Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

The "Democrat Party" as an political epithet needs to be removed

There is a statement on the main article that "In the 20th and 21st centuries, "Democrat Party" is a political epithet that is sometimes used by opponents to refer to the party." In the interest of fairness, it must be removed.

For openers, there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Also, many of the things posted on the discussion pages of PRO-party articles refer to them as the Democrat party. One of them appears on this very page.

The party gets referred to as both Democrat and Democratic by supporters, opponents, and the 80% of the US who couldn't care less, so saying that it is a negative reference (i.e. epithet) made by party detractors is just not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.187.168 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I hear Rush Limbaugh use it all the time. Historically, it was too. 'Democrat' itself is not an epithet. 'Democrat Party' instead of 'Democratic Party', indeed, is. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

the issue is thoroughly covered at Democrat Party (phrase). In national media, the term "Democrat Party" is primarily used as a slur or epithet by the party's opponents to emphasize that the party is not actually democratic in practice. (However in some local areas such as Indiana it is used by Democrats). The article notes, In 1984, when a delegate of the Republican platform committee asked unanimous consent to change a platform amendment to read the Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party, Representative Jack Kemp objected, saying that would be "an insult to our Democratic friends" and The committee dropped the proposal.(cite) Rjensen (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the Plural Form of Democratic

For correct attribution to the Democratic Party, what is the plural form of the Democratic Party. I think is it Democrats. The plural form of Republican is Republicans. The plural form of Democratic is Democrats. Thank you.

I came looking for a history of the Democratic Party. Could one be added? Almost all Wiki articles include a history of the subject at hand. Athana (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.90.4 (talk)

Founding

am I wrong or is nowhere a Founding-Date of this Party (1828 is a Year, not a date) -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 13:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

there was no one day that is identified by the RS--the best they give is a year.Rjensen (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I came looking for a history of the Democratic Party. Could one be added? Almost all Wiki articles include a history of the subject at hand. Athana (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Socialist faction

I mentioned this a while back: I think that in the ideology section, it should be noted that there are some socialist Democrats. The LA Times points out that the Democratic Socialists of America is overwhelmingly made up of Democrats. Sbrianhicks (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Democratic Socialists of America has a membership of approximately 6,000, compared with 72,000,000 million registered Democrats. Even if all DSA members were registered Democrats, they would represent 8.3/1,000 of 1% of total registered Democrats, which hardly counts as a "faction". TFD (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You can do math (clap, clap). The definition of "faction": "a group that is a minority within a larger group and has interests or beliefs that are not always in harmony with the larger group." Yes, the DSA would count as a faction by definition as they are an organized group of Democrats who disagree significantly with the party's general platform. Sbrianhicks (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems minor to me. TFD (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Democrats are a minor faction as well, but they are mentioned. Sbrianhicks (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

At least the Democratic Freedom Caucus is part of the party, but probably is too minor to mention as well. TFD (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's not a matter of size but a matter of reference. The "democratic" in democratic socialist is not a reference to the Democratic party. "democratic socialist" is a general term used for a political form, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism) not a reference to socialists from the Democratic party. It's like saying the US is (small d) democratic or that its government is (small r) republican. Both terms refer to the type of government (a federal republican democracy), not the (Big D and Big R) forms of the words, which refer to specific parties. "Democrats Socialists" are capitalized because it's a proper name, but it's an offshoot of democratic socialism, not connected, per se, to the Democratic party. Same word, different references. Jbower47 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Blue is not the official color

Yes, they have a blue logo. Yes, their websites are mainly blue. Yes, Democrats identify themselves as blue. But the Democratic Party has, by no means, adopted the color blue as an official color. So, please, remove it from the official color section of the infobox. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, if they have a blue logo, a blue website, & identify themselves as blue, that sounds to me like they have adopted that color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.3.209 (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

They use it; but it's not officialized in any way; so it's not the "official color" of the party. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Slight Redundancy in lede

Normally I would just correct this (boldly!) as a minor grammar issue, but given the sensitive nature of political articles, I thought I'd put this out for discussion first. In the lede, there is a sentence that states:

"As of the 112th Congress following the 2010 elections, the Democratic Party currently holds a minority of seats in the House of Representatives, but holds a narrow majority of seats in the Senate at the beginning of the 112th Congress."

If you note the first five and last 7 words, you'll see the redudancy I am referring to. I would recommend it be edited to:

"As of the 112th Congress following the 2010 elections, the Democratic Party currently holds a minority of seats in the House of Representatives, but holds a narrow majority of seats in the Senate."

I do not believe this is a substantive change, just the elimination of something that is double-stated. (I might also question whether "narrow" is necessary, as it seems to smack of POV, but doesn't seem too much of an issue). Jbower47 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.108.97.245, 17 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

-> there is no official registered DEMOCRATIC party. The correct name is DEMOCRAT party. Your claim to fame is accuracy! Please make it accurate!

76.108.97.245 (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The organization is run by the Democratic National Committee, so I'm unclear why you say that they are the Democrat party. The official website uses the term "Democratic Party," and refers to its members as "Democrats." Please provide a reliable source to support your claim and, if you have one, make a new edit request. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a long-standing Republican party line to refer to the Democrats as the "Democrat Party" rather than the "Democratic Party." To that extent, it is "verified," but hardly NPOV. Edit is not warranted to add it given that that's not what the Democrats refer to themselves. --Nlu (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

2. Current Structure and Composition

Please update this section to reflect that Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) are no longer the respective chairmen of their campaign committees. During the 2011-2013 election cycle, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), and the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). Thank you. (AshWest (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

Sorry it took so long for someone to get to this, but thanks for pointing it out.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Home State

In the first information box, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is listed as representing California (CA). Could this be changed to reflect that she represents Florida (FL)? This is consistent with the Shultz Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz) and can be verified at the representative's official house.gov page (http://wassermanschultz.house.gov/) Much thanks. 128.12.89.12 (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing it out!--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Health care - tort reform

IMHO I think we should mention the issue of tort reform when it pertains to health care. It is notable, as the Republicans support it, and the Democrats do not (there are outliers in both parties, but the trend is clear). If there are no objections, i will soon add this to the health care section of the policy stances. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

good idea--it's worth mentioning in the GOP article too. Rjensen (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.91.158.253, 5 June 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

Throughout the decade of the 2000s, 60% of more of Hispanic Roman Catholics registered voters have identified as either Democratic or leaning towards the Party.[14] Change the 'of' following 60% to 'or'.174.91.158.253 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

174.91.158.253 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Center-left"

That the Democratic Party is "center-left" is terms of membership cannot be argued, but can't we also note that there are a lot of "center" people in it as well? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The labeling of the party is not the labeling of the party members.. There are also some old-fashioned conservatives, and some much more left than center. The party, however, is center-left. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a global project, not an American project. The Democratic Party barely qualifies as centrist on a planetary standard. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how a party that has almost the same policies as the "center-right" Republican Party is center-left. TFD (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you, Deuces; "center-right" is closer to the truth than "center-left"! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

they do often agree (the "center" part is overlap) but the right and left fight furiously over major policies like taxes for the rich and health insurance.Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yah. Main difference: the Democrats are "tax-and-spend"; the Republicans are "don't tax but spend anyway." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I suppose. But then that is still an important political difference, no? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Democratic Party barely qualifies as centrist on a planetary standard

You seem to be forgetting that since Pluto elected the radical militaristic Flergon party (And Mars ain't the kind of place you raise your kids! What with its lack of universal health care either...), it could be clearly argued that both Dems and Reps are pretty center-left on that planetary scale. And don't you try to give that 'Pluto =/= Planet' BS... Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course my point with the sarcasm is that I see no evidence from factual reliable sources about the Democratic Party being "right wing" or "center right". Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would, naturally, greatly welcome any such sources if they were provided here. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty clearly stated that center-right and center-left refer to relative positions in the American political spectrum. In that sense, that is precisely how the Republican and Democratic parties, even given fluctuations in the extent of their leanings over time, should be described. As there is no such thing as "left" and "right" in absolute terms, this is all given in relative context.Jbower47 (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dems might be center-left in the United States, but this is a global encyclopedia, and by calling them center-left we are putting them in the same category as the Social Democrats in Sweden, Labour in the UK, and the Socialists in France (seriously?). On a global scale, the Dems aren't really left at all. At most, I'd support what has been done for the Liberal Party of Canada, which is to call them "centrist to center-left" — VikingViolinist | Talk 15:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with VikingViolinist. There are members of the Democratic Party who are further right than Olympia Snowe! Centrist-to-center-left sounds good. It's a shame the US doesn't have a good, strong, party of the left like every other western nation. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally agree with you; but that's an NPOV issue here. I live in Milwaukee, where we used to have just such parties, repeatedly electing mayors like Emil Seidel and Frank Zeidler, legislators like Carl Minkley and Edwin Knappe and members of Congress such as Victor Berger and Henry Smith. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been beaten to death, but basically, the Dems are center left, with Third Way influences, just like the UK Labour party. The Democrat Party's ideology is social liberalism, one of the main features of center-left. Remember, center-left means 'between the center and the left', not 'left of center' - just because they are not staunchly left-wing does not mean they do not fit in the center-left.

In addition, the senators that rank more to the right are centrists - not right-wingers. They mostly come from Southern states, and do not make up the majority of the party at all - rather, they are a small minority. Mostly, progressives and liberals control the party. Toa Nidhiki05 23:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparing the Democratic Party to the UK's Labour Party (which ever since Tony Blair's time as PM has operated on a "out-Tory the Tories" basis) hardly makes your case for the Democrats being center-left. Both the Democrats and Labour are, in defiance of the wishes of most of their own members, now center-right parties. 71.228.175.229 (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we possibly agree to just delete the left-right position identification entirely? It will be inevitably unsourced, subjective, and a gross simplification, given how complex modern politics has become anyway. — VikingViolinist | Talk 17:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Vikingviolinist. The page accurately describes it's positions (Social liberalism, progressivism, and Third Way), and has no need for it in the infobox. I suppose we should keep the 'centre-left in the American political system' statement in the header, however. Toa Nidhiki05 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced. The left-right spectrum helps people to identify the context of the national political system. By going to a party's page and looking at its general orientation, you can kind of get a rough feel for the national political system. Although centre-left is kind of a stretch for Democrats (I think they are more centre-centre-left like the Liberal Democrats in the UK), it's still helpful for people who don't know much about politics in America. --Drdak (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Logo

Wouldn't File:Democratslogo.svg be a better logo than the current one, File:US Democratic Party Logo.svg. The latter is the official logo but of the Democratic National Committee, which I believe is different than the party itself. Even so, shouldn't we use common, recognizable logos as opposed to official ones, analogous to our article naming conventions (WP:COMMONNAME versus WP:OFFICIALNAME)? Finally, the old logo is more symmetric with Republican Party (United States), where consensus was to go with the recognizable elephant logo instead of one used at http://www.gop.com. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. File:US Democratic Party Logo.svg is whats on their website, it's what's on their merchandise at the Democrats store, it is the logo, and it is what will be used. Consensus and "affinity" doesn't over-ride accuracy. Fry1989 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you gave up this fight at Republican Party (United States) though? –CWenger (^ • @) 23:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you get it? If the Party has adopted an official logo, that is the one we use. Not an old one just because people are more familiar with it. You don't use the American Flag with 13 stars anymore, or an old state flag when they've adopted a new one. I didn't give up on the GOP article, I've been busy, and the fact that I'm currently over-ruled by three people who think familiarity over-rules reality doesn't make me any less right about this matter. I like it (and hence "I'm more familiar with it) is not a valid argument here. Fry1989 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Show me the policy (or even guideline) that Wikipedia only uses official logos. In the absence of that, we have to go with consensus, and it seems to be against you here. As to your example, if the American flag was changed, I'm pretty sure reliable sources would reflect that immediately. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There was consensus on this logo for many months. So far, you are the ONLY one who doesn't want to use the Dems logo. AND, there ARE sources for it, 1 being the Party Website, 2 being their merchandise store. Show me a source where the Donkey is still being used. This may be hard for you to understand, but things change, especially logos, very often. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic and educational source, and therefore it is our duty to show official logos whenever we can. Not an old logo just because people were more familiar with it. Fry1989 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus either way on this page, I am leaving it as is. I am not debating whether or not it is their official logo, I am debating whether that is what we should use. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that, and there-in lies the problem. If this is the logo they are currently using, for their websites, their merchandise, and other things, then it is the logo we should reflect. Think about what if it was a car company logo. Those change often. Would you insist on usding an old Ford logo, or old Toyota logo, if they changed theirs, just because people are more familiar with the old one??? Of course not. I honestly don't even understand why this is such an issue. The donkey logo is still elsewhere on this page. The way you and others argue over it, it's almost like you think the Donkey logo is gonna disappear. But it's not, it's simply being put in it's proper historical context, as would any old car company logo, or television channel logo, on their respective article pages. Fry1989 (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference is reliable sources, excluding the Democratic Party's own material, almost always use the donkey logo. Do you ever see news stories using the official logo (other than those specifically about the new logo)? With almost any other organization (i.e. car companies), reliable sources would immediately reflect the new logo, so there is an exception here. Wikipedia obviously puts a premium on recognizability, hence why we use WP:COMMONNAMEs for article titles even though we could use WP:OFFICIALNAMEs and handle everything else with redirects. By analogy, I think we should use more identifiable logos, even if unofficial, over official ones. Not saying we shouldn't show the official logo, just not prominently in the infobox. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether the news or newspapers or public use it is irrelevant. The Dems are their own organization. They alone decide what their logo is. This is the same as any other group or company or corporation or anything else, and if Ford, or Toyota, or CNN, or CBS, or The Washington Times, or whatever else changed theirs, you would respect it, so respect the Dems for their choice. Fry1989 (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You could make the exact same case that they alone decide what their name is, but not according to Wikipedia policy. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the EXACT argument I'm making. I can't change their name, and I can't force them to keep it if they ever chose to rename themselves. And if the DID, this article would be moved to the new name, and redirects would be issued for the old name. That is Wikipedia Policy. We show reality, not what people like, not what people are familiar with. Fry1989 (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If they changed their name, the article would only be moved if/when reliable sources began using it. Hence why we use Rhode Island, not State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; Hulk Hogan, not Terry Gene Bollea; etc. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Pick TV was moved from Sky Three because Sky renamed it. CBS Sports Network was moved from CBS College Sports because CBS renamed it. There are plenty of examples of proof, that the owner of the subject has the right to it's symbolism, it's name, and anything else. Not me, not you, not CNN, not anybody else. And if you're really going to try to argue that the Democratic Party would not be a reliable source in their own renaming, you're nuts. All they would need to do is a press release and BINGO, source. And no matter who complained, they don't have the right to counter that press release. REALITY, not preference. Fry1989 (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes reliable sources will conflict. We go with the majority. Find me a non–Democratic Party news article not about the logo that uses it and I'll drop the subject. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to prove here. You're trying to ignore reality in favour of personal tastes. However, you want proof, HERE. Oh and btw, that was the second article on the list in Google when I typed "Democrats logo change". Next time you have a doubt about something, try and look yourself and prove one way or the other, rather then being lazy and claiming that all signs pointing in the same direction are still wrong because YOU say so. Fry1989 (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of being lazy, how closely did you read my request? "Find me a non–Democratic Party news article not about the logo that uses it..." (emphasis added). –CWenger (^ • @) 04:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, that changes NOTHING. If CNN changed their logo one day, and MSNBC kept using the old one in their graphics when they did a report about CNN, would that change anything? No, it wouldn't, because CNN is in control of it's own, not MSNBC. I have nothing more to say to someone who is so intent on ignoring reality on so many levels. Fry1989 (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Political status of Puerto Rico

The introductory paragraph in this section includes a large amount of text directly copied from the "Democratic Party 2000 Platform", this should be reworded but I'm not sure how best to do it. --Khajidha (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

PR has not been an active issue for decades and should be dropped. Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been very active on the last 20 years. Reference:President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status --Seablade (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Only in Puerto Rico, and in the one or two areas of the U.S. with the largest Boriquen populations. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been very active in the U.S. Congress. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act is a bill to provide for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico.

This act would provide for plebiscites to be held in Puerto Rico to determine the island's ultimate political status. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on April 29, 2010 by a recorded vote of 223–169. Reference: Puerto Rico Democracy Act

--Seablade (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but then it died obscurely in the Senate, and disappeared from public view once more. This is not to deprecate the concerns of the people of Puerto Rico, but this is a non-issue for the overwhelming majority of American voters, and you're putting undue emphasis on this minor topic within this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly undue to have multiple quotations from previous party platforms, but a small PR section is warranted, which I've added back. Rostz (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the Democratic party and their policies. The delegates of this party approved the platforms, as the party official positions to be presented to the nation. Indicate that this is a non-issue for the overwhelming majority of American voters is a point of view. The political status of Puerto Rico is important to the Democratic party and their delegates, to include this on the party platform and it has been this way since 1940. The latest report by the Presidential Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status (created by President Clinton), whose members were appointed by President Obama, was issued on March 16, 2011. This report recommends that all relevant parties—the President, Congress, and the leadership and people of Puerto Rico—work to ensure that Puerto Ricans are able to express their will about status options and have that will acted upon by the end of 2012 or soon thereafter. The report is part of the Democratic Party effort to comply with the Platform promises.

Democratic Party Platform of 1940:

Territories and District of Columbia

We favor a larger measure of self-government leading to statehood, for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. We favor the appointment of residents to office, and equal treatment of the citizens of each of these three territories. We favor the prompt determination and payment of any just claims by Indian and Eskimo citizens of Alaska against the United States.

We also favor the extension of the right of suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 1940.

Democratic Party Platform of 1940 --Seablade (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of Registered Democrats

The article says "The party had 72 million registered voters in 2004" and cites a column by Al Neuharth, which was not even a news article. He might have been correct, but he didn't cite a source. In contrast, a 2008 AP story says "Nationwide, there are about 42 million registered Democrats and about 31 million Republicans, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press." See http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-voter-registration_N.htm Is there a more definitive source for the number of registered Democrats than the Al Neuharth column? Kaltenmeyer (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch - I strongly concur that the existing non-RSed statement should be replaced using your AP article. Rostz (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's nonsense anyway; many American states don't have party registration; the distribution thereof is seemingly random and skews the statistic into total meaninglessness. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that, having lived only in states with party registration - thanks. (According to Political party strength in U.S. states#Current party strength, 28 do and 22 don't.) Rostz (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This version of the 2008 AP article is more complete and at the bottom shows the party registration breakdown state by state. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/06/politics/main4422449.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4422449 I am guessing Al Neuharth was counting people who identify with a political party, but whose state does not register voters by political party. Kaltenmeyer (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Orange Mike that the registration statistics are useless due to their incompleteness, so I'm going to replace that with a recent Gallup party-identification poll. Rostz (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.177.14.137, 12 August 2011

Please remove the text "neu" next to the Democratic Logo. I am not sure of it's purpose, but I am sure that it should not be there. Soccer1520 (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how wikipedia works when a page is locked, but the supposed contradiction regarding the vote on the PATRIOT ACT is not a contradiction. All but 2 dems voted for the act, and Russ Feingold WAS the only Nay vote. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) did not vote on the act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.95.239 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I just fixed this and removed the contradiction tag accordingly. Thanks for your help. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

History - Democratic Party Identification Gallup Poll

'As of 2010, Gallup polling found that 38% of Americans identified as Democrats, 29% as Republicans, and 38% as independents.[11]'

This figure seemed strange and is also used on the Republican party site. After reviewing the source, the Gallop poll actually found that Democrat support was 31%. Please amend this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.191.210.186 (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Socially liberal and progressive platform"

Am I the only one that thinks that a "socially liberal" and "progressive" platform is too far to the Left of the actual Democratic Party? Aren't they more moderate?--Drdak (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. —Designate (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, because they are regarded as a center-left party, and both of those are mainstream center-left. They also have a 'Third Way'/centrist faction, although socialist parties utilize so-called 'Third Way' ideas as well. Toa Nidhiki05 22:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, workfare (touted by Billy Clinton) is centrist if not to the right.--Drdak (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, the Democratic Party is a social liberal party. Social liberalism is center-left. Toa Nidhiki05 12:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us, whether based on good intention or our own biases, to determine what is or is not center-left. It's an inherently subjective term. We report only what sources say, not based on our own judgements. There are three reputable sources that say center-left, or something similar. If anyone wants to question that, please find other reputable sources that say differently, and represent that viewpoint as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.50 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about centre-left, it's about labeling the party as "socially liberal and progressive" instead of "moderate and socially liberal" or something along those lines.--Drdak (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is important to remember that "social liberalism" is regarded as a centrist ideology in many places, and many centre-right parties have social liberal factions (Ulster Unionists, National Coalition (Finland), Christian Democrats (Norway), etc., etc.). Progressivism is defined herein as "American progressivism" which is somewhat separate from the global use of the term. However, it is largely accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vt1947 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I just simply do not see how social liberal factions such as the Progressive Caucus are majority components of the party. The conservative faction of the Democratic Party is nearly as large as the progressive one. It would make more sense to call it "progressive and Third Way oriented". The Green Party is a much more socially liberal party.--Drdak (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05 insists that they are center-left, in defiance of almost every vote taken in the Congress and in most state legislatures. Combine that with the (easily-refuted) argument that social liberalism is center-left (again, in defiance of the evidence globally), and, Voila! you have made the Blue Dogs and other more outright reactionaries disappear! Not only the Greens, but even elements of the Libertarian Party, are far more socially liberal than the majority of the Democrats (especially if a reactionary policy can be disguised as "protecting" children or women.--Orange Mike | Talk 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Complete rewrite.

This article shows how multiple argumentative rewrites can lead to a total mish-mash. As a political scientists, I would recommend starting from scratch, from an expert on American political development, and start from there. It reads really silly right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.158.210 (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How about making some specific suggestions for improvement, then? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And as far as the "social liberal" thing goes, it confuses the reader more than helps. I'm a political scientists, and I've never heard that used before. Social Democrat, yes. Social liberal-- neologism. Just leave it out! It's an encyclopedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.158.210 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A scientists? Really? What on earth is your sub-field, that you've never encountered the term social liberalism? It's certainly not a neologism, being attested well back into the early to mid-19th century!!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Democrat; Drop the 'ic'

Drop the 'ic'. the name is "Democrat" instead of democratic. Probably because the courts say attempting to copyright an actual word in the English language fails. Any way, misspelling a major political party's name looks foolish. I know they misspell the name in the newspapers, magazines, and on t.v. all the time but this is something you can edit to be correct yes?--Spike (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who's been lying to you, but there is no such entity as the "Democrat Party" in the United States. And your remark about copyright is simply gibberish. We're certainly not going to make all our articles incorrect because of something you were misinformed about somewhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the DemocratIC party, and the members are Democrats. CTJF83 23:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I second Orange Mike. I have no idea who's been telling you the party is named that or that there is any sort of legal threat against what it chooses to name itself. The proper name ("Democratic Party") stays.--Drdak (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Change political position to "right to far right". The democrat party is a reacionary, bourgioisie party that is in bed with corporations. How is this "left" or "progressive"? Communist93 (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

They are left compared to the republican party. CTJF83 22:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Social liberalism is center-left on the global scale. Communism is not center-left, it is far left. The center-left is much closer to the 'corporations' and 'bourgouisie' because they are willing to work within capitalism (see social capitalism) and democracy (see social democracy and progressivism). Add to that American politics lack a legitimate socialist party and the Dems are center-left in the American spectrum. Toa Nidhiki05 01:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism is a far right religion that is used to oppress the proletariat. 71.204.179.212 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Communism is not a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 11:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Capitalism is no more reliable. 71.204.179.212 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a POV soapbox proposal by an editor clearly opposed to capitalism who wants to label the Democratic Party in a clearly negative manner, by saying it is "in bed with corporations". The ideology of liberalism that the Democratic Party supports is historically acknowledged as left-of-centre, though not as left-wing as radical forms of socialism. As can be seen by the bickering in this section, this proposal is all about a politically partisan grudge, not a NPOV proposal backed up by reliable citations.--R-41 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Political Position

There has been various revisions as of late of the party's political orientation. An RfC has been placed to deal with this. What is the Democratic Party's political position in relation to the American public (not necessarily the voting population nor the International community)? Drdak (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Votes

• Centre to Centre-Left - The Dems tend to have a variety of views, as shown by the Congressional Progressive Caucus (Centre-left) and the Blue Dog Democrats coalition (Centre to Centre-right). Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are proof that New Democrats (centrists) and Third Way adherents really dominate the party at the national level.--Drdak (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Center-left - Three sources indicate center-left, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus is the largest in the Democrat Party, and it is left in the US. Center-left accurately defines them on a national scale, as they have both left and centrist elements. If this were on an international scale (which we don't use 99% of the time), it would probably be 'center-center-left', but not in the US political spectrum. Toa Nidhiki05 17:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Center-left – Referring many sources including Thomas Magstadt's Understanding Politics I'd go for center-left. — Bill william compton^Talk 18:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Center-right to Center-left. Have none of you actually spent any time monitoring the activities of your state legislators? There are Democrats who head their state's ALEC groups, for crying out loud! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

@Orange - Some state Democratic parties are centrist, I'll concede (such as in Arkansas and Alabama), but this is about the national party, not the state parties. Nationally, the Dems are center-left. Toa Nidhiki05 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Centrist"? ALEC is hardly centrist. Besides you are forgetting that the conglomeration of different state Democratic parties makes the larger, federal one. Hence, the political position of each state party does matter.--Drdak (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Center-right: As the party sits in an international context, they are center right, and in many cases, are to the right of right wing parties in other countries. Many international sources discuss this. If they are not labeled this because of internationalism, describe the party as centricist, with a footnote to explain how the American definition of centre-left differs from an international definition as the changes in usage make understanding the topic difficult for people outside the United States. --LauraHale (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

@Laura - Read the above, Laura. This is nationally, not internationally. Toa Nidhiki05 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Center-left - Per users Toa and Bill above. Plus the sources. Plus my own perceptions from many years of keeping abreast of US politics. --Noleander (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Center - I'm coming to this discussion rather late, but if the right/left axis means anything, the Democratic Party of the United States is currently in the middle of American political beliefs, if only due to the massive influence held by the Blue Dog Democrats; of course one can find a near-infinite number of sources labelling it almost anywhere on the political axis because politics is a pretty, uhm, political matter, but is there any factual support for the concept that the Blue Dog Democrats are not a major major faction or that they are in any meaningful sense "left" ? rewinn (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment - This should be outright dismissed as 'center-left' is confirmed by three sources. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet we also have sources that label it "centrist". The most accurate thing to do is acknowledge both.--Drdak (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

DLC link does not reference the Dems as centrists, and in fact calls itself 'progressive', a center-left ideology. How exactly does this confirm your claim when they call themselves 'progressive'? Also, the On The Issues source calls them 'liberal', not centrist to center-left. Toa Nidhiki05 19:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well yes that is true. However, the Republican Party is labeled "Hard-Core Conservative" by On The Issues, which I take to mean centre-right. Hence "populist-leaning liberal" really is more of a mix of centrism and centre-left.--Drdak (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

When we say "hard-core conservative" in the U.S., there is no namby-pamby "center" to it; we mean genuinely reactionary, even if not in the old, monarchist sense of the term. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism =/= reactionary philosophy however. Hardcore-conservatism just means really conservative (really favors the status quo/existing hierarchies). Conservatism does not extend to the far-right just as liberalism and progressivism does not extend to the far-left.--Drdak (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood me; nowadays, what we call "hardcore conservative" in the U.S. is actually not conservative as understood by a Russell Kirk or Barry Goldwater at all ("favors the status quo/existing hierarchies", as you put it), but full-blown reactionary, seeking to turn back the clock to the 19th or in some cases the 18th or 17th centuries. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Article on the Third Way by the DLC goes on to explain how Democrats such as Bill Clinton and other leaders are leading a seemingly 'centrist revolution'. It focuses on the Democratic Party.--Drdak (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's OR and you know it, Drdak. We go by what sources say, not how you interpret it.

A self-published source by a political organization is not reliable to decide political ideology, period. We have three scholarly journals calling the Dems 'center-left', and you have given one self-published source calling it 'progressive'. That is not by any means conclusive in your favor, but rather supportive towards center-left. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

New Democrat policies transcend the stale left-right debate and define a Third Way for governing based on progressive ideas, mainstream values, and innovative solutions that reflect changing times.

The Democratic Leadership Council, and its affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute, have been catalysts for modernizing politics and government. From their political analysis and policy innovations has emerged a progressive alternative to the worn-out dogmas of traditional liberalism and conservatism. The core principles and ideas of this "Third Way" movement are set forth in The New Progressive Declaration: A Political Philosophy for the Information Age."'

Starting with Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign in 1992, Third Way thinking is reshaping progressive politics throughout the world. Inspired by the example of Clinton and the New Democrats, Tony Blair in Britain led a revitalized New Labour party back to power in 1997. The victory of Gerhard Shroeder and the Social Democrats in Germany the next year confirmed the revival of center-left parties which either control or are part of the governing coalition forming throughout the European Union. From Latin America to Australia and New Zealand, Third Way ideas also are taking hold.

Just a couple of quotes referring to 'progressivism'. Toa Nidhiki05 01:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Those quotes are from the DLC and its thinktank, which try desperately to mask their inherent conservatism with the use of the buzzword "progressive"; just as the Blairites did. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Has anyone bothered to check the party website to see what they say they are.????? you sure they are not the left of the right. I personally thought they were the left wing, normally known as left of the centre. I don't believe you can be centre. I also don't believe we have a right of centre wing as they are blatently a fashist party (or the left of the right) would be running it mascurading under political jargon. I do believe that these are the right of the left. call it what it is and go by policies and what it does. I think you can see by whose running it what they are Delighted eyes (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a note the left of the left is a communist but some people would say a communist is just a severeer right that occurs after a dictator. but personally am still socialist hoping this is the best way to marxism. have checked y membership card and in my family tree some of them think my dads the bottom of the top or the top of the bottom. either way he is definately the fat one that won't let us have any food at all. that speaks for itsself. Delighted eyes (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - This is kind of silly, since one can find sources using pretty much whichever descriptor one personally prefers. In the grand scheme of Western democracies, the Democratic Party is probably best described as center-right. In American politics, the Party is generally viewed as liberal/progressive, whereas the Republican Party is viewed as conservative. It may be best to shy away from blanket descriptors of the Party (which is, after all, somewhat heterogenous), and instead use the language (currently in the lead) describing the Party's official platform as socially liberal and progressive. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - i think this article has a strange bias to it. it doesnt seem to make clear that these other parties liberals etc. are not the democrats. I just dont understand what its tryig to say. They must be other parties and so should be on another page. I think this article is misleading for the public. I personally from wales, uk am well confused as to what is going on with part of the article. it is rediculous saying there are left left and centre left people in it its what the policies they agree together are that counts. (although personally i feel the left wing must be the right wing as the right wing are blatently fashist(severe right) in their stance) policies. Delighted eyes (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - i personally laugh at people who think there is a centre and that you can be it. the centre must be a 'sat on the fence' person, undecided. you simply can't be both. you can't have your cake and eat it, you can't for example be a selfish greedy toff and not one at the same time, you can only be the other one and then the other. you can only be left of it then right of it but you can't be both at once. I hope you understand what I'm saying. another example being your still a racist if you just don't like the brunette one, no one would say oh hes only half a racist cause he doesn't mind the rest. The same if he decides he just hates the black one,and tortures a few under the guise of just being a disadvantaged hater. another example you can't love them if you torture them. you simply can't be centre but you can be as close to the fence as you feel safe Delighted eyes (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tally of Votes

Other	Centrism	Centre to Centre-Left	Centre-Left
LauraHale	rewinn	drDAK	TN05
N/A	OrangeMike (center-right to center-left)	N/A	Bill william compton
N/A	N/A	N/A	Noleander

Resolutions

• Center to Center-left - In the end, the United States Democratic Party has taken a centrist turn in the past few decades, as outlined by many scholarly sources. Democrats since the 1990's have been widely supportive of workfare over non-workbased welfare (King and Wickham-Jones 1999) as well as other pro-business causes (Miller and Schofield 2008). It has also become quite clear that the majority of editors are not comfortable with the use of 'center-left' to describe the Democratic Party. However, a significant number are comfortable with 'center-left'. Hence, the only sensible compromise is the descriptor "Centre to Center-left". I move to make this the position in the article. Does anyone second this?--Drdak (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Center-left - First off, comments made in October of 2011 clearly have no bearing in current discussion. That's pretty obvious. Second, we don't run by what we proclaim, we run by sources, and two academic sources RSes describe the DP as 'center-left' and another as 'liberal', a form of center-left ideology. Moving to change is absurd as there are three academic sources defining as center-left. Pushing any other sort of view is simply nothing but POV-pushing, plain and simple. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in the Jewish American section

The section mistakenly lists Las Vegas as a state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.48.209 (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

no it's correct --"in large cities within Presidential Swing States such as Philadelphia, Miami, and Las Vegas." Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Attention to the previous comment guys. Las Vegas is listed as a state in part of the article. When will you correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.138.179 (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Repeating Rjensen's reply, it is correct. Large cities within Presidential Swing States such as Philadelphia, Miami, and Las Vegas. does NOT say that Las Vegas is a state, it says that Las Vegas is a large city which is in turn within a Presidential Swing State. --Khajidha (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove historical political positions and historical factions from infobox

Aside from this article and the article on the Republican Party, no other infobox on political parties shows a list of historical positions and historical factions, only the positions that a party currently holds. I propose that this infobox be the same as others. Information on historical positions and factions can be placed in the history section of the Democratic Party in this the article.--R-41 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. CTJF83 18:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Strong Agree - Historical info of that sort doesn't seem like infobox material; the "History" section should suffice. rewinn (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

After looking again at the article, I'm changing this to strong agree because the historical summary in the infobox is misleadingly simple; it excludes dozens of issues and gives undue weight to paleoconservativism. Proponents for retention should tell us how many historical issues should go into the infobox, and how they would be chosen. rewinn (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

disagree - it's useful compact information. Rjensen (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

May I disagree about that? Currently the "historical positions" are four, and not the most important four, e.g. no mention of slavery. How many positions should be in the infobox, and how to choose among them? rewinn (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

disagree - useful, parallels Republican counterpart -- Jo3sampl (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to remove it from the Republican counterpart as well, or else add it to all the other parties. rewinn (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree - The modern Democratic Party espouses views radically different from those when it started, or even 100 years ago. The historical section allows the reader to realize, in a practical manner, what the party believes in now and what it used to believe in. Toa Nidhiki05 23:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not an argument for inclusion in the Infobox; that's an argument for having an historical section. The infobox cannot summarize the major positions held by organizations over 150 years old "in a practical manner". If you think otherwise, then make a principled case for the four items there now. rewinn (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I already have. Did you not hear it? Toa Nidhiki05 01:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, my friend. You made an argument for an historical section and not for the inclusion in an infobox of only four out of dozens of issues, and not necessarily the most important four. Did you not hear your own argument? rewinn (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand that I was referring to the historical section of the infobox. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree Proper historical perspective needs to be taken into consideration, and an infobox isn't a good means of summarizing that sort of info. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference No. 86 Not Displaying

This reference (86) entry is broken, and appears as big red letters that read:"Cite error: Invalid (ref) tag; no text was provided for refs named CNS; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text." 74.132.249.206 (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.249.206 (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay well I kinda messed that comment up. Not sure how. Anyway, yeah, number 86 displays wrong. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it, fixed it. Thanks! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)