organization. So what? It would be counter-factual to deny that over the decades, individual Democrats have attended meetings of everything from the Communist Party to the Ku Klux Klan (as have Republicans). That does not make the Democratic Party itself an affiliate of either of those movements. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemike. well said. Rjensen (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I pretty much agree. I found a List of the Board Members of the Progressive Alliance. Interesting to note that most of the names on the list are political parties with one exception. In the listing for USA it has Howard Dean and not the Democratic Party. Alexander Levian (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a outmoded version. The current list of participants in the PA includes the Democratic Party.[citation needed] --Checco (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Got a cite for that assertion? --Orange Mike | Talk 11:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, you got it: the international's official website. I wanted to link to it before, but I forgot to. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the citation, Checco. Now the question comes, what does the term "participant" mean? Is there anything anywhere other than this list which describes the Democratic Party as being officially affiliated with this group? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The Democratic Party is listed on the Progressive Alliance article too. But a caveat is at the top of that list stating:

NOTE: The Progressive Alliance lists the parties listed here as having been (at some level) "participants" in their conferences. This is not a list of members of the Alliance, and should not be misread as such.

I don't know where that info came from, or who added it, because the link to the source is the same as above. I will add my voice to those that are skeptical of the Democratic Party being an actual member of this international group. Dave Dial (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree. The Democrats do not belong to any international group. TFD (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Participants are parties that have attended conferences, while the Board are parties that are actual members of the PA. The former chairman of the DNC Howard Dean is the only person on the Board, all the rest are parties. Note too that Democrats participate in the Liberal, Socialist and Christian Democratic Internationals through membership in the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. The connection with the PA is too nebulous to be mentioned, unless a secondary source finds it important. TFD (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. A participant is not the same as a member. The list of the Board Members doesn't mention the Democratic Party. Alexander Levian (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

My proposal is to mention the PA in this article's infobox in the following way: Progressive Alliance (participant)[1].

  1. ^ http://progressive-alliance.info/2810-2/

--Checco (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No. we have no RS that states the D Party is actually involved. Rjensen (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It is involved as "participant". It is worth mentioning. --Checco (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
No--we need a RS saying it's important. Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
All I could find about the Democratic Party's participation was that Howard Dean spoke at the 2013 Leipzig conference. At that time he was no longer chairman of the DNC but he is on the board of the National Democratic Institute. It is not clear if he represented either one. Checco, do you have any additional information? TFD (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but at this point I have not. --Checco (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
well that should wrap it up. no news media in the US or Europe considers the supposed connection important enough to mention, nor does the Dem Party itself. Rjensen (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I do want to thank you, Checco, for doing the work that you have. It's just that the consensus is quite strong that the participation by a prominent Democrat in this organization is not notable enough to become part of this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Checco that the international affiliation should be listed. I find it rather absurd that the validity of it is being rejected due to chauvinism. It's not as if the Progressive Alliance is a fictious organisation; it received media coverage at its foundation, a rare thing for a political international to receive, and its membership includes major political parties such as the German SPD.Autospark (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Except, as pointed out above, they are not affiliated with the International. TFD (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The Democratic Party is affiliated to the Progressive Alliance as a "participant". Also all the other PA members are listed as "participants" in the PA's website. Consensus might not support this, but sources do. --Checco (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
--just who did the "participating" ??? when?? you lack a published reliable secondary source--. Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The PA call their member parties and organisations "participants" for currently unknown reasons. As for secondary sources, en.wiki articles on the other political internationals use the websites of the respective organisations as a key source of information on member parties, as the information is unavailable elsewhere, the media rarely if ever cover internationals, and even member parties scarcely ever mention their own affiliations!--Autospark (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I perfectly agree with Autospark. I subscribe to all of what he just wrote. --Checco (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
They apparently use the term participant to refer to parties that have attended conferences.[1] It may be they do not have members. They do not appear to have a constitution (compare with the SI[2]). TFD (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
"The PA call their member parties and organisations "participants"" There's the issue, we haven't been given any source to show that's the case. The list of participants never refers to them as members (or even explain what it means to be a participant). Their "Activities and Structure of the Progressive Alliance" doesn't mention the nature of participants (or say anything about participants at all). I remind you that the only people they refer to as members are their board members (see the current List of the Board Members), which doesn't include the Democratic Party (although Howard Dean is on there). If I could be shown some reason or evidence that "participant" means members, my mind could be changed. Until then, I have to continue to oppose. Alexander Levian (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
AlexanderLevian is correct. PA Gives a list of its board members that includes organized political parties from 25 countries, such as "Social Democratic Union of Macedonia (SDSM)". However for one country --the United States --it does not list any party whatever but just the name Howard Dean. He was Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) from 2005 to 2009 And no longer has any official role in the Democratic Party. Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
As I observed before, the updated list of "participants" includes the Democratic Party, not Howard Dean. This is a reality that we should not ignore, like it or not. Internationals are loose organizations and their members scarcely mention their affiliations (see Autospark above), but the Democratic Party is definitely involved in the PA, (again) like it or not. --Checco (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
some intern goofed and thought Dean = Dem Party. No news medium noticed it-and the US Dem Party never admitted it. Rjensen (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
That is merely your own conjecture. And as Checco and I have stated, internationals are pretty much overlooked by the media (except in rare cases such as the PA's foundation), and even academic sources say little about them, only really the Socialist International has much coverage by academics, and mostly of a historical nature.--Autospark (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
You can't tell the difference between a mistake and a reality if are relying on a single very wobbly source. Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sources-- In some cases a reliable primary source will do the job, for example a website of the Democratic party. Which of no reliable sources whatsoever. Instead what we have here is an heavily politicized POV -- you may wish that the Democratic Party engaged in these activities, but there is zero evidence that it does... Apart from the personal activities of Mister Dean, who has had no official role in many years. Rjensen (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no personal wish for anything. I am not "heavily politicized" (sic), and I have no stake in the Democratic Party. I wish merely to record information about a new political international as accurately as possible. (And yes, obviously it would be better if the PA improves their website.)--Autospark (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok-- I have a horror of false info in Wikipedia on a politically sensitive topic that could be used for partisan goals. Rjensen (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see "partisan goals" here, I don't think this is a "politically sensitive topic"—not at all and I don't understand how inserting "Progressive Alliance (participant)", a sensible compromise, as the "international affiliation" of the Democratic Party can be so controversial. --Checco (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The partisan goal (not necessarily yours or Autospark's, Checco) would be to tar the Democratic Party as communist because of its association with a group of parties which were at one time socialist or at least social-democratic. (And yes, right-wing partisans in the U.S. cheerfully conflate mild social democracy with Stalinism, bacause like many other Big Lies it works on the ignorant and simpleminded listeners.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
So should we ignore an information to prevent "right-wing partisans" to reach wrong conclusions on the Democratic Party and tar it as communist? This looks quite a "partisan goal" to me. Dear Orange Mike, you have been very kind with me and I don't intend to offend you by any means, but I frankly don't understand nor agree with your reasoning. Hopefully, Senator Bernie Sanders, who is introducing the United States to the term "democratic-socialist" (even though he is more of a "social-democrat" than a "democratic-socialist"), will help Americans to understand that "democratic socialism" (or, better, "social democracy") has hardly anything to do with "communism". --Checco (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
yes Wikipedia avoids fake / exaggerated/ claims. Rjensen (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked through the site and found that Howard Dean, who had no official position in the Democratic Party, presented a six minute speech at the opening conference in Leipzig in 2013.[3] Other than that there was no attendance by him or any other other Democrat in any of the conferences or workshops. And Dean says nothing about the U.S. Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2015

please change International Affiliation None to International Affiliation Progressive Alliance. This change can be made within the first infobox.

The web page for Progressive Alliance at http://progressive-alliance.info/2810-2/ states that the Democratic Party is a current member of this party.

Wiki20db (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

we have been over this. The Dem Party does not claim any membership or affiliation. so, No. Rjensen (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not a list of members, that's a list of "participants" (that is, parties that have participated in at least one of their conferences.) Beyond that, it's a WP:PRIMARY source; we would probably need a secondary source for such a significant claim. --Aquillion (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, "participants" seems to mean "parties, at least one official of whom have participated in one of our conferences". It's so weak as to be meaningless, and fails both WP:PRIMARY and more importantly WP:UNDUE. American political organizations outside of the left seldom affiliate with any international organization. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are no sources that they are a member of the Alliance. TFD (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The Party, as stated many times above, doesn't assert any kind of membership or affiliation. The only connection is that some Democrats have precipitated in the group events, with this being reported. That's not good enough. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons explained at length in the above discussion. I would insert "Progressive Alliance (participant)". --Checco (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support again, for reasons discussed above. Noting (Participant) next to the Progressive Alliance name would be a reasonable compromise.--Autospark (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Zero evidence from the Dem Party that it is affiliated it in any way. Rjensen (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Honestly, I have no idea why anyone is 'voting' here. You could have the entire 'Progressive Alliance' come here and vote in support of adding it, and it wouldn't be in this article. It's against Wikipedia policies to add false and/or exaggerated claims into articles. Especially without secondary sourcing. So sorry, this is a no-go from the get-go. Dave Dial (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that saying "I oppose this", "I support this", etc is not the same thing as voting per se. If that were the case, then I would be said that I'm voting for Maroon 5 when I say that I oppose people that call them 'too mainstream pop' or whatever. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Does the phrase "Center left" in the lede justify similar info in the IB?

I know the political position parameter has been source of much controversy in articles of all major parties worldwide (I am generally opposed to it), but if we have it, we should use it whenever reasonable. I noticed this phrase in the lead, sourced appropriately:

"since the 1930s, the party has promoted a center-left, social-liberal platform,[3]". The relevant phrase in the source does indeed say "Center left".

Does this justify the placement of "center-left" in the infobox? Or should we continue to leave it blank for the sake of avoiding controversy? ----Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead itself is questionable, as-- in international terms-- the Democratic Party is labeled by many as having centrist / moderate with conservative tendencies. I think that there was some lost text somewhere in there that specified that it's "social-liberal in the context of the U.S." (or some other language like that). Anyways, I personally think that the section should probably remain blank. If it's not blank, then we'll have a very long and unnecessary fight on our hands about whether it should be Center, Center-right or Center-left, Center or Center. And, when it comes to the Republicans, that page is going to have to go through the same thing only with different terms. It's just not a good idea. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
This is actually more or less my position on the issue. I'm an advocate for the total removal of the Position parameter altogether, as all it has ever done is inspire bickering. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Not to sound flippant, but this reminds me of arguments about bands such as Led Zeppelin about categorization. "This song is 'hard rock'!" "No, it's 'blues rock'!" "No, it's full on 'heavy metal'!" "Why can't we just say 'rock', guys?" At least there's a common sense aspect there (you can at least listen to something like "Immigrant Song" and know that it's not smooth jazz), but it devolves so easily. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, infobox is a terrible idea. Toa Nidhiki05 01:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The source says, "Modern liberalism occupies the left-of center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party of the United States, the Labor Party in the United Kingdom, and the mainstream Left (including some nominally socialist parties) in other advanced democratic societies."[4] Note he does not use the term "center-left" (or "social liberalism" for that matter). An argument could be made that he would have called them "left." Seems like a cherry-picked source - it is not about the Democratic Party or the political spectrum. After all, if someone wanted to know where the party lies in the political spectrum, would one's first pick be a book called Imposing Values: Liberalism and Regulation. TFD (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Democrats are broadly a center-left (or left-of-center, if you prefer) party. What is the problem about describing them as such? I frankly don't see it. Especially, I don't understand why American parties should be treated differently from other parties in Wikipedia. Each and every party of the world, especially catch-all parties (from the UK Conservative Party to the German SPD), are home different ideological trends, but, still, they have a position in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The SPD article describes that party as "center-left", but the Democrats are generally considered to be to the right of the Socialist International affiliate in the U.S. In fact there is a major discussion today whether a "self-described Democratic socialist" can become leader of the party. I don't think there are many center-left (or even center-right) parties outside the U.S. that are still debating capital punishment, same sex marriage, etc. TFD (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Your arguments look quite weak to me and can be easily taken apart. The Democrats clearly represent the center-left of the United States political spectrum and, especially on social/ethical issues, tend to be to the left of the social-democratic mainstream in Europe. There are members of the Socialist International or the Progressive Alliance supporting capital punishment (notably the Indian National Congress), while many others oppose or don't officially support same-sex marriage (from the cited SPD to Italy's Democratic Party); for that matter, Ireland's Labour Party is not completely in favor of abortion too. "Democratic Socialist" would be an awkward description also in many European countries, from Germany to Italy, and, in fact, I don't understand why Sanders doesn't use the more mainstream "Social Democrat" label. I'm not arguing that the United States are more open to socialism than Germany or Italy, but it is definitely strange that a term rejected by most European leading centre-left politicians is embraced by a candidate who is getting 20-30% of the support among United States Democrats. This party has been moving leftwards for decades and it is no longer so different from its European counterparts. --Checco (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree – it's clear that the Democratic Party is the catch-all party of the centre-left in the United States, just as the Republican Party is the catch-all party of the centre-right. The pattern of American party politics is no different to many other democratic countries where there are big (and heterogenous) parties of the centre-left and centre-right. Checco's comparison of the Democrats with the German SPD and UK Conservatives as broad-based parties is very accurate IMO. Additionally, let's not read more than we should into Senator Sanders at this point. Personally I am very interested in following his campaign and find the man an interesting politician, but he is not yet confirmed as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, wasn't officially a member of the party until very recently, won't be the party 'leader', and his case is still unusual by the standards of the party. (Incidentally, I'd argue that the US Democratic Party would fit into the Socialist International just fine – the main internationals are heterogeneous to some degree. SI has parties that don't even pretend to be social-democratic, the Centrist Democrat International is a mixed bag, and the Liberal International has Fianna Fáil and the Nordic agrarian parties as affiliates, for example.)--Autospark (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The principles on which the Democratic Party is based are very different from the Socialist parties of Europe. Clause IV of the Labour Party for example says, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." The Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States states its primary value is "individual freedom." It even refers to God.[5] Political scientists routinely distinguish between liberal and socialist parties.("The concept of the party family", p. 2)
One could argue that in the U.S. political spectrum, the Democrats occupy the left. But then in Soviet politics, Stalin occupied the center - between the Left and Right Oppositions. But there are minor parties and groups to the left of the Democrats, including the center-left Democratic Socialists of America.
And do you think that both Clinton and Sanders occupy the same center-left political space? TFD (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No-one wants to classify the US Democratic Party as socialist or even social-democratic. Of course, today's European social-democracy and American liberalism are quite similar, but that's not my point here either. As Labour includes both Blair and Corbyn, the Democrats include both Clinton and Sanders, meaning that both parties are broad centre-left outfits, including a broad range of views (generally classifiable as centre-left) and quite diverse individuals (as those mentioned). I don't see anything controversial about it and, once again, I agree with Autospark. --Checco (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The right-wing leader of the Labour Party claimed to be a "democratic socialist" in order to gain credibility among party supporters, while a left-wing leader of the Democratic Party has to defend calling himself that. Can you provide a link to Hillary Clinton saying, "Bernie, I'm a socialist too?" TFD (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, you are making this just a terminological issue. Terms have different meanings in different contexts (you should know that) and one big example is "liberal". In fact, very few Democrats are liberals in the European (let alone French) sense, while Sanders is not a democratic socialist by any definition, but a social democrat or a progressive. Clinton is a centrist if compared with Sanders, who is a radical leftist if compared with DLC types, but both Clinton and Sanders are centre-left politicians—and the Democratic Party, while including also some centrists and some radical leftists, is broadly a centre-left party and, on some issues (including same-sex marriage, abortion, immigration, etc.), they are to the left of several European social-democratic leaders. America is quite exceptional (there is no doubt about it), but there is no exception here: also European catch-all parties are broad churches, including a broad range of views/individuals. --Checco (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, there are countries in which both main parties are centre right (think of Ireland or Poland), while in the United States the Democrats are clearly a centre-left party. --Checco (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
In popular speech, liberalism in the U.S. generally refers to modern liberalism while in France it generally refers to 19th century liberalism. In fact the Democrats held 19th century liberal views in the 19th century. But all major reliable sources distinguish between socialists and liberals. TFD (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I obviously agree, but I don't understand why this would be relevant here. There are plenty of liberal (both in the European and especially in the American sense) individuals and parties who/which are centre-left. The United States Democratic Party and most of its members are centre-left—and it does not matter that, before the New Deal and Great Society reforms, the Democrats used to be a centre-right party, to the right of the Republicans: we're discussing about now. --Checco (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Following that reasoning, you would put social liberal parties in the same place in the political spectrum as socialists and put right-wing liberal parties in the same place as conservatives or right-wing Christian democrats. So in Canada and the UK, both socialists and liberals would be center-left, while in Germany both the CDU and FDP would be center-right. That provides more confusion than clarity. TFD (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I would put social liberal parties where they stand, thus in the same place in the political spectrum as social democrats (not socialists!) and right-wing liberal parties in the same place as conservatives or right-wing Christian democrats. That would provide clarity. Generally speaking, political positions in infoboxes bring clarity, indeed. The Canadian NDP is a social-democratic party, while the Grits' centre of gravity is slightly to the right than that of US Democrats, but yes, they are primarily centre-left. --Checco (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Political Position

Under political position of the Democratic Party this article should state that it is center-left to left wing because that is who the party has in its ranks not just the politicians that are in Congress but the people that support the party. The facts are that even though the party has centrists like William "Bill" Clinton it also has politicians who are more left wing like Senator Bernie Sanders or Representative Grijalva from Arizona. To add to that many of the parties followers range from center-left moderates to more left wing socialists. It can be inferred that the only reason that the political position of "center-left to left wing" is not published in this article is because of fear of scaring away the centrists and conservatives. Why doesn't this page have a political position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.240.166 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed a while back here. AlexanderLevian (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Do not worry: Wikipedia editors are fearless when it comes to their political analysis. Bernie Sanders was a socialist until a few weeks ago-- someone who joined the party in the last month can hardly be said to represent it. Note that genuine members of the left are disowning Sanders because his new party status requires him to support Clinton if she wins the nomination. Sanders also came under heavy attack from the left in Phoenix the other day. All in all, the left has certainly kept its distance from the Democratic Party in recent decades, including this year, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
^^^This — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure he is still a socialist; it's just that he has switched from being an all-out independent. We should make sure not to confuse parties with ideologies... Dustin (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
He is not running on a socialist platform or running for the nomination of a socialist party, and the economists he relies on are all liberals. He has accepted to conform to the decisions of a liberal party. Whether or not he can be called a socialist, a vote for him is not a vote for socialism. TFD (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
TFD is correct on all counts.

Even if Sanders is not an all out Socialist the Democratic Party is still a coalition of leftists. If Wikipedia can classify Mexico's PRD as center-left to left wing and Germany's SPD as center-left to left wing, why cannot they classify the Democratic Party as center-left to left wing? When the PRD and SPD are quite similar in platforms to the Democratic Party. It seems that in the US people are afraid to say the words democratic socialism, populism, or even Marxism because they are too afraid of the response of Conservatives and Capitalists. It is that fear that has kept democratic socialism and all leftist movements from progressing to major movements in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatlSocialism (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the SPD and PRD have totally different ideological and organizational histories that involve an explicitly socialist agenda.
there are leftists in USA but you don't find them in Dem party at more than the 2% level. They are very upset with Sanders for example, for joining the Dem party presidential race. We lack RS to support "left" claims. As for Mexico & Europe those are very different political worlds. (eg the SPD is in coalition with Merkel right now.) The Dems in USA have not attracted new Marxists in 40 years. Both D & R have VERY strong populist elements. Here's a good quote from leading scholars: "The Republican party, nationally, moved from right-center toward the center in 1940s and 1950s, then moved right again in the 1970s and 1980s; the 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." Theodore Caplow; Howard M. Bahr; Bruce A. Chadwick (1994). Recent Social Trends in the United States, 1960-1990. McGill-Queen's Press. p. 337. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Rjensen (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
^^^Again, I agree with this dude. No way Dem Party qualifies as center left to left. More accurate would be center right to center left.
The Democratic party qualifies as far left.108.196.40.52 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
How so? Alexander Levian (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The DP is not a far left party, but it should be regarded as left wing. Do not overlook the apparent fact that the more popular potential presidential candidate for 2016, from the grass roots, appears to be Bernie Sanders. He is a socialist, and must be regarded as left wing, not liberal or centre. Therefore I propose that the party's political position be recorded as left wing.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Royalcourtier: So you are saying that because one candidate in 2016 runs for President under the Democratic banner, the whole "political positions' of that party should be labeled to whatever that candidate regards him/herself? Sanders refuses, to this day, to be labeled as a Democrat or join the Democratic Party. Even if Sanders wins the Democratic primaries, you would still have to change the Democratic charter and their official political positions in order to consider making changes here. Backed up by reliable secondary sourcing. Dave Dial (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC) f

Since Sanders has come up so many times, worth noting he is not a "real" socialist (i.e. he does not support worker control of the means of production), but rather a social democrat who supports the center-left nordic model and has given the Swedish Social Democrats as an example- a party rightly identified here as "center-left." The Democrats have, by global standards, everything from a center-right wing (Clinton, Warner) to a center-left wing (Sanders, Warren) with a centrist wing in between (Obama, Biden). Their closest affiliates ideologically are probably the Canadian liberals- called center to center-left by Wikipedia. But I'd say the Democrats have a wing to the right of anything the Liberals have. I'd identify the Democrats as either "center-left to center-right" or just "center" 199.111.224.218 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Most Wikipedias in other languages describe the political position as "center to center-left." Its counterparts in other North American countries (ex. Liberal Party in Canada, PRI in Mexico) have a similar description in the info box, it should be added here.

What's with the Sander's campaign pitch?

The picture of Sanders in the "Economic issues" section should go. As much as I like Sanders, he has never actually been elected to anything while running as a Democrat, and he's been a Democrat for less then a year, so he has no real relevance to an article on the history of the party. 2016 Democratic Primary is where this belongs. 68.190.197.173 (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

he's the #2 Democrat in presidential politics. He is spokesman for a major faction of the party. that's important. Rjensen (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
That's a great argument for making sure his picture is in the Democratic Primary article like I said. But using your reasoning, where's the picture of the #1 candidate then? NPOV should have both if that's your argument. Should their pictures also be moved up and down the page based on poll numbers?68.190.197.173 (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

An edit which should be undone

Since I do not have sufficient rights, someone else should probably undo this edit. It is absolutely redundant and I believe it was made by a person known for "vandalizing" (and as a result being temporarily blocked) the multiple articles with similar redundant formatting edits. 100.37.25.224 (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

was this undone? it links to an earlier version of the entire page, which makes it difficult to pinpoint what edit you are referring to. maybe, if it's still there, you could at least say what section this possible "vandalism" was in?Colbey84 (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Supports a mixed economy and social justice?

Nonsense. Who wrote this obvious lie? They support a neoliberal economy with some minimal state regulations and intervention. Mixed economy means you support a mix of state-run industries and privately-held industries. Given the Dems have supported deregulation and privatization of traditionally public services there's little evidence that they support a mixed economy now if they ever really did since FDR. And social justice? A meaningless phrase with no way to qualify or quantify. Anyone can claim to support social justice but what does it really mean? And from what I understand of the common definition, nebulous as it may be, that the Democratic Party couldn't even qualify under those vague standards. Can someone with an account please remove this nonsense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually now that I read it again the whole paragraph should go. Labor unions are not "government intervention and regulation in the economy." The claims made in this paragraph simply don't withstand a rudimentary analysis of the Democratic Party's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay so no one's gonna address this? Guess that no one editing this page cares about accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the statement about mixed economy because the source doesn't talk about the Democratic Party. I've also moved the statement about labor unions to prevent confusion. In future you should address these issues in terms of reliable sources, not assertions. As far as wikipedia editors making "a rudimentary analysis of the Democratic Party's policies", unless you have a source that makes such an analysis, it would violate WP:OR policy. Pardon the delay, the editors on wikipedia are busy with many pages and we all care about accuracy. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.Alexander Levian (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
   The statement about the mixed economy is STILL THERE, what the hell.
   137.28.226.25 (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

still there. IMO, almost the entire intro section needs to be...well, either replaced, or it needs to be noted—directly in the text, not simply via the use of references—that these descriptions of the democratic party are personal opinions and/or theories of individual authors. i think it might be preferable to cut back the intro (i was told by one "lead editor" of the medical pages, that WP intro sections are only "allowed" to be 3 paragraphs--not sure if that was accurate or someone pushing their agenda or flexing their "superior editor" muscles, but in general, a brief intro section does seem to be a good policy). and maybe the intro and/or the "definition" of the democratic party should come directly from the democratic party?? at least for the intro section, and, of course, properly sourced.Colbey84 (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is stale. If you want to revive it you should start a new discussion thread explaining what changes you recommend. TFD (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Intro section

i've noted some other issues in relevant sections here, but this wasn't addressed anywhere else. what is a "European ethnic"? i've never encountered this particular phrase/phrasing. there's a page on "Ethnic groups in Europe/European ethnology" so i'd think this phrase should AT LEAST be linked to that page.

beyond that, this sentence: "Well into the 20th century, the party had a conservative pro-business wing and attracted strong support from the European ethnics, most of whom Catholics, based in the major cities and included a populist-conservative and evangelical wing based in the rural South." has some pretty awful grammar--bad enough to make it insensible. i'm going to guess this is not a direct quote from the source referenced a few sentences later.

and for that reference, is it right that WP has replaced the source's use of "liberal" with "progressive"? those 2 words can mean different things to different people, and one of the problems i'm wondering about here is if the author being quoted equates the 2 words, or if the person who wrote/edited the sentence here on WP substituted their own wording/definition.

"Today, the congressional Democratic caucus is composed mostly of progressives and centrists"

source (allegedly)—"Democrats in Congress are roughly split into liberal and centrist wings"Colbey84 (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

In political history the term " "European ethnic" = the Polish, Jewish, Greek, Italian and other Immigrant groups that arrived largely after 1890 and were organized in the early 20th century by local political machines. So you have a recent textbook by Janda saying of FDR "His campaign appealed to labor, middle-class liberals, and new European ethnic voters." In Polish-American Politics in Chicago, 1880-1940 - Page 243 by Edward R. Kantowicz: "Political scientists have described the 1928 election as a "critical election," in which, for the first time in the twentieth century, the Democrats won a majority of the big-city vote and united most of the European ethnic groups into a party coalition." Rjensen (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Barack Obama, the first African American president" in lead

Is it appropriate to include something about Barack Obama being the first African-American president in the lead of this article?

I removed that material (with the edit summary "Remove unnecessary / undue information about Obama - doesn't belong in the lede of the party article." and was thanked for it by another editor. AlexanderLevian added it back in without an edit summary. I removed it again with the summary "Remove WP:UNDUE material [...] That belongs the lede of the Barack Obama article, not the Democrats article." DD2K then did a full revert with the edit summary "stating a Democratic president was the first African American president is not 'puffery'". (Sorry DD2K; my reference to "puffery" was for the use of the word "served" to describe Jackson's time in office, not about Obama. I should have been more clear.)

I think that including that information is undue. It's important, and worth mentioning later in the article, but I don't think it's worth mentioning in the lead. According the the manual of style, "[The lead] should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. (emphasis added). It also feels like recentism to emphasize important stuff about Obama without emphasizing important stuff about Jackson (or, for that matter, Lincoln and Bush in the GOP article). This article is about the entire history of the oldest political party in the world. It is undue to talk about the ethnicity of its most recent president in the lead. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

at the time and ever since it has been remarked upon by observers across the world, and now by historians as well. Indeed it will be hard to find a RS that does not mention the fact. This is what notability looks like. It is closely linked to the history and composition of the Dem Party. Rjensen (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I've definitely seen it remarked on about Obama, but not about the Democratic party. Brittanica doesn't mention it in their lead, and the Democrats' own "abour our history" page ([6]) doesn't mention it. (P.S. why the revert on "served" and why the revert on the hyphen?) Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
One of your two explanations for the removal was calling the statement that he is the first African American president was a euphemism ("a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing"). You didn't explain how it was an euphemism nor what it was a euphemism for. The second reason was that it's undue. I've looked over the section WP:UNDUE and can't find anything suggest that there is a problem with the statement either. Elaborating on your position would be helpful. I see no reason to assume "served" is puffery given that this is the most common term used for when someone holds public office. No explanation has been given for any of those three claims. Alexander Levian (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Both "euphemism" and "puffery" referred to "served", not "African American". "Held office" is both clearer and more neutral than "served". And the "undue" stuff is about the fact that I haven't been able to find a reliable source about the Democratic party that prominently mentions Barack Obama's ethnicity in its introductory area. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
"served" is the standard language--no rs says it's "puffery." Abundant RS (see below) emphasize historic importance of 2008 for Dem party. Rjensen (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, I've opened a discussion about "served" here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur with both Rjensen and AlexanderLevian: The fact seems relevant to the lead section given the prominence of the fact as shown through main stream sources. --Jayron32 14:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The nomination by Dem Party of a black was a spectacular historical event. It marked the climax of a half century of the rise of a key voting bloc. read the RS: 1) https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0230103294 " great attention to the historic fact that Americans had selected the first African American to be the nominee of any major political party"; 2) https://books.google.com/books?id=LvocAQAAMAAJ "2008 presidential campaign represents a historic occasion ....that contributed greatly to subsequent reforms of Democratic Party rules that are responsible for the multiracial, multiethnic ..." 3 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0415623073 "the racially “historic” nature of the campaign" 4) https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0691148015 "poignant and dripping in historical symbolism." 5) https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1456847228 " Dr. Mays predicted in 1980 that it would be a long time before the Democratic Party elected a black man as its candidate for the presidency. ... polled after Senator Obama won the Democratic nomination ...Only 11 percent were not willing to vote for an African American for president." 6) Charles P. Henry & ‎Robert L. Allen - The Obama Phenomenon: Toward a Multiracial Democracy (2011); 7) https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0252093658 "A historic event not only breaks new ground; it also connects the present with the past. .... the 2008 election drew deeply on the patterns ... of decades with systematic campaigns of terror and lynching and used the Democratic Party to secure their gains." Also note that "served" is standard English--check the dictionary [to hold an office: discharge a duty or function : act in a capacity *served on a jury* *served as mayor for several years] . Rjensen (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, all of those sources are either about the 2008 election or about Barack Obama himself. It is my understanding that we need a source that is primarily about the Democratic Party to mention this particular milestone in its lead. So if, for example, we find a textbook entry about the Democratic Party that mentions Obama's ethnicity in its lead, then we're good to go. Or am I misunderstanding Wikipedia policy? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
See Guide to U.S. Political Parties (2014), p. 144: "voters in 2008 elected Democrat Barack Obama the first African American president."[7] We do not actually need to source the statement to a book about the Democratic Party, just show that it is considered significant. TFD (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It certainly is a milestone for the Democrats. They once called themselves the "white man's Party." TFD (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point I've given up on trying to remove this from the article, but I'd like to make sure I'm understanding Wikipedia policy correctly. It was my understanding that, in order for something to appear in the lead section of an article, it had to have an equal level of prominence in reliable sources about the subject. For example, it would be undue to put a sentence about Stephen Colbert's AmeriCone Dream in the lead of the Ben & Jerry's article or the Stephen Colbert article. Am I misunderstanding policy, or did I just not see the sources for this article correctly? Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should contain all the important points as established in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Pro-Israel activists pursue college Democrats"

In the grand scheme of United States foreign policy, even in the particular case of how the Democratic Party relates to this, the whole series of events appears to be a hugely minor thing. It appears like undue weight to even spend two sentences on the controversy, let alone the large amount of detail in this article right now under the Israeli-U.S. relations section. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

Can somebody change the Start date and age template from the current "{start date and age|1828}" to {start date and age|1828|1|8} to correspond to the Democratic Party's official founding date of January 8, 1828?

My first source states, "his success at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, made him nationally known, and his appearance at the celebration of the thirteenth anniversary of the battle in January 1828 got his campaign off to a tumultuous start."[1] My second source states, "Jackson did give one major campaign speech in New Orleans on January 8, the anniversary of the defeat of the British in 1815."[2]

96.255.209.103 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

the two very brief sources do NOT state that this anniversary celebration was the start of the Democratic Party. (the RS usually emphasize Van Buren's role). #1 says "1828 election did not see the well-defined Democratic and Whig alignments..." Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2016

The political party is officially called the DEMOCRAT party not the democratic party.


63.141.22.123 (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. No, it's not. GABgab 16:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Segregation

In the last paragraph of the section 1900-1960, the desegregation of the Federal Government is mentioned, and it seems appropriate to also mention that the Federal Government was primarily segregated under the Democrat Wilson administration. See the article "Woodrow Wilson" for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.192.230 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Racist background

It seems appropriate that the racist component of the Democratic party practice, and its outcomes, should be referenced in the sections dealing with the 19th and early- to mid-20th Centuries.198.236.192.230 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned. TFD (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Egalitarianism

An editor has referenced "egalitarianism" as a central ideology of the Democratic Party. I read the New York Times article cited with the edit. The "egalitarianism" as mentioned in the article is not the same as egalitarianism in definition and practice. I believe this is worth a talk because I find the reference quite peculiar. The Democratic Party has never agreed that either social, legal, economic, and environmental egalitarianism were central to their platform, and if they did it would definitely be from a minority in the party (i.e. Bernie Sanders). Instead, they have advocated social democracy as effected through social justice. Keep in mind that during an election season, political parties and their media allies will give themselves descriptive terms to make themselves appealing to the general public, even if the use of the term is contentious due to their actual policy proposals and practices. 68.134.27.135 (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. the Dem party consensus in 2016 has moved sharply against income inequality, and continues to insist on equality in terms of non-economic themes as well (eg voting rights, marriage rights). [Clinton: report of April 2016 speech = Mrs. Clinton’s speech took aim at hedge-fund managers and CEOs who she said were reaping most of the benefits of economic growth, saying the top 25 hedge-fund managers earn more than all the nation’s kindergarten teachers combined. ex National Review. that's economic egalitarianism in my opinion] Rjensen (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not think it should be in the infobox as an ideology. The U.S. is an egalitarian society in the sense that anyone can become president. Democrats take the value of egalitarianism that they share with Republicans to argue for protection for minorities. The argument is not about the central value, but what it dictates government should do. Democrats btw are not not social democrats: they argue that all people are made equal, not that they should be made equal. Even the populist claim that money should be distributed from the elites to the middle class is justified by rights rather than equality. For example, courts might decide that money stolen from Bernie Madoff should be returned to his victims. While that is wealth redistribution, it is based on rights, government should return wealth to victims rather than the argument that Madoff had so much money he should share it with other people in order to make them more equal. Even Sander, who is a democratic socialist, phrased his rhetoric in liberal not socialist terms. TFD (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
there is more to it than equality of opportunity. There is a longstanding hostility to the power of Big Money (FDR) --that has grown a lot since 2008. As in attacks on growing levels of $ inequality, and the attacks on Citizens United v. FEC (2010) re campaign spending. Rjensen (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

An editor has repeatedly removed Debbie Wasserman Schultz being mentioned as a member of the New Democrat Coalition. The source [8] lists her as a member. Given that she is the former chairperson of the DNC, she is worth mentioning. Is there any reason for removing her in spite of the source? Alexander Levian (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There are other people in that same coalition that are more worthy of mentioning in this article and less controversial.WikiEditor668 (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that she is the former chairperson of the DNC, she seems to be very worthy of mention. Also how is mentioning her controversial? It seems to be completely factual. Alexander Levian (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The reason behind her no longer being chairperson is controversial. And Loretta Sanchez is more worthy since if she wins, she'll be the first Latina Senator.-WikiEditor668 (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The email scandal is controversial, but that has nothing to do with her being a member of the coalition. Sanchez being included isn't a problem. Both of them can be mentioned. Alexander Levian (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I know it has nothing to do with her being on the coalition, but I think enough people have been mentioned already with the paragraph before that one listing already half a dozen people that are New Democrats.-WikiEditor668 (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
No, only two people are mentioned as being members of the Coalition (Sanchez and Clinton). Everyone else is either mentioned as being centrist Democrats or (in the case of the current President) a self described New Democrat. Like I said, Schultz being the former head of the DNC and a high profile Democrat, mentioning her as a member of the Coalition seems reasonable. You still haven't really given a reason for her being excluded. First you said she wasn't in the source (which was incorrect), then you went with she's controversial (which seems irrelevant given that one can say that about just about any high profile politician), now you're saying there are "half a dozen" people mentioned as members of the Coalition (when there are only two mentioned). I'm trying to understand your position so we can come to some sort of compromise. Can you explain why the inclusion of a high profile Democrat and former DNC Chairperson is problematic? Alexander Levian (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not see the significance of adding DWS. Is she particularly active in the group? TFD (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I concur. I would instead put someone who is among the leadership of the coalition.-WikiEditor668 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before she's a high profile Democrat and the former chairperson of the DNC. Please note that we mention Clinton being a former member of the coalition even though she wasn't part of the leadership. Clinton is included because she's a high profile Democrat and presidential candidate. So being part of the leadership of the NDC is not a requirement for inclusion. Alexander Levian (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Being a former DNC chairperson is not in the same ballpark as being a presidential nominee in regards to having a high profile. And since two editors, including myself, do not see the significance, it should be removed. WikiEditor668 (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It's become very fashionable on the far-left to attack Congresswoman Schultz. She is an accomplished Democrat and shouldn't be removed solely based on personal prejudice. Palmer2015 (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
By "far left" do you mean anyone who does not belong to the Ayn Rand fan club? No one has suggested that DWS should be airbrushed out, merely that her membership in the New Democrats is trivial to an article about the party. It might of course be relevant to an article about her or the New Democrats. TFD (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with that, I'm just restoring the article to solely mention the chairperson of the coalition and the presidential nominee. It becomes too fluff mentioning all these other people. And I agree with you TFD. WikiEditor668 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
By far-left I mean all the Sanders supporters that are mad that she didn't submit to his wishes. It's obvious that there is no consensus to remove her from the paragraph. So you should wait until there is a consensus. Palmer2015 (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
But I'm not only removing her, I'm also removing Sanchez. And it was just recently that she and Sanchez were added in together in that particular paragraph, so I was just removing them both to restore the article to how it was originally. WikiEditor668 (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
First, you were the one that requested Sanchez be added[9]. Second, DWS has been included in the Centrist section since March of this year [10]. You've been trying to remove her since earlier this month [11]. You're not restoring anything except your earlier removal of her. We need to come to some sort of agreement before she can be removed. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, well I believe that mentioning the chairperson of the coalition is important for this article. Since the current presidential nominee was a member, her mention could stay. So keeping it with just these two individuals is in my opinion brief and concise. Also as suggested earlier, maybe on an article about the New Democrats is fine to mention DWS, but she's not necessarily noteworthy among this coalition itself. WikiEditor668 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

And there's where we disagree. I think her being the former chairperson of the DNC and a high profile congresswoman makes her notable enough to be mentioned. Alexander Levian (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
She's not high profile anymore now that she's not a part of the DNC. And the list of other members of the coalition consists of former governors and lieutenant governors which are even more noteworthy than being a former DNC chairperson. So to keep it concise, I would suggest we just mention the chair of the coalition and the presidential nominee. WikiEditor668 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Minority: conservatism" in Infobox

Today there are no more conservatives in the Democratic Party than there are liberals in the Republican Party. This is inaccurate and outdated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.196.191 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2016‎

1. There are two reliable sources saying otherwise.
2. There are currently 14 conservative Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives (Blue Dog Coalition).
3. List of conservative Democrats
Alexander Levian (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The link title is misleading. Conservative Democrats aren't part of the conservative movemenr, just like Liberal Republicans aren't part of the liberal movement. It implies something that simply isn't true. Toa Nidhiki05 03:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting opinion. But they are still conservatives. The liberal Republicans were liberals. There are several different forms of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc. And each referring to the other as not being part of the "true" version is nothing new. Hence why we go by what the sources say. Alexander Levian (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Except they aren't. They are referred to as "conservatives" because they are the right-wing of the Democratic party, just like liberal Republicans are the left-wing. Where in either of these sources were they linked to conservatism? In fact, neither of them even call them "conservative. They both link the Blue Dogs to centrism and fiscal conservatism (not the same thing as conservatism). I'm going to go ahead and change it accordingly to match the source. Toa Nidhiki05 15:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not see the reason for having an "ideology" field for parties that do not have ideologies. Most political parties have stated ideologies in their constitutions and members must follow party values. People who do not are routinely denied membership, expelled or not allowed to run for office under the party banner. Anyone can join either U.S. party and David Duke, who once headed the KKK, has sought office as both a Democrat and Republican.
Toa, there has been an ongoing realignment in the two parties, with liberal Republicans joining the Democrats and conservative Democrats joining the Republicans. But there are still people who have not made the move. The Louisiana Democratic Party for example is still more right-wing than most state Republican parties. TFD (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Democratic Party (and by extension Democrats) are by definition liberal. The so-called "conservative" and "neo-liberal" Democrats are in reality liberals that the far left think aren't liberal enough. Palmer2015 (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The neoliberals and conservatives are criticized by much more than the "far-left." Dustin (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
True. There criticized by the right wingers for being too liberal and the far left for not being liberal enough.
The Democratic Party is not "by definition" liberal, unless you are referring to the liberalism that both parties adher to. ("[We seek] individual freedom in the framework of a just society, political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all citizens."[12] TFD (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to list every single ideology of every single member of the Democratic Party—there are certainly a few centrist and conservatism Democrats still around, but that doesn't mean the national party's ideology itself reflects centrism or conservatism. I think readers who are completely unfamiliar with the Democratic Party might come away with a distorted impression if "fiscal conservatism" is listed among its top 5 tenants. Ruble (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Social Democrat minority faction

Wouldn't it be accurate to say that there is a social democratic minority faction within the Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.251.139.149 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New Research, Unverified Statements

" After Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal of the 1930s the business wing withered outside the South. After the racial turmoil of the 1960s most southern whites and many northern Catholics moved into the Republican Party at the presidential level. The once-powerful labor union element became smaller and less supportive after 1970. White evangelicals and Southerners became heavily Republican at the state and local level in the 1990s. However, African Americans became a major Democratic element after 1964. After 2000, Hispanic and Latino Americans, Asian Americans, the LGBT community, single women and professional women moved toward the party as well." NONE OF THIS HAS CITATION. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

Under Heading 6 (Voter Base), Subheading 8 (Working class), the following appear:


"Even though most in the working class are able to afford an adequate standard of living, high economic insecurity and possible personal benefit from an extended social safety net, make the majority of working class person left-of-center on economic issues."

Please remove the above statement. It is conjectural, pejorative, unverified and unverifiable.

In the same section:

"Most working class Democrats differ from most liberals, however, in their more socially conservative views."

This statement, despite the quantitative ring of its "most"s, is unsupported by quantitative evidence. Please remove it or support it by citing a source specifically examining the socio-economic status vs. liberal-or-conservative-ness of political outlook among those persons self-identifying as Democrats.


108.31.245.31 (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

al dis sheet is wrang le me fex it Switzerland6969 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017

Deputy Chairman - Keith Ellison Minneapolis, MN Rawesome1125 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Listed already as "Deputy Chair" in the infobox. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: Added text by User:MAINEiac4434. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Libertarian faction"

Liberaltarian124 has been pushing for more coverage of a "libertarian" faction of the Democratic party. While political parties are large and there are people pushing them in many different directions, I don't think the sources are good enough to support the argument that that faction plays a significant role in the party as it exists today. Going over the sources, most of them are from editorials or opinion-pieces; and most of those argue that Libertarians should find a home in the Democratic party, or that they could do so, not that there is a significant strain of libertarian thought in the Democratic party itself. Blog posts, opinion pieces, and an article from Daily Kos just don't strike me as enough to support such a large section. Yes, they exist, but I'd put them in the same category as eg. Log Cabin Republicans - they're not represented in any major strain of party thought, they have no influence on party policy, and it's therefore misleading to present them as a central plank of the party alongside the ones currently in the ideology section. I would support maybe a single sentence mentioning them, but no more than that - they're simply not a meaningful part of the party. The blogs and opinion pieces Liberaltarian124 is citing are mostly aspirational (taking the tone of "yes, we know the Republican party is seen as the libertarian party in today's politics, but the Democratic party could be a better party for that purpose"), not descriptions of the party as it exists today. --Aquillion (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

We could mention that the party has an open membership policy, which is unique to the U.S., so all kinds of people join. But I don't think libertarians should be considered a faction unless they organize to nominate candidates for public office and party positions, or as a group present platform changes. TFD (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, there shouldn't be lists of sub-factions for political parties in the Infoboxes, particularly when there is such weak sources for their existences.--Autospark (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Including existing party fraction

Are not in some fractions of the party left-wing populist tendencies existing? The group of Sanders might be part of that. Perhaps one might include it under the section of fractions in the box. Some content regarding this-

--Joobo (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Political positions too specific

The "political positions" section begins by listing a set of policies that the Democratic Party supposedly supports. This list seems too specific to me. Specifically, the following policies should not be assigned to all Democrats:

- Across the board tax-cuts for the low and middle class and small businesses. (Some Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, have called for slightly raising taxes on the middle class and businesses.)

- Change tax rules to not encourage shipping jobs overseas

- Implement a carbon tax (This position is actually relatively rare among elected Democrats.)

- Support for cuts in defense spending. (Certainly not universal)

- allow for refinancing student loans (The source here provides that Obama supported such an initiative by Elizabeth Warren. That is only two Democrats)

- Recognize and defend Internet freedom worldwide. (Even if this were true, it is not important or present enough in public debate to be listed here)

- "They call for a $10.10/hour national minimum wage and think the minimum wage should be adjusted regularly" (This is an outdated consensus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.232.86 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The section is all well referenced and basically connected to the official party platform. Of course, there being millions of registered Democrats in the U.S., not every one of them will agree with every position on the party platform. But insofar as the party leadership has established something as an official position, then there's nothing wrong with us noting it, even if you've met one Democrat who doesn't agree with it. --Jayron32 17:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Political positions change and there are always disagreements over them. Furthermore, the party regularly adopts state and federal platforms. The current platform for example is "the most progressive ever," i.e., unlikely that a Democratic president or Congress would have made any attempt to implement it. TFD (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

International affiliation

The Democratic Party is member of the Progressive Alliance. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.193.142.22 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussed before. It is not a member and never has been. TFD (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why No "political position"?

Articles covering major parties in other countries almost always include a "political position" section in addition to "ideology". Why not the US Democrats or GOP? Is there something specific about the US that makes this unnecessary? If a "political position" section is added, "centre-left" would probably cover it.

This article has a political positions section. Note that these two parties are different from parties in other countries, in that there are no tests for membership. TFD (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand that there is political positions section in this article. However, shouldn't there be an overall one added in the infobox for those who will only look there?Ezhao02 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Because the page explicitly states an ideology for the Democrats, there is no reason for there to not be a political position in the infobox when political position is usually dependent on ideology. Because they are an ideologically liberal party, the position should be Centrist as opposed to center-left as was mentioned above. If you were to look at other liberal party wikis, their political position is also center. In the case of the democrats, the use of the term "Broad Center" could be useful as the party stretches from the Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats (center-right) to the Progressive Democrats of the CPC (center-left).Justababyboy (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justababyboy: I feel like I explained this situation better in my section below (and through responses), but if a position is to be added, it has to show/be a balance between the position the Dems occupy in the US and relative to other similar parties (which is why I suggested Center to Center-left). HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 23:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Progressive Alliance

Should the Democratic Party be considered part of the Progressive Alliance? I know it is not a member, since the Progressive Alliance does not have any member parties. Instead, it lists political parties and organizations that participate in the network. The Democratic Party is also listed in the list of participants on the Progressive Alliance article. Thus, shouldn't the Democratic Party's international affiliation be listed as the Progressive Alliance? Ezhao02 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not a participant. Howard Dean the former DNC chair attended and spoke at the opening session. TFD (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Should it be removed from the Progressive Alliance page then? Ezhao02 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I have commented over there. TFD (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Getting back to that for a minute... the Democratic Party is listed on the Progressive Alliance's website in their list of "Political Parties and Associated Partners of the Progressive Alliance": http://progressive-alliance.info/network/parties-and-organisations/
At the last international convention of the Progressive Alliance in March 2017 in Berlin representatives of the Democratic Party who attended the meeting included Martin O'Malley, the former Democratic governor of Maryland, and Katie Solon, the International Chair of Democrats Abroad: http://progressive-alliance.info/2017/03/09/expected-participants-2/#article-anchor
In June 2017, the Progressive Alliance organized a seminar in Washington, D.C. titled "Progressive Values vs. New Realities" which at least partially took place at the Democratic National Headquarters and which had Bernie Sanders as a participant: http://progressive-alliance.info/2017/06/23/impressions-washington-d-c-seminar/
What exactly is the argument for saying that the Democratic Party is *not* a member of the Progressive Alliance? (don't have an account on Wikipedia, hence the anonymous post)
The Democratic National Committee has every opportunity to join the Alliance and someday might do so. But so far it has not. When it does it will be reported in reliable news sources. Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The reason is that we have no reliable sources that they are members. Democrats also attended a convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, that does not mean the Democratic Party is part of Canada's Liberal Party. TFD (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A new file is available to replace the existing png under the "Name and symbols" section. New file is availabe at:

A scalable vector graphic version of the old democratic logo

please replace the old file with this and update the old file to reference that a new version is available.

PockyBum522 (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ "www.galegroup.com/pdf/whitepapers/gdc/Elections_whtppr.pdf" (PDF). Gale Group. Retrieved 2016-07-06.
  2. ^ "The Election of 1828 and the Character Issue". Boundless. Retrieved 2016-07-06.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States)/Archive_13&oldid=1140152353"