Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Is it still WP: Undue to not label Republican/Democratic ideologies?

I'm perplexed on why Democrats are still not labeled as "center-left" in the infobox. The current situation on this page is without parallel to any other article on the website. There's an overwhelming consensus within the academic literature that the newly homogenized Democratic Party (post-2012) is roughly comparable to the Italian Democratic Party, the German Social Democrats, and Canada's Liberal Party.

Political scientists in recent years overwhelmingly make similar claims. Saying that:

• The Democratic and Republican parties have evolved into having predominately cohesive ideologies.
• Democrats belong under the label "center-left" and Republicans belong under the label "center-right" or "right-wing"

For example: p. 2083 of Global Commons, Domestic Decisions: The Comparative Politics of Climate Change (ISBN 9780262288873) states:

The 2008 US general election saw the center-left Democratic Party, under the leadership of President Barack Obama, come into power

Wilson (2019) states:

American politics and government have often been said to be “exceptional”. In popular politics the term celebrates the supposed superiority of American government and society. In analytical usage, it refers to an argument supported by King that the pattern of public policy in the USA is exceptional compared to other advanced democracies in providing for a more limited role for government, at least domestically. To the degree that this claim has validity, a key explanation is the absence in the USA of a counterpart to the social democratic parties of Europe and Australasia. However, in recent decades, the Democratic Party has come close to playing the role of being a cohesive center-left party promoting social and economic reform. Ironically, the Democratic Party therefore now faces, like social democratic parties, the difficulties of retaining working-class support while embracing non-class-based reforms such as feminism, racial justice and environmentalism.

Zacher (2023) states in Cambridge University Press:

It is clear that the Democratic Party—the center-left United States political party—does enact some forms of a redistributive economic policy agenda.

Widely used metrics — including Manifesto Left—Right scale (Manifesto Project Database) and V-DEM (V-Dem Institute) — similarly rate the 2010s/2020s Democrats as a party of the center-left.

I'm struggling to find what's controversial about this. In policy, they're a classic center-left social liberal party. Although I suppose that one could say that they're more culturally left-wing (on social issues) and have been traditionally more right-wing on economic issues than the median social liberal party. (However, on economics, this is rapidly changing.) KlayCax (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes them hard to classify is that both parties in the U.S. fully ascribe to the Washington Consensus and have since the growth of the New Democrats since the 1990s. The sine qua non of "left" in any political spectrum definition is socialism and government regulation of business in some form, whether that is social democracy at the center left to full on communism in the far left. Since the 1990s, the Democratic party has had essentially the same economic policy as the Republican party; deregulation of business (when was the last time a Democratic-led government broke up a monopoly, for example, or see the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act for example), reduction of social welfare (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act?), free trade (NAFTA, Trans-Pacific Partnership,), etc. etc. These have been the main economic policies of Democratic administrations going back well over a quarter century, and they are all center-right policies. Center left policies would be trust busting, would be increasing social welfare programs, would be increasing regulation on businesses, etc. etc. The last time the Democratic Party had any meaningful policies in that direction, it was the Roosevelt/Truman administrations. Even Carter was basically center-right on these matters. --Jayron32 15:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

This comment would have been true in the 1990s, as Bill Clinton was a notable centrist, but it's not accurate for today's Democratic Party. Obama was no deregulator, Biden has been surprisingly strong on antitrust, with excellent antitrust picks at DoJ, which has already yielded results and will certainly yield more (see the ongoing investigations into Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.). No Democrat today supports "reduction of social welfare", on the contrary: the Democratic consensus today is in favour of tuition-free public college, universal childcare, universal pre-K, paid family leave, paid sick leave, limiting right-to-work laws, and raising the federal minimum wage. Biden even passed laws curbing NIMBYism. Biden's recovery bill was twice the size, inflation-adjusted, as FDR's New Deal. He passed the largest climate bill in U.S. history, and extended ACA subsidies.

Note that the Washington Consensus is not unbridled neoliberalism. It largely matches mainstream 1990s economic thought, rather than fringe libertarianism. It includes increasing spending on education and infrastructure, which Biden definitely did. Let's take the example of free trade. Despite what leftists say, there is a universal consensus among economists that free trade is good, period, and that "muh jobs" is unabashed bullshit. But Biden isn't ideological in his support of free trade, and has supported "anti-free trade" policies too. He strengthened Trump's trade war with China by passing the CHIPS act, which is fully in line with economist consensus, that accepts exceptions to free trade based on strategic considerations. He also passed green subsidies, labelled "protectionist".

The idea that the Democratic Party is not progressive is false. It's a narrative prominently pushed by leftists and socialists, who have continually smeared and minimised the achievements of Obama and Biden, but I'd urge you not to take their claims at face value. They don't stand up to scrutiny. DFlhb (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, @DFlhb:. The modern Democratic Party is far more progressive on both economics and social issues than the Clinton years.

With the same logic, we'd have to classify the political parties of Tony Blair, David Lange, et al. as "center-right" indefinitely. (Despite even Bill Clinton pushing for universal healthcare insurance) The U.S. under the Democratic Party spent the most on COVID relief out of any developed or developing countries. Saying Democrats are "center-right" on economics is outrageously false. It's not reflected anywhere in the actual data. I think there's a sincere debate on what the Republican Party should be classified. In contrast, almost every major political science metric that measures the ideology of the modern Democratic Party places them "center-left" and extensively close to the Social Democratic Party of Germany. (Most commonly used metrics of party ideologies places them to the left of most center-left parties on social issues and slightly - and not by much - to the right on economics.)

They're firmly within the center-left. Obviously, most American political parties were big tent in the past, but it's clear that era is over. The most right-wing Democrat has consistently been to the left of the most left-wing Republican in recent times. No party has heterogeneous "conservative" or "progressive" wings anymore and that's not going to change. (Although different left and right-wing ideologies will probably continue to coexist together within them.) KlayCax (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Are we able to restart this discussion? It's still absurd that political positions aren't listed here, and you bring up some great points. Loytra (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Liberal parties are generally classified as centrist, standing between socialism on the left and conservatism on the right. U.S. politics is an outlier in that it only has two major parties and both are broadly liberal. Of course the Dems are more to the left than the Reps, but where either places in the left-right spectrum is a matter of opinion. TFD (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You can say this about nearly every country, though. In Australia, the centre-left Labor Party and centre-right Liberal Party both follow centrist, 'liberal' policies. Same as in the UK. And Canada. And New Zealand. And Germany...

Both Americans and non-Americans treat US politics as a unique case in which both parties are stringently capitalist, but, in reality, it's the same scenario in nearly every western nation. Apart from the UK, all of the nations I mentioned above have centre-left leaders, and they all follow broadly similar liberal capitalist economic platforms.

Anthony Albanese, Australia's centre-left, Labor Prime Minister, is cutting taxes for the rich while raising unemployment benefits by less than their right-wing predecessors. Now-German chancellor Olaf Scholz, leader of the Social Democratic Party, served as finance minister for several years, in which his tenure was marked by limited public spending, leading even centrist French President Emmanuel Macron to chastise him for having a "fetish" for fiscal conservatism.

In contrast, Joe Biden as sought to raise taxes for the rich, implement 12 weeks of paid family leave, and raise medicare. In these cases, US Democrats can be argued to have policies that are more left-wing than their international counterparts. It's ridiculous to argue that US politics is uniquely homogenous, when it's the same around the globe. If the Australian Labor Party and German Social Democratic Party can be labelled as centre-left, then there's absolutely no reason why the US Democratic Party can't be as well. Loytra (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a lot of discussion but not a lot of reliable, secondary sources that make the same conclusions. I don't really disagree that the Dems are center-left, but from a European perspective you could definitely say the Dems are more center-right. Look at Germany and France. Australia and the UK are more like the US, that's true, but Scandinavia is not. Andre🚐 23:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

In this thread's original comment, KlayCax provides some excellent reliable sources that back up the claim that the Dems are center-left.

Also, as a petty sidenote, as I mentioned in my previous comment, even European parties such as the SPD are just as centrist as the US Dems are. Loytra (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disputing his sources, but they don't support all the claims you're saying right now. Not saying sources don't exist for that, but it feels SYNTHy. Andre🚐 00:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Loytra and I responded to OR with OR. We're not trying to include our claims in the article.

And in response to your previous comment: you could definitely say: nope; it's better than the leftist "Dems are right-wing compared to Europe" canard, but still empirically unsupported. The U.S. Democratic Party is a member of the international Progressive Alliance which includes center-left to left-wing parties (including, since you brought them up, the German & French parties labelled as centre-left).

We might want to hat everything but the opening post, because while there's some room for WP:OR on talk pages, everything here except KlayCax's first post seems to fall more in the "unproductive" WP:OR bucket. DFlhb (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad we agree these claims are not for the article. But I'm not sure what you mean by the Progressive Alliance thing. I do not believe that is the case. Nor would it prove the point. Andre🚐 01:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The closest parties outside the U.S. to the Dems would be liberal parties, most notably the Liberal Party of Canada or the Liberal Democrats UK. But they are also similar to the progressive factions of other liberal parties such as the Liberal Party of Australia. Historically this would include German Democratic Party and its successor Free Democrats. Like these parties the Dems are individualistic, pro-business, were founded as middle class parties and vocally oppose socialism. But unlike them, they have no social democratic party to their left and even allow social democrats to join their party. Also, they are one of the few liberal parties that have major party status. It's over-simplistic to say they are the U.S. equivalent of social democrats. TFD (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I broadly agree with TFD's analysis here, which I assume can be grounded in sources, such as, Listen Liberal, or Howard Zinn, or Noam Chomsky, ie left critique of Democratic centrism. The Democrats are not a labor party. They are not a socialistic party or a collectivist party. They are a party of white collar professionals and the Reaganomic neoliberal Washington consensus: broadly, Wall Street, big business, low regulations, drilling oil, selling out the environment for industry, and giving a green light to imperialism and adventurism for the containment doctrines and global chess games of Cold War defense spending and gamesmanship. There is not a lot of daylight between their "far left," ie the independent social democrats like Bernie, and a middle of the road democrat like Coons, Carper, Warner, Feinstein, Kaine, etc. Because fundamentally a Bernie never calls for anything on the "true global left" i.e. nationalization of industry or radical rethinks of the social contract to favor workers and global healthcare or welfare. Bernie's a bit of a Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern or a traditional classical conscience progressive like Paul Wellstone. But largely, "true blue progressives" were kind of extinct or going extinct in the 90s and early 2000s given the Obama era being more similar to the Clinton: triangulation, New Democrats, the Larry Summerses are running the show. Between the 60s and the 80s, the realignment that left us with a Republican Party that chases evangelical votes while passing a broadly pro-business, anti-social-program budget and agenda, advocating for cuts as fiscal hawks while simultaneously claiming the banner of traditional values and jingoistic patriotism, left the Democrats licking their wounds with all of the 60s, 70s, and 80s iterations of the party that still embraced union and labor priorities seeing big losses during the great reawakening and propagandization of the population. Only in the post-Internet era have we kind of seen a renaissance and rebirth of the populist left - an interesting topic but definitely a lot of original research and synthesis at this time I would think. But prior to about 2004 I think, a historical perspective that has to be covered in the article, there are very very few Democratic party leaders in any capacity that would be considered a leftist or left-wing in European parliaments and communities where there are active Green and Socialist parties that actually have platforms calling for radical left-wing ideas seriously, like significant new regulations on the economy to redistribute resources, something that is anathema to the modern establishment, even the most progressive Democrats. Andre🚐 19:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

We all have slightly different political views, and none of us are experts, so reciting our own understandings of modern American politics to each other is no basis for determining what goes in an infobox.

Scholars analyzed that precise question, so we don't need to. OP linked to them. Here's another, which disagrees with both you and TFD. TFD, the proposal is about "center-left", not "social democratic", and Andre, it's not about "left-wing" or "leftist" either. We should look at mainstream neutral scholars here, not those offering a "left critique".

There's no need for us to pick an ideology that defines the party's entire centuries-long history; the infobox includes the present-day membership, present-day electoral results, and present-day majority and minority factions. We're discussing adding two words ("center-left"), which have solid recent scholarly sources, with so far only WP:OR as counterarguments. DFlhb (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The authors of your source (What's left of the left) acknowledge, "Including the American Democratic Party in a comparative analysis of center-left parties is unorthodox, since unlike Europe, America has not produced a socialist movement tied to a strong union movement." (p. 17) The most you can say is that they are called center-left in some reliable sources, but it is unorthodox. TFD (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Not many sources compare U.S. and European politics, but it's useful to readers for our infobox to do so, and every ~post-2010 academic source I've found calls it a center-left party, with no source dissenting. However, that book does disagree with the OR posted above: If those same forces affect the Democratic Party, which occupies the left in the United States but would be center-left almost anywhere in Europe, page 189. DFlhb (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not OR, it's a direct quote. The chapter you quote re-iterates it: "Including the United States in this book may strike some readers as odd. If one aim is to chart the transformation of left parties into center-left parties, why study a polity that has never had much of a left?" They then provide their "unorthodox" opinion that the Dems are center-left.

Of course there are parallels between the Dems and the center-left. They both advocated for the lower classes, labour and minorities in their respective countries and pioneered the welfare state and keynesian economics. OTOH, the Dems were founded as and remain a party of the middle class, with an ethos of individualism and capitalism. I see no reason to mislead readers about the similarities and differences.

Incidentally, if every book you read calls the Dems center-left, it bemuses me why you would choose a book you had not read as a source.

To get back to the reason why editors voted to exclude this field: while left-right are generally understood, the position that any party occupies along the spectrum is subjective. Not only that, but the Dems do not have ideological discipline. You cannot be expelled from the party for your political views as evidenced by a congressional caucus that has spanned the spectrum from Klansmen and the head of the John Birch society to democratic socialists. TFD (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, they are a big tent party, and the guidance is that infoboxes should not include things that require some explanation and clarification. Andre🚐 19:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

a book you had not read: I'd read every part that mentions the Dems, including the one you quoted. The book argues that while Europe moved from left to center-left, the Dem Party came from the opposite direction and ended up center-left. They say it's unorthodox to compare the Dems to parties that were socialist until just recently; naturally it is. Nowhere do they say it's unorthodox to call the Dems center-left, and not one source has yet been presented that does.

That's not OR, it's a direct quote, I'm not referring to the quote. Don't you see that every single comment except the OP is blatant OR? I regret indulging in it. You've done it again with this ideological discipline criteria (it ignores that every party has a median and an official platform). The sources decide. Why are any of us providing unsolicited personal analysis of something as complex as U.S. political history? We're all Dunning-Krugers here unless one of us is a tenured political scientist. I'll disengage for now, we both have more productive things to do. DFlhb (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated Paragraph in the History Section

There's an unrelated paragraph, in the section about the party in the 21st century, that I feel should go somewhere else in the article, and be somewhat edited:

"The United States has operated under an uncodified informal two-party system for most of its history, although other parties have run candidates. What the two major parties are has changed over time: the Republicans and Democrats presently are the two major parties, and the country is currently in either the Fifth or Sixth Party System. Both parties have no formal central organization at the national level that controls membership, elected officials or political policies; thus, each party has traditionally had factions and individuals who deviated from party positions."

The parties do have central organizations (the RNC and DNC), but it is true that party discipline is weaker in Congress (members can vote how they wish on legislation) and the President is elected separately from Congress. This doesn't seem relevant to the party history, and this is the 6th or 7th party system (still developing, but in the post-Trump realignment). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the paragraph; someone can find where it actually should be, if anywhere. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it could say, "The central organizations of both parties at local, state and federal levels do not control membership or elected officials." It's an important distinction from other countries where members are routinely expelled for not adhering to party ideology. The result is that they form new parties and hence have multi-party systems. TFD (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Question

The Republican Party has a European affiliation (European Conservatives and Reformists Party) does the Democratic Party have one too? 2600:8801:1187:7F00:7DFA:93E7:FA76:586A (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No, they have no formal international affiliations, although they have cooperated with other parties abroad. TFD (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is a member of Progressive Alliance, a group of left-leaning parties worldwide, but I don't think they have a European affiliation. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

While they are listed as a member on the website, no reliable sources support this. Howard Dean, who was chairman of the DNC, attended the first meeting as a private citizen, but the Democratic Party has otherwise had no participation. TFD (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

International Affiliation

I’m not sure if this was already discussed but why don’t the “Democratic Party (United States)” and “Republican Party (United States)” articles’ infoboxes list their international affiliations? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Do they have affiliations? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is the USA Democrat party and there could be another one starting up in other parts of the world. Popscurling (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

No. Andre🚐 20:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Republican Party is part of the International Democratic Union and the Democratic Party is part of the Progressive Alliance. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not part of the Progressive Alliance. Toa Nidhiki05 20:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed to a reliable source Andre🚐 20:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Then it should be removed from the Progressive Alliance Wikipedia article GamerKlim9716 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not in that article, although people keep trying to sneak it back in. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

And from the Progressive Alliance’s website https://progressive-alliance.info/network/parties-and-organisations/ GamerKlim9716 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic, the only involvement with the PA was that Howard Dean attended one meeting, although not as an official representative. If you have reliable sources for a deeper connection, please provide them. The Republican Party's affiliations are irrelevant to this article. TFD (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m actually asking (not rhetorical). Why isn’t the Progressive Alliance’s website reliable? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Because it lists parties based on people who attended PA conferences, rather than just on actual affiliation. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Progressive Alliance website, shows the democratic party as a member, not some sort of associate because a member of the party attended a PA meeting. But as a full member. Source: https://progressive-alliance.info/network/parties-and-organisations/ 2603:7000:3B40:B500:8973:5E4:B2BC:5B45 (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

We need a third party source that confirms that they are a member of the Progressive Alliance. Vacant0 (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Presidential Candidate

Rep. Dean Phillips has been in the news about running for president (MinnPost, New York Times, CNN, USA Today, Huffington Post). His article needs his positions and more about him. I wouldn’t even know where to begin editing as I am not experienced and I have ailments that make it difficult to type for long periods. I was hoping to enlist the help of someone interested in the 2024 election for the article. —BekLeed (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Subjective claim in the first paragraph about the Dem party being the oldest

Arguably, the Tory Party in the UK goes back to the early 1700s and is still active. I think the claim in the introduction to the Democrats being the oldest party is ultimately a subjective one. I recommend hedging the claim by adding either "one of", "arguably" or "according to some historians/definitions". --Svennik (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that make this claim? If not we cannot accept it per "no original research." The sources I have seen date the Conservative Party to 1832. Before that time, there were various factions in Parliament, but they were not parties. TFD (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources to back up your claim? The article you linked to indicates that the Tory Party "ceased to exist as an organised political entity in the early 1760s" until a new one was created later on, using the same name. I think this may complicate your request. King keudo (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"The lineage of English parties is fragmented and discontinuous." says J C D Clark, (1980). "A General Theory of Party, Opposition and Government, 1688–1832" The Historical Journal 23(2), 295-325. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00024298 Rjensen (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

It is not the, "Democratic" party. It is the, "Democrat" party. Proper usage 2601:280:5000:A4A0:15BA:F3FD:892:43A2 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Not Done The proper name is the Democratic Party. The word you'd like to use is considered an epithet or insult. King keudo (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Political Position suggestion

Most major parties in most countries have political positions listed, I don't think the US should be excluded. I think most of us can agree the Democrats are Center to Center Left; there are not many members of the party who fall out of that spectrum TRJ2008 (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that the Democratic Party is Center to Center Right. The progressive Democrats (left-wing) are in the minority. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say it has a minority of members supporting centre-left to left-wing economics, but more progressive for social issues. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The opposite of that actually 2001:8F8:173D:849F:FC7D:9C16:4BD3:3B54 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I say it is Center to Center Left with Left Wing Factions since the mainstream of the party is socially liberal, economically centrist and neoconservative foreign policy but has factions that diverge from the mainstream like AOC 2406:3400:31F:AFD0:484C:E5F7:63B9:A46D (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

What's you definition of center-left? TFD (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

the democrats Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue for the removal of such notes from other pages.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody in this thread has provided a source stating the party is any of those things. The labeling going on here is mostly based on American colloquial politics, not serious political theory. If we do put a label on them I’d like a high-quality academic source and not any of the countless America-centric news outlets that use “left” to mean “democratic” and “right” to mean “republican” Dronebogus (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There are linked academic sources in the Is it still WP:Undue to not label Republican/Democratic ideologies? section on this page provided by @KlayCax. The sources appear to be both non-American and American academic sources. That section also poses an important question about undue weight on this issue: ignoring the majority opinion that is found in academic literature. Ray522 (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Lies and misinformation

This artical does not talk enogh about the many negatives of the democrat party, abd lies about the "politives" Jim Anderson82 (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about an entity called the "Democrat Party". This article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the Democratic Party. You are free to read it and think it is full of lies, but then your issue is with the sources and not us. If the sources are inaccuratly summarized, please detail the specific errors. If you have reliable sources that are missing, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Listing of high income voters as a democratic demographic

The article lists 'upper class and high income' as a demographic supporting the democratic party, but not lower income people implying that democrats draw more support from higher than lower incomes.

It is true that the white working class has trended republican and highly educated high income voters democrat in recent elections however exit polls have consistently shown democrats to do best among lower income voters for example an exit poll of the 2020 presidential election showed Biden winning family income brackets below $99,999 with between 54-57% of the vote with Trump winning 58%-41% amongst people with a family income of between $100,000-$199,999 and voters wealthier than that splitting evenly between the candidates.[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-elections/exit-polls/

An exit poll for the House vote in the 2022 midterm showed democratic candidates winning voters with an income below $50,000 by a margin of 52% to 45% while republican candidates won those with an income above $50,000 53% to 45%.[2]https://edition.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-results/house/0

Other studies have suggested low income voters are significant in democratic victories.[3]https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/low-income-voters-were-key-012323960.html

As such, the demographics section of the article risks leaving a misleading impression of the class composition of the Democratic coalition. Ncnub (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not even sourced. Also, high income is not a distinct group unlike the other ones listed.

From what I have read, income and wealth are variables in predicting voting, but the higher they are the more likely one is to vote Republican. But there are other variables, such as education, which makes one more likely to vote Democrat. That produces anomalies because wealthier people tend to be better educated and better educated people tend to be wealthier. TFD (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Age demographics

I’d like to add they perform well with voters under 35 Saturdaze23 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Demographics change

Shouldn’t voters under 35 be added with Black and Jewish Voters? 68.180.120.32 (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

Change "third largest in the world" to "fourth largest in the world."

This change is substantiated by the hyperlink behind this highlighted portion of text. 96.36.129.177 (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Demographic Change

I added facts to why added this correct demographic change, literally almost every other demographic that votes for the party is listed besides them, yes cross-tabs can look different because Youth is a big umbrella but electoral demographics data still shows that youth votes for Dems mor than the GOP overall, cross-tabs will show variations of certain young demographics Saturdaze23 (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to add the number of House of Representatives delegations held by each party to the infobox

Hi, I've made a suggestion on the Republican Party Talk page to add the number of House of Representatives delegations controlled by each party to the two infoboxes. If you're interested in discussing this suggestion, please go to the Republican Party Talk page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

A week went by with no comment, here or at the Republican Party Talk page, so i went ahead and added the delegations to the infoboxes. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed them, as US presidential contingent elections are extremely rare. So rare, that it's not worth mentioning such delegate numbers. GoodDay (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Protectionism

This article claims the Democratic Party supports protectionism, but I believe that doesn't represent most of the mainstream Democrats these days. It used to be a strong defender of protectionism, but President Clinton approved NAFTA, many prominent Democrats voted to ratify CAFTA, and President Obama approved the TPP. Of course, many important Democrats are still steadfast protectionists, for example, President Biden still has President Trump's China tariffs in place, something many people expected him to change, but I believe this belongs in the paragraph describing the party's core political positions. Maybe add that it has traditionally held protectionist views, but many prominent figures in the partt have broken up with this position, and add examples. 201.207.239.177 (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This is part a bigger problem--some editor likely violated the NPOV policy to denigrate the Republican Party and advocate for the Democratic Party. The editor changed the consensus views on the Democratic Party's demographics--there are clear citations that show the Democratic Party has lost non-college "working class" voters for example. The editor sought to highlight the party's differences on issues such as paid sick leave, universal healthcare & childcare, and labor unions in a tone that was clearly not neutral.

Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs, but to provide well-sourced information from a neutral point of view. I think the two party's pages need extended confirmation protection to prevent such further edits, because contemporary U.S. politics is hyper polarized and any partisan editor with little experience on Wikipedia policies could vandalize the pages of the two parties. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Since the mid-1850s not 1850s to be exact. 2001:EE0:4BC7:AB30:B58E:E5C:90B0:54BE (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nicknames on talk

Hi, @GoodDay:. Many political parties have articles that mention their common nicknames. It's not a violation of Wikipedia rules to mention it. While the title has gone out of favor among the national party and some state parties due to Jackson's involvement in slavery, and treatment of Native Americans, it is used among several state parties, the academic literature, and common vernacular. KlayCax (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't need nicknames in this page or the Republican Party's page lead. Having the nicknames in the infobox suffices. Also, don't be breaching 1RR on this or the Republican Party page. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We use nicknames on other political party pages. Why would the Republican and Democratic parties be an exception? State parties for the Republicans and Democrats use "GOP, Party of Lincoln, and Party of Jackson" in their descriptions.

If this is specifically about the "Party of Jackson" wording than that's something I'm open to discussing. But the terms "GOP" and "Party of Lincoln" are widely used in Republican campaigns. KlayCax (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove them from the leads of the state parties, too. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I meant for other political parties internationally. Their Wikipedia articles list their common nicknames. KlayCax (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

International party makeups are rarely consistent. I'm concerned here, only with US political parties. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Party of Jackson, party of Lincoln, etc., are not names or nicknames, they are descriptions. It's like when Face the Nation calls itself the longest running show on TV. That's not an alternative name.

My test would be whether rs would use the alternative name in place of the actual one. GOP frequently is used, while Party of Lincoln is not.

TFD (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

Request to add

under Democratic Party (United States)#Political positions. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No, would take up too much space. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.  Spintendo  22:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted a massive series of edits by Plumber that I think broadly are seriously problematic. A handful of major mistakes I've noticed:

1) Very broad characterizations of the Democratic Party ("Left-wing opposition", "right-wing opposition", "centrist triangulation" beginning in 1976, etc.)

2) Addition of unsourced, extremely contentious claims (the post Civil War Democratic Party being "right wing" until 1896, and then immediately "left-wing" from 1896 on, "Since the nomination of William Jennings Bryan in 1896, the party has generally positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party on economic issues", "White backlash to a Black president combined with the lingering Great Recession led to a Republican landslide in the 2010 midterm elections.", etc)

I've reverted this wholesale, but I'm opening this up to discussion on what might be salvageable. Toa Nidhiki05 02:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion it's all a vast improvement from a disorganized page. If you are opposed to specific sentences you can change them without reverting the entire work then announcing this fait accompli to the talk page, which is highly inappropriate. Plumber (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't accuse people of edit warring; per WP:BRD, I started this thread so the topic could be discussed. Instead, you immediately reverted back. I'm not going to revert you, but I'm disappointed you opted not to discuss instead. I'm not going to engage in an edit war and revert you again, but someone else might, and given the scale of the edit and the controversial and unsourced material you've added, they probably will. Again - your addition of claims here includes several that are patently incorrect, including regarding Jimmy Carter as a New Democrat, regarding pre-1896 Democrats as "right-wing", regarding pre-1932 Democrats as "left-wing" (even when they nominated progressive and even conservative nominees at the Presidential level), and claiming the 2010 election was due to racial backlash. These claims are not cited to sources. Those are just ones I immediately noticed. There are likely far, far more. Toa Nidhiki05 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've provided citations for the two claims you disputed, thank you for pointing them out to me. If you have further concerns you can edit them sentence by sentence instead of mass-reverting. Plumber (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No, they did not. Your source for "white backlash" as the cause of 2010 - a single paper - does not cite a page, nor does the paper at all make that claim on a single page. You have not provided any sources for your definitive "era" listings, or for your claims that the Democratic Party had a distinct right or left-wing identity in the eras claimed. What sources you have provided link to are frequently subpar, or are seemingly reliable sources where you didn't cite the page you are referencing; this is an absolute-no go. You have to cite what page content comes from. You've also provided no source to your claim that Jimmy Carter (and, by extension, Michael Dukakis), were New Democrats; this is likely impossible, as New Democrats began as a response to Reagan's win, and didn't really gain any influence until the Clinton years. I recommend reverting your changes to discuss them further.

Another example: you added a section noting Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide to "right-wing" Republican Ronald Reagan. However, neither source you provided appears to refer to him as "right-wing". This is characteristic of your edits, and I'm concerned you have added original research rather than taking what sources say 1:1. I'm not even counting the vast sections of other uncited changes.

Another bit of content you added - "Nancy Pelosi became the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives but refused left-wing demands to impeach Bush for lying to the country before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction". "Lying to the country" is an extremely strong statement that shouldn't be used in Wikivoice without extremely reliable sourcing. You have, instead, provided zero sources.

Another section you added "The next Southern Democratic presidents were more centrist than Johnson. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both promised to reduce the power of the federal government and increase the power of the states." None of this is cited.

In a section on Jimmy Carter, you added "Carter privately admitted in his diaries that he was more sympathetic to conservative Democrats and Republicans than mainstream Democrats in Congress. Unlike most Democrats in Congress, Carter was opposed to universal health care during his presidency. Carter's inability to work well with Congress made him unpopular within his own party and Carter's presidency only lasted one term.". You cited this broadly to his entire diary without listing any pages for any claims. You can't do this. This isn't a valid way to cite sources.

There is a reason I reverted your entire edit - frankly, most of it is quite bad. It had blatant grammatical errors, frequently adds uncited or improperly cited claims (often these claims are inflammatory or extremely dubious), and is a downgrade over the existing page.

Toa Nidhiki05 04:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Removed the Saddam Hussein bit as it's not very relevant. Your assertions Ronald Reagan was not right-wing, there was no racist reaction to Barack Obama's elections are incorrect and do not justify mass reverts to edits made in good faith. If you have sources showing Reagan was a left-wing candidate in 1980 and there was no racism in the United States after 2008 then feel free to add them to the page instead of engaging in goal-shifting attacks. The page can always be improved, but reverting things en masse then crying wolf to the talk page is not the way Wikipedia works.--Plumber (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to engage in some introspection and constructive discussion here rather than accusing me of "goal-shifting" and "crying wolf". Toa Nidhiki05 04:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I thank you for pointing out three sentences which needed further citations. All of those have been edited with many different citations. Please do not engage in mass reversions of edits made in good faith again. --Plumber (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You have not addressed or solved any of the complaints. Again, you cannot cite literally entire books. That's not how this works. And you have not even attempted to respond to or cite most of the stuff I mentioned. What you appear to be doing is making big claims, and then citing entire books to justify them - but it's impossible to verify the claims you make, because you've not cited where those claims were made. It seems to me like, given your earlier comment about obvious things like Reagan being right-wing or 2010 being due to racism, are a mix of original research (not allowed) and "I don't need to source this because it's obvious", when the claims in question are not obvious. We require claims to be backed by reliable sources here, especially contentious ones. I would encourage you to consider this before making additional edits. Toa Nidhiki05 04:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Plumber, I have gone ahead and re-reverted your extensive recent edits. Toa has raised detailed and substantive concerns about the chain of edits you made. Your response was to reinstate all your edits, make additional edits, and either minimize the problems Toa identified or claim to have fixed them all (which Toa strongly disputes). I hate to undo all of your efforts, and I have been known to make bold edits myself, but the way you are going about this isn't good for the encyclopedia. With respect, I invite you to work with Toa and other editors on the changes you think need to be made and make sure you source your edits thoroughly. MonMothma (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You violated the three-revert rule and I warned you. You cannot make 13 reversions and then pretend you are engaged in proper Wikpedia etiquette. --Plumber (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The three-revert rule does not strictly mean three reverts. The chain of edits MonMothma made, under WP:3RR, count as a single revert. See: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". MonMothma did not revert 13 times - they made 13 edits in a row that gradually undid your changes. You've also falsely accused MonMothma of vandalism - this on top of accusing me of similar things earlier in the thread. I would seriously encourage you to read our policy on WP:CIVILITY. Toa Nidhiki05 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am still waiting for historical evidence with citations to back up the mass reversion of edits made in good faith. --Plumber (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I reverted to the last stable version. I reviewed the above discussion and I'm at a loss understanding the objections. I would suggest you work them one at a time. Perhaps even file an RFC. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Can entire books be cited as sources, without listing a page number? You know the answer to this. Also, the last stable edit was prior to Plumber's edits, for what it's worth. Toa Nidhiki05 05:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, with respect, could I invite you to take another look at the situation? If your intention is to restore the last stable version of the article, I'd invite you to revert back to revision # 1194378322 by RenewIR. The problem on this page right now is that User:Plumber is making massive edits, overriding other editors' (serious and substantive) concerns, engaging in battleground behavior, and making false accusations of vandalism. We need to get the article back to where it was before all of that started happening. Then we can collaborate on any changes that need to be made. MonMothma (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Done.[4] Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas. MonMothma (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I made good faith edits according to the Be Bold policy. My edits about the Democratic Party were reverted due to minor disagreements about Republican Party officials. Every time a point of dispute arose, the article was edited to provide more citations. Yet all the changes were reverted rather than the few sentences under discussion. Most of the data changed is the removal of pictures which have nothing to do with any objections stated. This is quite simply not how the Wikipedia editing process works and is highly irregular. If there is a NPOV objection, slight changes can be made to those sentences about Republican officials without deleting a vast amount of information with numerous citations about Democrats. --Plumber (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Just add them in one at a time and go from there. Viriditas (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Plumber, you mentioned the WP:BOLD editing guideline. I would draw your attention to the following words from that guideline: "Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be".

I understand that you're upset right now, and I don't want to keep hammering away at you (nobody here is perfect), but I have to say that your own description of what's been going on with this article over the past 24 hours is off the mark. You made major, substantive edits, as you are completely entitled to do. Toa reverted you and posted detailed concerns about both the accuracy and the sourcing of your edits. (To be clear: Toa's concerns were not minor or localized concerns that could be fixed by changing a word here or a source there.) You reinstated your edits and made a series of additional edits, contending that you had resolved Toa's concerns. Toa communicated that no, the concerns were not resolved. I reverted you and politely asked that you be more collaborative. You reverted again and placed multiple warnings on my talk page falsely accusing me of vandalism. Now an administrator has had to get involved.

You can keep arguing, or you can reconsider your approach to the situation. I would encourage you to do the latter. Why not post something here on the talk page outlining what you think needs improvement about the structure and content of this article? Despite the recent unpleasantness, I stand willing to work with you to try to improve it. Without speaking for Toa, I believe he would as well. MonMothma (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not an admin, but I would invite you to attract their attention by posting a neutrally worded RFC or noticeboard report. It will attract more eyes and input from the wider community. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe an RfC is needed at this time, since the dispute here is only between three editors and there has not been a protracted edit war. I am still hopeful that Plumber will respond to my substantiative criticism and engage in dialogue here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)