Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Neoliberal

I believe we should add neoliberalism to the minority factions as new democrats like Biden and Obama exist. Barnacles14 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own description of neoliberalism contradicts its description of the political positions of Biden and Obama, and reputable sources must be provided for this claim. Ninja0428 (Talk) 4:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"Majority in Senate"

This sentence is in the lead: "The party has a government trifecta at the federal level, holding the presidency and majorities in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate."

I know this is splitting hairs a bit, but is it technically true that the party holds a majority in the Senate? Officially, there are 48 Democrats in the Senate, 49 if you include VP Harris. Less than a majority. However the caucus is 51 with the addition of the two independents. I still don't think this technically means that the party has a majority however. Can we word this differently? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

How would you word it? `TFD (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like "holding the presidency and majorities in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate (the latter via the caucusing support of two independent senators)". Just something to clarify that it is the Democratic caucus and not the party itself which holds the majority, since the party technically doesn't. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as King & Sanders continue to support the Democrats, then they have a majority in the US Senate. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What about using the adjective effective? TFD (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Just put a not next to the Senate majority, about the two independents. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the note is a good way of handling this, thanks GoodDay. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

Update line in introduction about incumbent Joe Biden, who is now the sitting president. Mplsneuro (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify the exact line you wish to see changed and the changes you wish to be made, in a "change X to Y" format. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Arsis8 (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please change Thomas Jefferson's party from Democratic republican to AntiFederalist. Please portray history accurately not for the propaganda of a particular party. It's sickening to me that someone would try to relabel this.

 Not done: The name of the party is listed accurately as the Democratic-Republican Party. Volteer1 (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"In the early 20th century, it supported progressive reforms and opposed imperialism"

The article lead currently states that:

In the early 20th century, [the Democratic Party] supported progressive reforms and opposed imperialism. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal coalition in the 1930s, the Democratic Party has promoted a social-liberal platform.

This is of course true, but at the same time it is also true that Southern Democrats basically controlled the Southern states between the end of Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (then commonly termed the Solid South), which includes over half of the 20th century, but wasn't exactly very social-liberal or progressive in its platform. This is explained, though rather briskly and without any detail, in the "History"-section with the single sentence, but I feel this information should also be included in the articles lead, to prevent any misconceptions about the Democratic Party having a party-wide social-liberal / progressive platform, especially with the regard to the Civil Rights movement; which was both actively supported and virulently opposed by (elected) Democrats , depending on locality. Vlaemink (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead is inaccurate

It claims the early Democrat Party supported states' rights, which is a nice way of saying slavery I suppose. It also says the early 20th Century Democratic Party was progressive, makes no mention of having a pro-KKK President. Prins van Oranje 08:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead is accurate. The party split on the slavery issue and most anti-slavery Dems like the Barnburners moved into the GOP around 1854. The reliable sources say the Dem party was progressive--See Elizabeth Sanders, Roots of reform: farmers, workers, and the American state, 1877-1917 (University of Chicago Press, 1999) p 516. Rjensen (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Democrats supported States' rights before slavery became an issue. While it was later used as an argument for slavery and, still later, segregation, that was not its original meaning. Progressivism was not an ideology with a set of tenets but included people of widely different political views. And, as explained by David Greenberg in a letter to the New York Times, Wilson did not support the KKK.[1] TFD (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

When was there so much as an instant in US history prior to the Civil War that slavery wasn't an issue? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

At the time of the founding, Americans believed that slavery would die out hence while it was an issue, it was a minor concern. When the republic was established as a limited government without residual powers, it was not because of slavery. Australia would create a similar federal government in 1900, even though slavery had been long abolished. States rights were first used in argument against the alien and sedition acts. They only became used in the slavery debate when new states were admitted to the union. TFD (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Conservative Democrats

I don't know if conservative should be a faction there might be some conservative Democrats, but when people think of Democrats and Republican people don't really think of liberal Republican.

Such as other faction that didn't make the list it should be a front and center faction on the chart. Doremon764 (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not Left-Wing

The page includes references to "political liberalism," which might lead an individual to conclude that the Democratic Party is a left-wing party. The Democratic Party is a moderate right-wing party, whereas the Republican Party is an extreme right-wing party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiegoism (talk • contribs) 07:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are you basing your claims on? Colin dm (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The policies stated in DNC manifesto, the party is on a solid center-right political position regarding several issues. It being less rightist than RNC doesn't change the fact. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It is towards the left in terms of american, and center to center-right in terms of the world. This article is about the democratic party in america so left-wing is accurate.72.134.116.163 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If its center-right then it needs to be called a such, because political science is universal. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That's funny, because I've always heard that all politics is local. --Khajidha (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The "(United States)" in the name is just specifying what party it is--there's more than one Democratic Party in the world--not to mean that it's about the party's activities in the United States.

Where did you get the idea the Republicans are extreme right-wing? Sure they are right-wing but they are not extremists. Pilot Eighty-Seven (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The political spectrum is just a construction anyway so I do not think it matters too much. 2601:647:5E00:24A0:796C:FEBF:D983:5986 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Social Democracy

Just curious, why was Social Democracy removed from the factions of the party's ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.216.132 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably because there is no social democratic faction. TFD (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't most "progressives" in the Democratic party advocate for European style/Scandinavian style Social Democracy though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.216.132 (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No. There is one senator who identifies as a democratic socialist and five members of Congress who belong to the Democratic Socialists of America. However they do not form a caucus or faction in Congress. The vast majority of the Congressional Progressive Caucus endorsed Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden over Sanders. Although they support a few reforms, such as universal health care, it isn't remotely comparable to Scandinavian social democracy. Even the democratic socialists only advocate a very limited number of reforms. TFD (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it. They sadly do not form any caucus or faction in Congress (wish they did), and I do agree with you that their reform proposals still are far from the social democracy in Scandinavia. Thanks for the reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.216.132 (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Democratic majorities in Info Box

I noticed in the Info Box that it shows that the Democrats currently hold 221 seats in the House of Representatives. However, this was lowered slightly to around 219 (following a prolonged legal battle in upstate New York, as well as some House members being appointed and confirmed to their respective cabinets).
What is the standard procedure for these numbers? Is it supposed to what the majorities are as of now? Mlaurenti (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Mlaurenti If the Democrats majority in the House had objectively changed in quantity (which it has), then you don't need a consensus here before making that edit, as long as you properly cite it. OgamD218 (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've edited the number of seats the Democrats hold in the house to 219, the current number. Galaxy1011 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Harry Reid's abortion position may be oversimplified

Under "Abortion and reproductive rights", when describing Harry Reid's abortion position, it simply says "Former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was anti-abortion". I don't think that that is wrong per se, especially when compared with the mainstream Democratic Party, it is a little bit oversimplified. He doesn't support a full ban on abortion as even in the late 1990s, he said "Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered." which indicates that he did not think that abortion should be illegal in all contexts, but rather thinks that it should only be allowed in some contexts. Additionally, in 2009, he voted against the Nelson-Hatch-Casey Amendment. I'm not saying that we should take it out, but I do think that we should clarify a little more than just calling him "anti-abortion". JMM12345 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

References

Historical Ideology of Democrats and Republicans

A lot of political party pages on Wikipedia such as the one for Cambodian People's Party include both the current and historical ideologies. I was wondering why the same isn't done for the American political parties of Democrats and Republicans? Republican historical ideologies could be "abolitionism", "progressivism" (in the form of historic Republican advocacy of free labor and trade unions and men like Robert La Follette and Teddy Roosevelt), and "Imperialism" (Teddy Roosevelt and William McKinley being prime examples). Democrat historical ideologies could be "White Supremacy" (Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, and the Copperheads being prime examples), "Conservatism" (during the reconstruction era many democrats rebranded themselves as Conservatives), and "Historical Negationism" (Woodrow Wilson being the most prime example).

What you could do under ideology is have

Historical White Supremacy Conservatism Historical Negationism/Lost Cause

EHW1 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

""White Supremacy" (Andrew Jackson" Jackson's ideology is more accurately summarized in Jacksonian democracy.:

• "Expanded suffrage – The Jacksonians believed that voting rights should be extended to all white men. By the end of the 1820s, attitudes and state laws had shifted in favor of universal white male suffrage" . Dimadick (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Those aren't ideologies, they are policies. TFD (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Including the incumbent, Joe Biden,

Is he 'the incumbent'?Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly. Is the sentence or context written in a way that makes that vague? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Incumbent in this context just means current holder of the office.JMM12345 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Democrats are Centre-Right to Centre

The Democrats main faction: The Social Liberal are centre-right as Fiscally and Economically they're normally Right-Wing (whilst being at the moderate part of it) and centre-left Socially. Most of their other factions which includes Liberal Conservatism, Neo-Liberalism and of course, the normal conservatives are also Centre Right. Despite people calling the Social Democrats 'Far Left' and 'Off Spectrum Left', this is NOT TRUE as Economically, unlike the normal Social Democrat they have a "centrist feeling" to many Social Democrats I've known (which is rare, well not to Left-Wing to Far-Left, weirdly) and Social Democrats = Moderate Centre-Left to Far Centre-Left — Preceding unsigned comment added by XYvalues (talk • contribs) 07:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

that speculation is not based on any sources. The Party is pushing $2000 payments to everyone. Rjensen (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Rjensen, I am not sure why you base it off 1 belief. The party does not put the proper legislation for the climate, healthcare, student loan debt, other socialist policies, etc. They might seem like leftists on TV, but consider looking at their voting history. Darubrub (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We decided not to use the position field in the info-box. While we all agree on what the various factions are, different people will assign them different positions along the left-right axis. TFD (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In American politics, Democratic Party is widely considered to be the major Left-Wing party (with the Republican Party being considered the major Right-Wing party). Even if by some other countries' standards, many of the Democrats' positions might not be considered as Left-Wing, by mainstream American standards they are. If someone is trying to learn about American politics without knowing much about what the parties stand for, calling the Democrats Left-Wing makes a lot more sense than trying to put them into some foreign political framework, which frankly neither party fits cleanly into. Calling them Center-Right to Right-Wing is only going to cause unnecessary confusion among unfamiliar readers about where the two major parties in the US actually stand for. This is especially true considering that it says in the lead "The Democratic Party is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with its main historic rival, the Republican Party." If the casual reader reads that sentence and then hears that the democrats are center-right, they might well assume that the rival party is further left (which it obviously isn't). Not everyone reads whole articles (some people might just read a few lines of the lead and the infoboxes). The issues that are up for debate in US politics are different from the issues that are up for debate in some other countries' politics; American culture is different from the cultures of some other countries. Using the American Left-Wing, Right-Wing spectrum for describing American political parties more clearly reflects this to the readers.JMM12345 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

Please add in the title of this page how this is the biggest religion that exists in America, as your page defines religion as: Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations. look, they even have donation pages where us followers can be tithed! it’s the best religion I’ve ever been apart of! please honor us this much. Thanks. 47.5.59.2 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

White women in the lead

This feels like a spillover from the related discussion in Republican Party (United States), but... this edit is simply wrong and directly contradicts the sources; specifying white women implies that white women are more likely to vote Democratic than other women, which is flatly untrue. In fact, numerous sources have noted that the Democratic advantage in women is largely an advantage among nonwhite women - see eg. here. Saying "women (especially nonwhite women)" would make more sense, though it's more tricky in that not all sources break it down by race or agree on the precise characterization or how to break it down... but I'm certainly not aware of any sources that remotely imply Democrats have have support among white women in particular compared to other women. The discussion on the article for the Republican party is one of emphasis - whites, men, and white men are all more likely to vote Republican, so reading into them to determine which overlaps are important and what they mean requires a lot of in-depth reading of the sources; you could name any one of them or any combination of them and be at least notionally correct, since any combination will increase support for Republicans. Whereas naming white women (and no other women) as a core Democratic voting group is simply incorrect, in that that's a subset of women that are less likely to vote Democratic than women as a whole - even if we wanted a precise parallel with the Republican Party article (which I don't think we should strive for; coverage is going to differ in emphasis and there's no certainty that overlaps will break down the same way), that parallel would be "nonwhite women." --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense and I would agree it's reasonable to emphasize nonwhite women. Toa Nidhiki05 00:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

International Affiliation

Can someone please add an international affiliation section in the quick facts and put Progressive Alliance. I only know how to use Talk but don’t know how to add sections on Wikipedia. Source: https://progressive-alliance.info/network/parties-and-organisations/ CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be included and that that source is sufficient, but we should get consensus on the talk page first because there is a hidden comment on there that says, "Please do not re-insert 'Progressive Alliance' unless you can find a reliable published source for the oft-repeated, never-documented assertion that the Democrats are part of the organization, other than a listing on that organization's website (see WP:SPS)" I would think that an organization's official website listing its own members would be relatively reliable, and in any event would fall closer to WP:ABOUTSELF than WP:SPS. When WP:SPS is listing the sorts of things that falls under it, it says "self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources.", none of which are even close to an organization's official website talking about its own members. They seem to largely discourage the use of material written by a random person and unvetted by a traditional publisher. That is clear when it even lists exceptions for self-published sources by subject matter experts. That makes it clear, that the policy does not totally ban the use of self-published sources as such, but rather discourages the use of unreliable blog-type posts.

In any event, on the GOP page, we say that the Republican Party is a member of the IDU, and our source for that is an archive of a page on idu.org. If that is sufficient there, this should be sufficient here.JMM12345 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

The Democratic Party is not affiliated with the Progressive Alliance. This has literally been discussed a dozen times before. One Democratic Party member went to a Progressive Alliance meeting once so they claim them as affiliates when they aren't. It will not be added. Toa Nidhiki05 19:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I went through the 16 pages of archives and there was significantly less than a dozen discussions about it. Using 'ctrl f' I found only six talk sections which even mention it (all on pages 11 and 13 for now), unless I missed one or made a mistake. One of which, the name was just mentioned in passing by one of the editors when discussing a totally different topic, another of which is way outdated as it seems to be before the website was updated (a 2013 discussion where the only place any mention of the Democratic Party on PA's website was, according to one editor, "progressive-alliance.info/expected-guests/ and titled 'Expected Participants'", which is obviously not the case now at least), another of which was a brief request and reply with no further comment. Only three are substantive discussions about it which don't seem to be totally dated, but there was a lot of disagreement about whether or not to include it and certainly no consensus. The last of these three substantive discussions was in 2017.

Having said all that, after reading through the archived discussions I now do see the point that it is not clear that the Democratic Party is a full member of the Progressive Alliance. I guess I will change my position to: it probably shouldn't be included in the info-box.JMM12345 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

You would need a reliable source. There's nothing in rs that says groups are reliable sources for their own members. The other issue is weight, how much coverage the connection receives. Since George H. W. Bush was one of the four founders of the IDU and the Republican Party has hosted their conference in Washington, it's received more attention than that the chairman of the DNC once attended a Progressive Alliance meeting. Incidentally, the Dems were also listed as an observing party by the IDU. TFD (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Democratic Leaders

Infobox needs to be updated to say 219 Democrats serve in the house, Troy Carter was sworn in May 11, 2021. Putitonamap98 (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Even though Steny Hoyer has the title of House Majority Leader, since he is second in rank he does not belong in the leadership spot, if we were to include second ranking people, then we would have to add Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin as well. Moreover when people talk about democratic leaders in congress they always refer to the top democrat in the House and top democrat in the Senate(Pelosi and Schumer). Also, House Majority leader hasn't been included in this article going back years. Therefore he should be removed. Uzenaes (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

Dems effectively have 50 senate seats, so why not change 48+2independ. to 50? Johan-1l (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Effectively having 50 seats is not the same thing as having 50 seats. Bernie Sanders and Angus King are not registered Democrats, so the Democrats do not have 50 seats. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the note up so it's more prominent, should probably alleviate concerns about people being confused/misled when reading it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Senate Democratic Caucus has 50 members. Perhaps the infobox could have the uniform dark blue filled up the the level of 48 Senators with an additional light blue for the other two members of the Senate Democratic Caucus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.14.159 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Democrats do not support Equal Opportunity

Democrats no longer support Equal Opportunity, they now espouse the need for what they call "equity", or Equal Outcomes. Billinjax (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources? Definitions? Acroterion (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

LGBT wing

I added Stonewall Democrats to this article (and Log Cabin Republicans to Republican Party (United States)) as an "LGBT wing" after looking at Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK). However, I was reverted saying it was "not an official wing". If so, neither article gives me this impression currently, in a way beyond LGBT+ Conservatives or LGBT+ Labour. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

That's on those articles. But unlike the overseas, women's, college, or young groups, there aren't actually officially party-affiliated groups - just external organizations. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The page Stonewall Democrats specifically describes it as a Democratic Party caucus. The page Log Cabin Republicans calls it an "organization that works within the Republican Party". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The former is inaccurate. The latter is true, but working within a party doesn't mean it's a party organization. Toa Nidhiki05 21:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it belongs in the info-boxes of the UK parties. In any case, as Toa mentions, these are organizations officially recognized by the UK parties. TFD (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead paragraph changes

I gave lengthy edit summaries for my recent changes, so this thread might be superfluous. Otherwise, please pile on. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021

I think that the Democrat's political position should be center-left, and in the ideology section, the majority should be modern liberalism, and the factions should be centrism (linked to the New Democrats Wikipedia article), and progressivism. 2600:1702:3190:F10:81B9:6075:A17B:3C07 (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Please discuss proposals before using this template. This issue has been discussed. I suggest you read through the archives before raising this again. TFD (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Modern Liberalism, Progressivism?

Can someone explain to me the difference between modern liberalism (listed as the majority ideology of the party), and progressivism (listed as a faction of the party), I can’t find a difference between the the two, can someone explain? WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Modern liberalism is an ideology committed to private enterprise and individualism that supports government programs to promote equality of opportunity. Progressivism is the term used to describe the left wing of the Democratic Party which ranges from partial support of modern liberalism to moderate socialism. The main ideology of both political parties is neo-liberalism, which supports deregulation, lower taxes, privatization and scaling back social programs, usually by claiming these lead to market inefficiencies and ultimately a weaker economy. TFD (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Since the Quick facts state that both Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren founded the Democratic Party, wouldn’t it make sense to include Martin Van Buren in the first paragraph of the page? CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Include KKK Democrat origins

A section detailing exactly how the KKK was created as the militant arm of Democratic party needs to be included. Another section about how they have recently replaced the KKK with BLM and ANTIFA is also needed. Billinjax (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Billinjax Thanks for your suggestions. If you have well researched and written texts, sourced to independent reliable sources, to propose, please offer them in a collaborative manner. If you just want to post your views of the Democratic Party, please do that elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

<ec:No doubt you can substantiate from academic sourcing the assertion that any of those three constitute or constituted a "wing of the Democratic Party." Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Your political bias is obvious to anyone. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia is about objectivity - or at least striving to be as unbiased, impartial and objective as possible. Your attempt at spreading your own personal (unfounded) theories is the definition of misinformation. I’d suggest you’d find another forum to preach your propaganda. At least provide credible sources to support your claims. Laroucan (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Democrats and Republicans today, are not the same who they were in the 19th century. In the 1800s, Republicans were left-wing, Democrats were right-wing. In the mid-20th century, Republicans became right-wing while Democrats became left-wing, which is why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Democrats after the transition. I think you made a mistake sir. If Abraham Lincoln was here, he would've been a strong Democrat. Dinosauce2001 (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not left-wing. Sure, they have factions of progressivism, but the Democrats can best be described as a big-tent party. The GOP was never left wing, another historical misconception. donnellan Donnellan0007 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You can not apply modern standards to people 200 years ago. It doesn't matter what would Linocln would be today. He is a Republican and will always be the founder. It's B****T to try to debate what dead people would be today.2600:8805:C980:9400:3DA7:9FEC:E7AE:7E89 (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If Lincoln was born late enough to be here, he would have missed out on all the things that made him a political figure in the first place, from slavery to river traffic to Mexican war. He would have been forced into public school, then (if he even cared about law later) would have had to somehow find the money for newfangled law school. All the while, he'd have had mass media in his ear, warping his ideas of the whole scene in an impossible-to-guess number of ways. Likewise, if Kamala Harris was magically transported to 1850s California, it'd be hard to imagine her becoming anything close to that frontier's top Republican attorney. Even regular congressionally-detached Americans and the systems they considered important weren't quite what non-voters today prioritize after their basic human needs. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Tiny edit, but one that I think should be made (but was reverted)

When reading the lead segment, I'd like to propose removing one tiny little word, and one word alone. That word is "the." Here is the "the" that I propose to remove, see bold, (I tried it once and had my edit reverted, so now I am seeking consensus before proceeding).

"The Democratic Party is one of the two major, contemporary political parties in the United States. It was founded around 1828 by supporters of Andrew Jackson, making it the world's oldest active political party.[12] Its main historic rival is the Republican Party. "

etc. etc. etc.

That "the" to me, though perhaps seemingly slight, seems to imply a binary nature that is really not necessarily guaranteed to be there. While it might arguably be true that a two part "system" exists in the United States, I believe that a slight change here, by removing this "the" in particular makes the lead sound more inclusive and open to the real possibility (though perhaps remote) that third parties can and do exist in the USA. This is not promotion of third parties, but I believe is a reflection of a more WP:NPOV

Instead, I think that line should look like this:

"The Democratic Party is one of two major, contemporary political parties in the United States. It was founded around 1828 by supporters of Andrew Jackson, making it the world's oldest active political party.[12] Its main historic rival is the Republican Party."

Thank you for your time in reading this. This is about ONE word. "The." But I think it matters and was worth raising the point.

By the way, I also feel this word should ALSO be removed from the Republican Party (United States) page in the very same area and manner that it is used as I am arguing here. Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 03:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I usually have an opinion on small wording changes like this, but here I don't. The fact that it already says contemporary political parties makes it clear that this is the current situation, but not necessarily the only arrangement possible. I don't find that "the" changes much, if anything. I am fine with keeping or removing it. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @CWenger:, I love the "Michael Scott" quote by the way on your page. I am still fairly new, and have not had much experience gathering said "consensus", when is it determined to be gathered, or not? :) Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 06:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: Determining when consensus is reached varies quite a lot. In this case I would give it a few more days at least. If there are no other responses by then and you feel strongly about it you can redo the change, referencing the talk page, to draw editors to it. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with removing it. CWenger explains the meaning of "the" in this construction vert well. --Khajidha (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha:, I would plan on removing this one word on both the Democrat page as well as the Republican page, but I have a feeling that people might be more agreeable here, which would then allow for easier consensus on the GOP page. :). Might just be my bias creeping through though... anyway, would you please reconsider the removal objection? Or provide more reason for keeping it? I think it reads better, and has less of a connotation to binary thinking if removed, so I do strongly advocate its removal. Thank you! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 20:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It reads better and is more factual the way it is. The are only two major parties in the US at this time. This is one of them. That's what the sentence says. It says nothing about how many major parties there could be or should be or may someday be, only how many there are. There is no reason to change the sentence. --Khajidha (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you really think it actually reads better as is? I am merely proposing the removal of the word "the" only. Not any other rewording of the sentence. Furthermore, much of the language that we use has built in bias that in and of itself perpetuates the duopoly as is. I propose removing this one word merely to hint at the prospect that progress COULD be made, and a better world COULD exist, in which binary thinking would not dominate. There is much reason thus to change the sentence on the basis of moving away from wording that directly prejudices the status quo. WP:NPOV Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 23:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it reads better as is. That's why I said that before. Your version reads somewhat ungrammatical (or at least incomplete) to me. "The Democratic Party is one of two major, contemporary political parties in the United States." One of two ... that what? You mean "one of two that exist", but it seems like you are leaving off something. The reader is left wondering if you meant "one of two that advocate change", "one of two that massacre puppies", or anything else. "One of the two" makes it explicit that it means "one of the two that exist". What "perpetuates the duopoly as is" is the very structure of the method of voting used in the US. With single seats being contested in winner-takes-all fashion, any party system will tend towards only two major parties. And you seem to be here to "right great wrongs", which is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. --Khajidha (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I do try to help the encyclopedia take as much of a "neutral" POV as possible, in my own "small" ways at times. I am well aware of WP:WWIN. If you have a grammatical suggestion here in mind in terms of a comma, or something else that I am missing, I am open to your suggestion. I'd also like to reach back out to @CWenger: (or anyone else that might have an opinion at this point) to see what others might have to say in light of the unfolding discussion over this single (but seemingly contentious) word, "the." Much thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 00:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Th78blue: My opposition to this (articulated in more detail here) rests on similar grounds to Khajidha's, although I do not agree that the proposed version is ungrammatical or incomplete. YttriumShrew (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming on this thread as well @YttriumShrew:. I am hoping to get a broader base of opinion as well soon. Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 11:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no grammatical suggestions to make (or any other suggested changes), because the current wording is grammatical, factual, and NPOV. Far from being a contentious word, it seems that there is only one person who has a problem with it. --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Khajidha:, you've reiterated your opinion now several times. We appreciate it, but I am now going to try and see if anyone else may chime in. I am glad that we agree though that there is not at least a grammatical issue either way. Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 13:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, "The fact that it already says contemporary political parties makes it clear that this is the current situation, but not necessarily the only arrangement possible.The preceding section of @CWenger:'s comment is what interests me most. I do still strongly believe that the removal of the "the" improves the openness of the duopoly to moving beyond an obsession with binary thinking exclusively, and the fact that a non-binary reality is possible in existing, something that the current wording makes impossible. Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 13:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Conservatism from ideology list

Currently, the reference for "Conservatism" being a faction of the Democratic Party is 15 years old, and I reckon its debatable whether Conservative Democrats are an important enough faction to be listed in the infobox. Most recent media describes the Blue Dog Coalition as exclusively centrist, not conservative (See here and here, and the general way it has been decided that congressional caucuses are how we decide what factions are listed, hence why Democratic socialism isn't listed, I think Conservatism should probably be removed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It might make sense to list the three main factions of the party: progressives, New Democrats and Blue Dogs. Leave it to readers to determine how they would describe them. While it's true that Blue Dogs were called conservatives 15 years ago and moderates today, it's not because they have changed, but that those terms are malleable. Conservative has come to mean Republican. TFD (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would also be inclined to remove the term as outdated. Toa Nidhiki05 03:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• These ideology entries are always dicey, especially when an organization is long-lasting and has had its ideology shift over time or when the terms themselves have wide-ranging meanings that differ based on era and locale, but I broadly agree that listing "conservativism" is more likely to confuse readers than provide any meaningful information. This is especially true given that the source cited describes the Democrats running conservative candidates in 2006; to my recollection most of those candidates lost, and the ones that did win were largely swept out in later elections as the country became more ideologically-sorted. --Aquillion (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I would get rid of the "factions" section in the Infobox completely, as I would do for all political party infoboxes. That information should be in the body of the article text, in the "Ideology" section.--Autospark (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. Other problems are that first, in universal terms, the two parties are both predominantly liberal and secondly, they don't have official ideologies. Parties in other countries ask new members to agree to the party's principles and expel members who don't. In the U.S., you just ask for a Democratic or Republican primary ballot. So maybe the field isn't useful since the information is not straightforward. TFD (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There has not been sufficient discussion to generate consensus to completely remove something so long-standing without accommodative changes. Only two editors other than the thread starter explicitly endorsed removal, while two others (not including myself) voiced different alternatives. I am not entirely opposed to changes here, but complete removal without other changes leads to imbalance: the infobox now gives undue weight to the more left-leaning factions in the party. The article's sourcing and body would suggest roughly equal weight between the centrist/conservative and the progressive/left-populist factions (MOS:LEAD), and there is in fact more support for conservatism than left-wing populism in the body. Reliable sources dependably reference the "centrist" and "progressive" factions of the party, but rarely is "left-wing populist" faction used ("progressive" tends to be used instead, just as "centrist Democrat" is often used synonymously with "conservative Democrat"). The discussion should continue; given that some editors find conservatism to be confusing, I propose qualifying it with "(Democratic)" linking to the conservative Democrat page, which is a significant and well-referenced faction in the party which is not consistently conservative like most Republicans, but at least tends to be much more conservative than the rest of the party. RedHotPear (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that this helps to clarify that the descriptor is sometimes used in relative (not always absolute) terms: per the lead of the conservative Democrat page, "In American politics, a conservative Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party with conservative political views, or with views that are conservative compared to the positions taken by other members of the Democratic Party." RedHotPear (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember thinking that the previous arrangement likely gave undue weight to the moderate faction. This is mainly because my interpretation of an infobox that lists the majority and then factions is that the listed factions aren't part of the majority. Modern liberalism is largely identified with the moderate section of the party (which is the majority), so removing Conservatism (which is an outdated description anyway) would balance the infobox. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of peer-reviewed research on party positions

Content sourced to a peer-reviewed study in a leading political science journal was removed with edit summary "Political talking points don't belong on this page, period. This is an insane addition that adds nothing to the page".[2] The study in question was not "talking points". It assessed the policy positions of the two parties and the interest group sectors that these positions align with. Furthermore, the findings are uncontroversial (the Republican Party represents the interests of business and the affluent, whereas the Democratic Party represents the interests of the less affluent) and in line with other experts.[3] I fail to understand the removal. It is intrinsic to political parties to explain what interests they represent. For example, social democratic parties tend to represent organized labor whereas agrarian parties (like Centre Party (Sweden)) represent rural interests and agricultural interests. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Kind of odd how the Democrats represent the interests of the less affluent when they are gaining rapidly with college-educated voters and bleedin among working-class ones. What you’ve added is a gross oversimplification, and you know it. Toa Nidhiki05 15:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Farmers are not the only ones who vote for agrarian parties. Unionized employees are not the only ones who vote for Social Democrats. If you want to rebut the research, I suggest you publish your own study. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

1) Being college educated is not a guarantee of affluence. 2) College educated people (regardless of their own wealth level) might still champion causes that are designed to help the less wealthy. 3) People often vote contrary to their own interests for various reasons. A party can champion things to help various groups, but those groups might still be manipulated to vote against the party. --Khajidha (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This source is also being discussed at the Republican Party talk page. We shouldn't present the findings of a recent paper as fact, if indeed that is what the paper says. TFD (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

the paper in question appeared recently in the The Journal of Politics, one of the leading scholarly journals in political science. The lead author has six closely related papers in other top journals. To get published, a paper like this has to go through a series of very thorough reviews by a variety of scholars, who insist on corrections or rewrites if they spot small weaknesses, and impose rejection if they see anything large. The point is Wikipedia depends very heavily on high-quality scholarly journals-- if there are scholars who reject the conclusions, you can be pretty sure they will soon make their appearance in other scholarly journals. Keep in mind Wikipedia is not about "facts",--rather it is about the analysis made by the experts. Rjensen (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen, although I will say that saying "Wikipedia is not about facts" probably isn't the strongest argument. YttriumShrew (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The label of progressivism is out of date by 89 years

FDR was at the core, considered by many to be a social democrat or social liberal not a progressive and was influence to our current ways welfare reform is pushed that the squad and Bernie support. It may vary on who you ask in a colloquial sense on what we call the squad, the right call them "democratic socialists" due to Bernie not knowing (or choosing to act like he doesn't know) what social democracy is and the liberals just call them progressives but they are technically social democrats (AOC considers herself is not only a social democrat but a democratic socialist as she's attempting to give the means of production to the workers in various bills) but in someway the "progressives" are broadly in international terms social democrats. Supporters of these types [squad members] tend to aggressively praise social democratic systems in other countries and as a result are also are set on turning America into a social democracy.

Progressives are from the progressive era, they busted monopolies and created regulations but they had different priorities at that times and most modern Americans would be considered progressive in that Era. The label has not changed OR is just way too misleading as people generally first think social progressives when they think about progressives. Pogchampange (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

FDR never described himself as a social democrat nor was that term used frequently. While his policies could be called social democracy if they were in Western Europe and are similar to the proposals of some self described democratic socialists, in the United States his policies would bee classified as progressive, FDR himself was wary of ideological labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104dragon (talk • contribs) 01:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the factions of the party is called progressives. There is a pedigree between the four stages of progressives - TR, Lafollette, Wallace and Sanders. Sure Sanders and TR have different ideologies, but then liberals and conservatives in the U.S. today don't have the same ideologies their namesakes did c. 1900. TFD (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The party is controlled by the corporate/centrist/moderates. The progressives are a minority wing. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I wrote a huge multi-page essay to you all but my progress was deleted due to the word document not saving so I'll say this: GoodDay: These are uniquely factions, and so they are pretty uncommon TFD: None of these canidates have party platforms nearly as progressive as Bernie and even then the label is more focused on turning America into a country similar to a stronger country heavily influenced by an international country as opposed to just solving the problems we have right (mostly because these problems are more tightly entangled with how poorly we preform compared to other countries). It is also more radical than just pure Progressivism and is more welfare oriented

104dragon: I agree, FDR would now be considered a social liberal, and that's the consensus he know gets but I remember it being a popular opinion that he was a social democrat, I would still consider him a social democrat though cause he desired universal healthcare and even undid medical fraternities at the same time others did, as well as increase income tax rates to large degrees among other things Pogchampange (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I rushed both of these arguments out so there might be grammar mistakes Pogchampange (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

FDR wasn't a social liberal or social democrat. It's just that he was closer to them than were the conservatives. TFD (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox clarificaton

I put a note about the mayor of the District of Columbia, being included with the territorial governors. That way, readers will know why a full box would be six, rather then five. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

An editor has removed the DC mayor note from the box & reduced the number from 4/6 to 3/5. This is agreeable, as it clarifies that the DC mayor isn't a territorial governor. GoodDay (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

Position= Center to Center-left

Factions= Left Wing to Center-right 69.80.22.185 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Ideology

The ideology box now reads:

Majority:

• Modern liberalism

Factions:

• Centrism
• Social democracy
• Left-wing populism

Although the party is broadly liberal and it has centrists, none of the other claims are supported. As for factions, while there are socialist/democratic socialist/social democratic members, they do not form a faction within the party.

The term centrist is relative. It could refer to the center of the party or to the center of U.S. politics.

Populism isn't a faction, it's a campaigning style used by many politicians.

There are three identifiable ideological caucuses in Congress: the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the New Democrats and the Blue Dogs. I don't know if they are true factions because the dividing lines between them aren't clear. In the last two presidential primaries, most progressive members of congress did not support their fellow member of the caucus, Bernie Sanders.

TFD (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the current makeup of the infobox doesn't make sense. There are more conservatives (Blue Dogs) in the Democratic congressional caucus than there are self-described democratic socialists or left-wing populists (If I'm right, Justice Dems have <10 seats, while Blue Dogs have >10). If we've removed Conservatism from the infobox, we ought to remove Democratic Socialism and left-wing populism as well. I'll make this change per WP:BOLD. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Change made. Basically, this: if you want left-wing socialism and democratic socialism in the infobox, you have to be consistent in including all small factions of the party. So Conservatism must be reintroduced if we do that. But if we're going to go with not listing small factions and only going with the three major ones: Liberals (New Dems/most Dems), Social Democracy (CPC), and Centrism (Blue Dogs/New Dems), we can't include factions like Dem Socialism and Left-wing populists that have smaller numbers than Conservative Dems do in Congress. Looking back through the edits, this is also an incredibly recent change that seems to have been made by a single editor and reverted several times by that editor. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

if anyone adds political position it should say "Center to Center Left" 69.80.22.185 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That infobox parameter is not in use, and it's likely too broad a party for it to be used. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Updating state legislative memberships in 2022

I don't know when the new or re-elected members take their seats. But who ever does know? I hope they'll update infobox gradually & accordingly. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Only four states had legislative elections in the "off year":Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia. Those take office this month, and each state's articles will have to be updated by hand, if they haven't already been. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This month, but on different dates. I hope somebody knows those dates. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Federal government trifecta... Not quite.

The claim that the Democratic Party has a federal government trifecta is incorrect. This is evident by the additional information provided in this article. The Democrats have 48 / 100 seats in the Senate. A majority would be 51, that is 3 more than the Democrats have (not a majority). 115.129.13.61 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Two independents caucus with the Democrats in the Senate, which brings it to 50-50. Vice President Harris breaks ties, which effectively gives Democrats a 51-50 majority. That all 50 Senators are not card carrying Democrats is immaterial. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Numerically it's suppose to be a trifecta. Manchin & Sinema, aren't being overly cooperative, though. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

And the filibuster isn't helping either. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Change of "Social democracy" to "Progressivism" in infobox

I propose the change listed above, as progressivism is the more common term in American English language and society to describe social democracy. Furthermore after reading through the article the label "progressive" and "progressivism" is listed and sourced far more often than "social democracy" or "social democrat". I don't see a any reason not to make the change. Thoughts? B. M. L. Peters (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? Do you have any that shows that is a more common stance and descriptor?Canterbury Tail talk 02:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

See above discussion about the term "left-wing populist" also being replaced by progressivism. I do think a problem is introduced by "progressivism" in that members of different wings of the party claim it as a label. Pres. Biden and Sen. Sanders have a lot of similarities, but they also have a lot of differences, and those sorts of differences probably constitute the most commonly written about party divide at the moment. It's not the sort of catch-all that "liberal" is, but it's commonly enough used by different wings to be a bit of a contested term. So, you have the problem of 1. differentiating between these different factions while 2. not implying political bias. Of course, the ideology section of the infobox doesn't link these terms directly to certain camps - it's just sticky, is all. Personally, my preferred solution would be to keep social democracy (implicitly referring to the left wing of the party, and nodding towards the discourse around "Democratic Socialist" w/o getting into the nit-picky weeds about DS/SD differences), dropping left-wing populist, and adding "progressivism" given its varying uses to describe 1. the left wing of the party 2. an ideological strain in the party with regards to social justice which is present across wings and 3. a historical strain of American politics that has varied over time and has been heavily (although not uniquely) associated with the Democratic party. LookOnMyEditsYeMighty^(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"See above discussion about the term "left-wing populist" also being replaced by progressivism." I didn't realize that Progressivism in the United States can be equated to left-wing populism. Does it also carry on the association with anti-elitism and struggle for social justice that left-wing populism typically has? Dimadick (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This illustrates the point that such labels are not really useful. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

My point wasn't that the terms are interchangeable - rather, I think some folks above are correct in arguing that progressivism /is/ an important strain in the party, but that "left-wing populism" generally refers to politics that are /not/. I bring it up here because replacing both left-wing populism and social democracy with progressivism would mean that we don't have any differentiation between "progressive-influenced establishment wing" and "progressive-influenced establishment-critical wing", to be blunt about it. LookOnMyEditsYeMighty^(talk) 20:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

None of the three sources used say that the Democratic Party has social democratic faction and two of the articles don't even use the terms socialist, democratic socialist or social democratic at all. As open parties, both Democrats and Republicans have attracted members from across the political spectrum. But a faction is defined as an "organized" group within a party. There is no organized group of social Democrats. Furthermore the Progressives, New Democrat and Blue Dogs are factions within the lower house of Congress do not have and organization outside it. While there are a number of groups of progressive Democratic members, such as the Justice Democrats, I don't think they meet the criteria for being factions and a reliable source would be required for that. Otherwise, this is just original research, which is contrary to policy. TFD (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Left-wing populism

I am proposing the removal of the label "left-wing populism" from the infobox entirely. It fits the description of maybe 5-10 party members, less than the "Conservatism" that we removed in the infobox over the last few months. Will be asking for broader input from all editors interested in politics. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with "conservatism" is that it's not actually an ideology, it's a descriptor. Conservative Democrats, if they even exist, are just Democrats to the right of their party; Liberal Republicans are the inverse. I don't think there's any reason to claim it as an ideology, especially when progressivism - the ideology of the largest caucus in the party - is excluded from the infobox. Toa Nidhiki05 15:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't the one to remove progressivism. Would supports progressivism's inclusion over "left-wing populism", something that few Democrats adhere to. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be removed unless there is academic consensus that the term applies. The non-expert sources used fail rs for this type of claim and they appear to be non-standard usage. Elizabeth Warren, who is pro-capitalist and stood up and cheered Donald Trump when he said America would never be socialist should not be grouped with SYRIZA and PODEMOS, two leading left-wing populist parties, according to the European Center for Populism Studies.[4] Nor do the DSA members of Congress have Marxist-Leninist backgrounds, which is common in left-wing populist parties. TFD (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that "left-wing populism" should be removed. Vacant0 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems that in this case, "left-wing populism" is being used in the sense of a comparative descriptor in the way "conservative" is argued to be above - rather than to link the party to other global parties described that way. If the argument that conservative Democrats are not ideological conservatives but merely "more conservative" than the average Democrat is a good reason not to include it (I think it is), then the similar argument that "populist" Democrats are not ideological left-wing populists but merely "more populist" than the average Democrat should hold as well. Progressive is less confusing globally, and is the typical self-description and description applied by American political media in this case.LookOnMyEditsYeMighty^(talk) 02:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus merits removal. I'll go ahead and perform the removal. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

International affiliation missing

I propose that the International affiliation of the Democratic Party – their membership to Progressive Alliance — be added to the infobox. This is in accordance with the Wikipedia pages of political parties all over the world, including the rival Republican Party of USAReikiavicensis (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC).

Opposed: you will need a reliable published source that makes such a claim. Some US Democrats have attended meetings but the Party has never joined it. Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Never joined it? That’s just your own opinion. The US Democratic Party is listed as a member on the PA website (and yes, if we can’t count PA’s website as a source for membership, then the IDU’s website listing membership details for the GOP is also inadmissible).—Autospark (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect, other sources establish GOP membership. Another. In contrast, there’s no evidence the Dems are members. Toa Nidhiki05 13:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not have a reliable source that the Democratic Party is a member. Also, the Progressive Alliance doesn't operate as an international, which requires member parties to help each other. TFD (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Political Position

The vast majority of state Democratic parties are listed as Centre to Centre-left so could that position be included in this article? Thomascampbell123 (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No because the Democratic Party is de facto a catch-all party, read Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Thanks, Vacant0 (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

State political parties vary greatly from their federal counterpart. There is an argument to be made that most of the Republican parties in the New England region are much closer to the Federal Democrat party than the Federal GOP. donnellan Donnellan0007 (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(To Vacant0) Incorrect, the blue dog Democrats aren't all that conservative, they are a mesh between conservatives and liberals and are thus center leaning, maybe if you're generous it can be (Center to Center-left with the left & center-right as factions) Pogchampange (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

According to 538, the democratic party has wings from far-left to right-wing. A political position: big tent should be added to the infobox. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-six-wings-of-the-democratic-party/ PtolemyXV — Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That article doesn't quite say that. However, I agree that the best option is big tent, or even centre, which would be better than nothing. It seems that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the only major parties in a large democracy that do not have a political position listed on the English language pages. Within the American political context, the party is often considered to be centre-left, but this doesn't quite capture the party as a whole. So, with the valid arguments of, "de facto catch-all", or "center to center-left with left & center-right as factions", the easiest solution is big tent. It can be challenging to put political position labels on parties globally since the issues vary widely from country to country. But when doing this, economic as well as social positions should be taken into account. There should be some consistency in listing information in info boxes for political parties, which is why a political position needs to be added. Ray522 (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"It can be challenging to put political position labels on parties globally". So why do it? Why does "a political position [need] to be added"? Are we just looking to fill out a spot in the infobox? So, why is that spot there? What value does it bring? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Political positions are often used in political science to discuss political parties in relation to each other on issues. It can also be used to discuss parties comparatively, across countries. And with political internationals, like the International Democrat Union, parties of similar political positioning around the world group themselves to coordinate for various reasons and at varying levels of actual coordination. I am assuming that political spectrums could have been put in the infoboxes of political parties for these reasons and/or others. I didn't start the trend of it being put in the infobox, so I don't know. I am just advocating for consistency. Ray522 (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not just put "big tent"? Pdequation (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I've never really understood why people try to classify political parties from around the world with such simple terms. What is "right wing" in one culture may be "centrist" in another or even "left wing" in a third. And a party in one country may have positions on several different issues that fall all over the place compared to how those issues are perceived in other countries. A detailed write up of the positions taken by a party on issues in its own country would seem much more useful. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the political position could be centre-left to centre-right? That encompasses the range from social democracy to classical liberalism. Very small factions are not relevant and exist in most parties around the world, and aren't reflected in the listed positions. User:Inadvisabledecision (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Best position would be Center to center-left. There are factions harder to the left (i.e. AOC) while other factions that are right of center (i.e. Manchin), but the median position appears to be more center to center-left in the national party. Note that such is only for the national party - some state parties do warrant being called differently. However, the fringes aren't the median. If the Squad was in control, Left-wing would be accurate (just like if QAnon had full control of the GOP, then far-right would be accurate for them). CrazyC83 (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Restoration of "left-wing populism" to infobox

I would propose the re-addition of "left-wing populism" to the factions section in the infobox. There are plenty of notable Democrats who are left-wing populists, such as Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie Sanders (who campaigned as a Democrat in 2016/20). Multiple articles ([5], [6]), and opinion pieces ([7], [8]) have been written about the populism in the Democratic Party, and the book Six Faces of Globalization: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why It Matters says that populism "thrives" in the Democratic Party. Additionally, having just 2 factions in the infobox gives the impression that the Democratic Party is extremely ideologically cohesive, when in reality, it has many factions. I'm pinging @EndlessCoffee54:, @Vacant0:, @LookOnMyEditsYeMighty:, @Toa Nidhiki05:, and @The Four Deuces:, who took part in the previous discussion. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have too much to comment beyond what I've said above. I don't have any issue including description of those factions, but it is my sense that left-wing populism is not a fitting term. THAT SAID, this is based heavily in my own understanding of that language; it's indisputable that there is an abundance of coverage which refers to these candidates as left wing populists. I'm insufficiently educated as to how that is handled in these cases - there's obviously also a lot of coverage of politicians that uses all sorts of wildly charged and inaccurate language to describe them, so I imagine that isn't the only metric. In other words: Given that my comments above were basically me trying to square a logical circle, rather than having a firm editorial stance, I think I'll bow out of this discussion. LookOnMyEditsYeMighty^(talk) 03:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

While some opponents of Sanders and other progressives accuse them of populism, and some progressives have adopted the term, there is no consensus in academic writing that they are populists. It's similar to use of the term fascist. Yes there are or were fascists, but not everyone you disagree with is necessarily one. Your source's description is telling: "left-wing populism and self-described democratic socialists." Why can't we accept that Sanders and AOC fall within the tradition of American socialism and instead group them with Trump?

Also, American politicians from Jefferson to Jackson to Reagan to Trump have used populist rhetoric, as is acknowledge in reliable sources. Even the Declaration of Independence ("We the People") does this. But mostly it is more accurate to say that they used populist rhetoric rather than that they were actual populists.

TFD (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: The only "left-wing populists" in the party are certain Justice Dems like Tlaib, AOC, and Omar. Three people do not make a "faction" within a party, especially if that faction lacks any Senate representation or meaningful representation at the state and local levels. Other progressive Dems fit squarely within and adopt the "social democrat" label. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree only because they are a very influential group that control a disproportionate a,Lunt of support from the public and therefore it is possible for many politicians to join them to gain more support and influence along with other benefits. Because of that I believe saying there is a left wing populist wing of the Democratic Party is accurate. If not that one might want to point out there is a Democratic socialist wing (even if it is small) as I believe social democracy and democratic socialism are not exactly the same. 98.216.87.171 (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Democratic socialism/social democracy is not the same thing as left-wing populism. The Socialist Party of France, New Labour in the UK and the Social Democrats in Germany are not left-wing populists. The term is only used for groups to their left. TFD (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Everyone you listed is more commonly described as falling into the social democracy faction; to the extent that left-wing populism is part of the party, I would describe it more as a tactic rather than a driving ideology the way eg. social democracy is - it's not strictly wrong to say that Sanders uses populist rhetoric, but it's not usually treated as his core ideology. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Incorrect governing body

In the sidebar of this article, the listed governing body of the Democratic Party is the Democratic National Convention. However, as this is a convention held to nominate a candidate for president every four years, I believe what it means to say is "Democratic National Committee", the actual governing body. This mistake probably came about as a result of both acronyms being DNC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay for a Day (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have corrected it. Endwise (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

power to do what??? Here's what experts say: --"political scientists have traditionally described the parties’ national committees as inconsequential but impartial service providers." states Journal of Politics (2018): p 1474 Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure what point you're trying to make here? The actual function of a national committee has no bearing on the fact that they are the governing bodies of a party, and the nomination convention is not. Jay for a Day (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It's back to saying Democratic National Convention. This is not the governing body. Can someone change it back to Democratic National Committee? Ray522 (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

The Democrat Party is referred to as the Democratic Party in this Wikipedia page. This misspelling is misleading and the incorrect name of this political party according to their website. 172.83.4.26 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Not so. [9] "We are the Democratic Party." Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Democrat Party (epithet) covers this. @ScottishFinnishRadish:, in case you are not aware. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Condense political positions

The political positions section contains two redundant halves. The first half, a list of bullet points, is clearly inferior to the latter paragraph-style half, and I believe the bullet points should simply be eliminated in favor of the paragraphs. I will offer a few specific criticisms of the bullet points. Many of the policies cited are too narrow and specific to individual politicians, not representative of the whole party. For example, the list includes adoption of a carbon tax. While some Democratic officials do support a carbon tax, some do not, and the citation is a seven-year-old article about one bill offered by a few Democrats, not the whole party's position. Another overly specific position is public option healthcare. While many Democrats support such an approach, many also support a single-payer system on the left, or more modest approaches towards the center. Another problem with this list of bullet points is that a few of the issues highlighted are minor issues that do not warrant to be in such a short, selective list of the party's overall priorities. These include net neutrality and "internet freedom," which each get their own bullet point. This is probably because Wikipedia editors are very internet-focused individuals, but that should not bias the article's depiction of the overall party. Net neutrality and "internet freedom" are simply not top priorities of the Democratic Party. Finally, a few of the policies are given vague, non-scholarly, overly positive descriptions. This includes "Change tax rules to not encourage shipping jobs overseas" and "Make college more affordable."

In contrast, the later paragraph-style subsections provide a more accurate, nuanced, evenly weighted description of the party's beliefs.

Consistency with Republican Party (United States)

Conservative Democrat and libertarian Democrat were recently removed from the infobox however centrist Republican is being promoted at Republican Party (United States); reconciliation is needed between these two seemingly conflicting page policies. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair. Thank you Altanner1991 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

supreme court section needs amending

On the first sentence in the section it says as of July 2022, 6 of the 9 scotus seats are filled by Obama and Biden nominees, which is impossible -it's actually three of the 9. I have no idea how they could have made this mistake.

They didn't even fill 6 seats collectively, Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan for Souter and Stevens. Garland got blocked by Mitch so Trump filled Scalia, Kennedy, and RBG's seats. Biden's only filled Breyer's seat with Brown. That makes 3/9. 122.62.138.75 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Government Trifecta?

The article states that as of Feb 2022 the party hold majorities in both the House and Senate. In the house it only holds 48 seats compared to the Republican 50 seats(which is also stated earlier in the article) which makes the statement completely false. I don't know how to make a change to the incorrect statement without redoing the entire paragraph. Perhaps someone who knows more about editing can fix it. Akirared (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Akirared, in the US Senate (I assume you mean the Senate), there are 48 Democrats and 50 Republicans. But, there are also two independents who caucus with the Democrats, and VP Harris breaks the tie. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That does not make it a majority, which is what is stated in the article. Also, two independents are not Democratic party individuals therefore, again, the information posted is false. Akirared (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the difference between a Democrat and an independent who caucuses with Democrats? TFD (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, Angus King had Democrats run against him twice. It's technically a coalition govt but not really in practice. There's no supply and confidence or anything. Toa Nidhiki05 03:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Running as a Democrat cannot be the criterion for being a Democrat because some members, such as Arlen Specter, have switched sides after election. In Commonwealth countries, there are members elected under one party who then sit as independents while remaining members of the party. The only criterion I see is which party they caucus with. Even in a coalition or supply and confidence, which cannot happen in a presidential republic, the parties are recognized as separate bodies. TFD (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Officially it's a trifecta, as the US Senate is suppose to be under Democratic control. Vice President Harris has the tie-breaking vote & Senator Schumer is thus majority leader. Although so far, Manchin & Sinema are blocking a number of President Biden's proposals, by refusing to go along with their party to break the filibuster rule, which only requires 51-votes. Repealing the filibuster, would be defeated by 'at least' a 52–48 margin. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)