Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

the "anti-discrimination" clause

this is a blatant lie. equal opportun ity means no one is favored based on age, gender, race, or sexual orientation. the democrat's unwavering support for affirmative action is a support for discrimination against white men, in favor of minorities and women. this does constitute discrimination and a breach of the equal opportunity platform, and so should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.249.9 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that the Democrats rally for lower wages for white men? Interesting of you to say, seeing as the majority of Democrats holding office are, in fact, white men. SweetNightmares (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion, opinion... no room for that here. Signature^brendel 04:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote 1/Ideology: "Today, Democrats advocate more social freedoms, affirmative action, balanced budget, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (mixed economy)."
Quote 2/Social Issues/Discrimination: "The Democratic Party supports equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of sex, age, race, sexual orientation, religion, creed, or national origin."
Two statements clearly are in contradiction. This discrepancy needs to be addressed by either removal of one of the statements or through clarification of democratic position on the issue.--99.194.21.215 (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)A.Butorins 12/7/08

Academia

The graphs from Democrats and Republicans: Rhetoric and Reality are ugly and destroy the formatting (similarly with the one in Labor). Having them means devoting undue space to statistics from one source, a book by an obscure publisher and an author eager enough to push his ideas that he's giving permission to publish the graphs in Wikipedia. This isn't the Joseph Fried blog. The statistics don't correspond with those from other surveys, like this one by Pew, so that should at least be mentioned if they are to be included. If there are meaningful statistics from reliable sources, they should be included in sentences. No graphs are needed, and certainly not two separate graphs for men and women. —KCinDC (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the same graphs are cluttering the Republican Party article, but at least there countervailing statistics are presented. And yes, I see there's a difference between four-year degrees and post-graduate degrees, but with the difference being so large it seems reasonable to suspect that it could be related to the different sources and their methods. If the difference exists, it should be possible to present other reliable sources for it. Why is Joseph Fried the only one who's noticed? —KCinDC (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

KCinDc states: "The statistics don't correspond with those from other surveys, like this one by Pew, so that should at least be mentioned if they are to be included." However, I wonder if KC is misreading the Pew survey he/she cites. Here are the figures given on the page cited byy KC: In the period 1997 thru 2000, 27% of the public identified itself as Rep, and 33% identified itself as Dem. In that same time frame, 35% of people with 4-year degrees said they were Republicans and only 28% of people with 4-year degrees said they were Democrats. That approximately confirms the figures reported in Fried's book. In the "post-9/11" period (thru 2003), the Republican advantage with respect to 4-year degrees persisted. 30% of the public said it was Rep and 31% of the public said it was Democratic (roughly even) but by 38 to 27%, people with 4-year degrees said they were Republicans. If you want much more detailed information based on Pew surveys, go to page 346 of Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality. It summarizes Pew surveys of over 28,000 people, conducted from 2002 thru 2007. Of the 15226 Dems surveyed, 25.7% had 4-year degrees; of the 13607 Republicans surveyed, 29.9% had 4-year college degrees. The Dem percentage (25.7) divided by the Republican percentage (29.9) is only 86 percent.

Nicholas007 (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored a prior version of "Academia" for these reasons: If we are going to imply that there is no down-side to having an academia dominated by Democrats and liberals, the counter argument, made strenuously by many conservatives, should be stated. Whether or not we endorse the Students for Academic Freedom, there is no dispute that many conservatives have complain about the lack of balance in institutions of higher learning. We should either take out both arguments (i.e., the Brett O"Bannon opinion and the opinion of Students for Academic Freedom), or we should have both sides represented.

Also, Brendel seems intent on maintaining that the NES survey data presented (in the graphs) depicts a relatively small group of "registered" voters. This is factually false. The NES results depict self-identified Democrats and Republicans, and this is important information that should be presented. It is specious to base political identity entirely on votes in a handful of presidential elections. As I explained in an earlier post, many Democrats may vote for McCain in this election based on some perceived experience advantage. Many Republicans may vote for Obama because they think this is a historic opportunity to bring the races together, or because they want to punish those in power, or because they are mad at the Republicans for not being conservative enough. How someone votes in a given presidential election does not, in itself, indicate his general partisan orientation. The best indicator of that is his own self-identification. Besides, votes in a presidential election do not necessarily indicate how someone votes in congressional races, state and local races, or referenda.

Finally, generalities about the characteristics of a voter base are best made on the basis of long-lasting trends - not just one presidential exit poll conducted in 2006.

Nicholas007 (talk)

If it's true that there are more Republicans than Democrats among holders of four-year degrees (by some definition of "Republican" and "Democrat"), then it should be possible to cite some source other than a book that appears to be at best one step above self-published. In any case, regardless of the source, there's no reason that that particular statistic should be given so much prominence over other education-related poll results. It can have a sentence, but there's no reason for a graph, and certainly no reason for two graphs -- one for men and one for women. And if somehow it requires a graph, the graph should not be so poorly made and should not disrupt the formatting of the article. —KCinDC (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The section that cites Joseph Fried is terrible. His only credentials appear to be that he has a CPA license and an MBA? I tried my best to determine if there was any scholarly discussion of his book and there doesn't appear to be a single citation. Nor does it appear to be indexed with any other serious material on the topic. This might be less of a problem if the results didn't run so completely different than every other (serious) study I've seen. Please remove the paragraph and graphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.36.86 (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This section seems extremely biased toward the conservative end of the spectrum right now. Someone wrote things about how academics are brain washed.

Senate seats

The little chart in the infobox claims that the Democratic Party has 51 seats in the US Senate. They in fact have 49, and 2 independents caucus with them. I don't think it's accurate to portray Bernie Sanders or Joe Lieberman as Democrats, since neither self-identifies as such, or identifies as such when running for office. Huadpe (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix it up. How's it look? --Ali'i 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks. I know how to do text, not graphics. Huadpe (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusion between "liberal" and "democrat"

I would hardly be surprised if this has been discussed before, but I would just like to make the casual observation that this article largely treats the terms "liberal" and "democrat" as synonyms, which they are most certainly not, especially in the voter base section. It's fine to say that liberals constitute a majority of the party's voter base, but discussing the demographics of liberals for several paragraphs withouth even mentioning the party probably constitutes WP:UNDUE. I think this section should pertain more directly to the subject matter or be significantly reduced in size. DJLayton4 (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Asian Democrats

Hey, if 55% is Republican, 31% is Democrat, and 15% go for Perot, where does the remaining -1% go? Seriously, these numbers don't add up. ReverendG (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Percentages often add to 101% or 99% when they've all been rounded to the nearest 1%. Presumably it's something like 54.63% R, 30.71% D, 14.58% P, rounding to 55%, 31%, and 15%. Seems normal to me. —KCinDC (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oldest party in continuous operation

Added in continuous operation. A strong case can be made that the Republican Party and the Federalist Party are both older, but neither has existed continuously. The Republican Party was reorganized twice in the mid-1800s, and the Federalist Party, has been reformed numerous times. This language should be included since it enhances the staying power of the Democratic Party in relation to the other American parties. Toobin (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "strong case". Since the Republican Party wasn't created until 60 years after the Democratic Party, how could anyone claim it's older? And the Federalist Party hasn't existed for well over a century. Someone who was born in 1875 but died in 1925 can't count as the oldest person, even if they were born before the oldest living person. Hasn't this all been talked out previously? —KCinDC (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pro-life democrats

I added A Newsweek poll from October 2006 found that 25% of Democrats were pro-life while a 69% majority were pro-choice.[54] to this article. The thing is that the pro-life Democrats themselves believe that more Dems are pro-life, a number at or around 40%. See [1], [2], and [3]. Their views can't be dismissed out of hand. Thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. I can't say I trust Newsweek as a source of news, and I'm not familiar with Princeton Survey Research Associates International. I would like to see the sample and polling methods they used. I wonder how they might compare to percentages cited in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. SweetNightmares (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I added Pro-life Democrats themselves state that they represent over 40% of Democrats.[53] I suppose most Democrats here think that this is lying nonsensical propaganda. But I want to fairly represent all sides here. The Squicks (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's important what pro-life Democrats think the percentage is. Should we also report African-American Democrats' guesses on what the percentage of African-Americans among Democrats is? If there's a poll stating that more than 40% of Democrats are pro-life, then that's another thing, but who cares what "pro-life Democrats themselves state" the percentage is? —KCinDC (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you misunderstand me. The Pro-life Democrats didn't make up their numbers with their own estimations or surveys; they're interpreting a poll result made by John Zogby. See zogby.com The Squicks (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Zogby server seems to be down at the moment, so I can't see what it says, but if there's a poll result, why not cite the poll rather than talking about what (some unspecified) "pro-life Democrats themselves state"? —KCinDC (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I can't find an exact link to the actual report itself-- I can only find other articles on zogby.com and elsewhere mentioning the study. I know the report itself has to be somewhere on these blasted Intertubes. The Squicks (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Economists

For the life of me, I can't see what the big deal is. Reliable sources tell us that a majority of private, Wall Street economists support the Republicans whereas the majority of academic economists support the Democrats. Why on earth can't the article fairly mention both of these facts? The Squicks (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Democrats

I would like to request an edit to this locked article, adding a section under Civil Libertarians for the new type of Democrat we are seeing this year: the 'Ron Paul Democrat'. Bob Conley, running in South Carolina is a good example. They lie somewhere between Civil Libertarians and Conservative Democrats...so they should get their own subhead. Also links to Democrats For Liberty (DemocratsForLiberty.org) would be good too.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.79.211 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that "Ron Paul Democrats" have that much of a presence to be considered "notable"... if so, they clearly don't know what they believe, as the two (Ron Paul and Democrats) are opposed on virtually every partisan issue except net neutrality. SweetNightmares (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What about civil libertarians who are also progressives? And isn't civil libertarianism part of progressivism. Russ Feingold is a progressive and civil libertarian, for example

minor topographical change needed

I noticed that the following sentence from the economic performance section should be edited. "In Unequal democracy: The political-economy of the new gilded age (Princeton, 2008), Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels presents his research findings that Democratic presidents have generally been more successful in both, spurring overall income growth and creating a more equitable distribution of income since World War II (see table)." First, there should not be a comma after the word "both." Second, this sentence would be improved by breaking it into two sentences. The first sentence should introduce the author, book, and book's topic. The second sentence should discuss the findings. 99.155.157.202 (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the section should be removed. Seems to me that it's either trivia (economic performance in the country is due to many things, not just who occupies the oval office,) or advocacy. Neither of which are appropriate. Jkp1187 (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets do a Stealth Socialism section!

Pres. W Bush, John McCain, and Sara Palin are against stealth socialism. There are many issues where the stealth socialism appears. Barack Obama doing the redistribution of wealth via the rich getting poorer. Federal health care very Canadian in nature and they're socialist. Barack Obama is a stealth socialist in that he's a far left emulating moderate democrat, because of his IQ lvl allows him too. The reason why socialism won't work is Australia is #1 GDP and Hong Kong is the richest city in China. Afghanistan doesn't need as many troops as Pakistan and Iraq, because the war is already being largely won. Barack has the most ear marks between the two candidates. His father was a part of the Kenya socialist union and his connection with terrorist Professor Bill Ayers which teaches socialism. He's lying about reducing taxes, when overall hes raising them and it's only good for democrat negative ads. I believe Barack doesn't like nuclear energy, because he doesn't want to fund Yucca Mountain waste storage. The Congress having the 2nd highest corporate taxes on earth and the highest is Ireland and they're Labor party. Acorn is socialist in that it only does voter fraud on perpose. It has like 50 felons in the organization when the FBI investigated. Democrat party doing race baiting to hide their superiors (Nancy Polisy, Barack Obama, Harry Raid stealth socialism. Renegadeviking13:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the subject of the article, i.e. the Republican Party? Is "anti-Stealth Socialism" part of the official party platform? I've never heard of the term before. If you believe this issue has relevance with respect to the 2008 presidential elections, and can come up with something that is not original research, has a neutral point of view, and can be supported with verifiable and reliable sources, you might want to take it up in one of the candidate articles.DCmacnut<> 18:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Primal Chaos (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is neutral. Brazil, Europe, and Canada have a socialist system and smart people know if it. It's a concept of doing things, and republicans like me think that market socialism is completely alien concept, because we've been capitalist for 200 years. Why is Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh screaming socialism. This is not original research.

Stealth Socialism Resources

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1K4whIv4M0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALTTCC6DcYU

seanhannityfox.blogspot.com/2008/05/socialist-usa-media-cover-up-stoopid.html

forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=977471

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtfrpFK6iPY

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100608/content/01125107.html

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100108/content/01125106.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE48T5Y020080930?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100608/content/01125107.html

http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3742/Default.aspx

blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/05/06/gingrich-warns-fellow-republicans-of-possible-disaster/

forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=975051 (photo of Obama with socialist leader)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_el_pr/palin_14 (to avoid a Great Depression II)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKwZNwdowa4 (video saying using socialism to avoid a Great Depression II)

Renegadeviking15:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, Wikipedia does not even have a article about Stealth socialism, and despite of all the YouTube videos and other resources you listed, I am not convinced that it is a valid concept to describe political realities.

On a side note, many countries have been undemocratic for 200 years, and democracy is a completely alien concept in those countries. That, by itself, does not prove that democracy is a bad concept for those countries (nor does it prove that it is a good concept). But that too, is of no relevance to the subject of this article.

I had rather you could give an answer to the question I posed above: "How does one become a member of the Republican Party?", which nobody seems to be able or willing to answer. Johan Lont (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you can type in "Barack Obama Socialist" into google and find some fascinating facts or even type it into Google Video. We're mirroring the UK and their Labor Party vs. Conservative general elections. Labor party doubles as a liberal politics party to balance the political spectrum. Stealth socialism key is The Democrat Party want to use Stealth Labor Party Politics until after the election when we'll hear how much more socialist the democrat party is. That's past the election though.

[4] Barack denying his redistribution of the wealth is socialist ideology is one stealth tactic to stay competitive in the 2008 election. Stealth socialism is hidden in the word 'nationalization'. Both words mean the same thing. The nationalization of health care is directly cloning Canada's, but a stealth socialism politician wants to use the word 'nationalization' as a "stealth word" instead to win the election knowing damn well the public is against the word socialism. You can sweet talk the American people into it with the words like nationalization. Redistribution of the wealth from the rich to the middle class is considered socialist. Much like how China has no corporate taxes for poorer people in China. In the US, Barack's plan of having no taxes on people earning less then 28,000 a year including illegal aliens is emulating China. The fact that Bill Clinton wasn't as opposed to the military as Barack Obama is says socialism. Not using the most highly advanced military in the world is pretty damn weird for a moderate democrat, but not unusual for a stealth socialist politician. Don't you find that between November 2007 - October 2008, that Barack Obama lies more than John McCain on many topics in that he quote "may not take military option off the table", his "tax cut comments" have double meaning [in that he spends more than McCain, close to a Trillion dollars in new spending], To answer your question on how to become a republican; the congressman absolutely must support Reaganomics and are against The Third Way politics. Being pro-military is highly recommended, but you can avoid it like Ron Paul has seceeded. Due to Ron's higher IQ, he can avoid being impeached much like Barack Obama can avoid obvious Stealth Socialism detection. Republicans against the military or Iraqi war is highly weird. Finally, all Republicans have faith in capitalism w/o Treasurer funding large banks long term and right now it's a 3 year deal. Republicans strongly oppose a post-three year US treasury stake in US financial companies. Republicans are against UN politics, because UN politics don't get things done as quickly, because Russia and China always oppose many ideologies in G8 summits. Renegadeviking2:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you're going to suggest something like "stealth socialism" as a reasonable topic for debate in an atmosphere where objectivity is valued, you might want to come up with sources in support of your claims that are a little more reliable than people like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh.--Apjohns54 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I got Newt Grinwich and Rudy Giuliani saying that stuff. I have Rudy on Meet The Press and Newt at his website. I'll find a Youutbe video quick. There is lots of references. [5][6]Here is a 7 hr Obama biography and it mentions socialism many times. #1 New York Times Best seller done by Dr. Jarmony Corsei himself. He's a part of the Constitutional Party, but it's also right-wing and doesn't mention Constitutional Party at all in his audio. 61 MB download.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=NCIW2DB7

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K2W3KO1Y

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ECBEV7HQ

Renegadeviking2:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that mainstream politicians are a lot better than pundits as sources, but you have to keep in mind that both Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich are Republican politicians, and would thus have an easily-identified ideological bias. It's a common theme in political discourse in this country that people speaking from one side of the spectrum will condemn those on the other side as being in possession of political positions more radical than they actually are. It's true whether somebody is on the left or right; some on the right are quick to denounce measures put forth by left-leaning Democrats as "Socialist", and some on the left have attempted to characterize the measures of Republican administrations as "Fascist" (This has been especially true during the Bush years). I'd still hold off on constructing such a section until a purely objective account can be obtained, maybe look into the characterizations put out by some non-partisan think tanks? I've read a lot of Marx, and I've studied a lot of the historical examples of Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism, and in my personal opinion, Barack Obama is nowhere near being a socialist- much of his platform seems similar to FDR's New Deal, which met with a lot of opposition from leftists because they felt like he was rescuing capitalism, which many now agree he in fact did.--Apjohns54 (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d125d9dbM2U Hehe. I was right all along. Renegadeviking10:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A section on "Stealth Socialism" concerning the Democratic Party veers close to advocacy and is unnecessary. Jkp1187 (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Center, center-left

Are they the former? Or are they the latter?

I think that, since sources disagree and since the party is a big tent with ideological diversity, we should describe them as both in the template. Thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Politicians are typically closer to centrism, but considering the party as a whole, it's probably more accurate to simply say center-left. -- LightSpectra (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that, for some reason, someone has scrubbed the 'center' tag from the Republicans article. That seems to indicate that the 'center' tag should be removed her as well. I would prefer to see both articles say 'center', but... whatever. The Squicks (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

History of the Catholic voter base

perhaps it's worth mentioning the history and evolution of Catholic support for the Democratic party. Seems to me a very-high percentage of Catholics voted for Democrats until 2000 or 2004, with numbers beginning to move toward an even split after Roe v Wade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.12.0 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to create a section about that, I recommend the Catholicism and American politics article which has some good information on the subject. Here are a few more thoughts on the issue;

In the 2004 election there was a little controversy over prominent Catholics who pushed strongly for their congregations to vote Republican over the abortion issue. This offended a lot of the Catholics who'd been active in the areas of social justice, racial equality et al for years, and were appalled that the Catholic hierarchy seemed willing to throw away everything they'd fought for in favor of one single issue. So for 2008, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a "Guide to Faithful Citizenship" that's actually pretty even-handed politically. Briefly, individual Catholics are made aware of the church's position on every issue (it leans left on racial equality, environmental preservation, assisting the poor, etc, and right on abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research) and are left to cast their ballots as their conscience dictates. If you're going to expound upon Catholic voters, that Guide should definitely be included. Here's a link to the summary as I recieved it from the Catholic Student Association at American University (http://aucatholic.net/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=39&Itemid=59).

In my personal opinion, it's an overstatement to say that Church policy on abortion caused the shift among Catholic voters from left to center. It's influenced a lot of voters, yes, but not enough to change the vote single-handedly; the Catholic vote broke for Clinton and Gore in 1992, 1996 and 2000, well after Roe v. Wade had been passed into law. It's a mistake to think that Catholic voters will react differently from other Americans at the polls. The truth is that the Catholic vote has largely been the same as the national vote since the eighties, perhaps earlier. Why? Because they now consider themselves part and parcel of the American people, not a group apart or a repressed minority as they did before, and as some other ethnic or religious groups (African Americans, Muslim Americans) still do.

Why did Catholics initially (late nineteenth and early twentieth century) vote Democrat? Partly it's because the Democrats appealed to their belief in social justice - but mostly, it's because the Dems protected them against the threat of pietistic Protestants, represented by the Republicans.

Why do Catholics today break even, usually behaving like the overall national vote? Partly it's because the GOP used the abortion issue to peel some of them away from the Democrats - but mostly, it's because Catholics no longer feel threatened or stigmatized by the Protestant majority, and can therefore afford to vote like any "ordinary" American citizen, rather than as a subset needing special protection.

It's not values - it's identity politics, and the way they stopped mattering to most Catholics. In my own opinion, which you're welcome to disagree with. 147.9.232.187 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Party (Confederate States)?

Why not a separate page for the Democratic Party of the confederacy? I'm sure there were some differences between it and its northern (Union) counterpart. The Confederacy considered itself either a successor to the United States or a separate nation depending who you asked, so in either case the Democratic Party of the Confederate States of America was its own entity. --Mrdie (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I made an article here. --Mrdie (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a review

This article is not up to A-class standard, there are numerous chunks of the article that are completely unsourced. The article needs reviewing. — Realist² 14:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both this and the Republican Party article don't have enough people keeping watch, and there's frequent POV pushing like those hideous graphs in the "Academia" and "Labor" sections from someone promoting a book. —KCinDC (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

First Major American Political Party To Nominate An African American For President

Shouldn't there be some mention of the fact that this is the first major party to nominate an African American for president? It is kind of historical that's all and this being an encyclopedia, you would think something like that would be included. It's mentioned on Barack Obama's page but nothing on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.228.231 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably be a good idea to throw it in there that they were the first major political party to *elect* an African American president. And a Catholic president. Also a woman presidential candidate in 1984.

Historically disenfranchised citizens of the United States, unite! God, I'm sorry, I love my party. 147.9.232.179 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

racist vandalism

The ethnic minorities section needs to be removed. It is both racist and unfounded. YVNP (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Center

What's with this classification of the Democratic Party as Center? Especially on social issues. What's with the "from a global perspective" nonsense. What's with you people giving more weight to the liberal opinions of white Europeans? Ever been to a muslim nation such as Iran? Would they consider a party that supports gay marriage and allows legal atheism to be Center? The U.S. also has some of the most liberal abortion policies in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.244.24 (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The truth is that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are both centrist. This is how they are taught in US political science classes. Two party systems are centrist when winner takes all. Both parties must appeal to centrist voters. Contrast this with the Italian proportional system with Neo-facists on the right and Communists on the left. Indeed, Republican and Democratic parties are centrist from a US perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gx872op (talk • contribs) 10:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. The Democratic Party is not centre-right from a global perspective: it is centre-left. The party was definitely centre-right until thirty of fifty years ago, but now it is clearly centre-left, with both centrist and more radical wings. --Checco (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Thirty or fifty years ago?"

Try seventy or eighty years ago, at the very least. Left and right are economic terms first and foremost, and on economics, the Democratic Party has been solidly left-wing since the days of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal at least (and was trending that way for a very long time before). Retirement security, social programs to help the poor, and now the pressure for universal health care and for more regulation of the economy... all coming from the Democrats, as they have been for the better part of a century.

Same on non-economic issues. International relations - since Woodrow Wilson they've supported multilateral policies and international institutions like the League of Nations, the UN or the ICJ. Civil rights - Roosevelt's administration opened the door to minorities in the Democratic Party (particularly Jews and Catholics), Truman desegregated the military, Kennedy pushed for the civil rights act and Johnson got it passed. Social issues; the Democrats' hostility to religious puritanism in government (i.e. the religious right) goes back to the turn of the century at least, with conflicts over Prohibition played against a larger background of WASP purists who supported the GOP versus the religious diversity and liberalism of inner-city immigrants who supported the Dems.

The Democratic Party has been left-wing for a lot longer than you say (I'd say a full century at least). "Center" left, yes, very much so, but left-wing nonetheless. 147.9.238.235 (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Senate seats, 48 / House, 236

Democratic Party has 58 senate seats, not 48. Democratic Party has 256 house seats, not 236.

The information is obsolete, I tryied to change it but I don't know how to change the summary box.

[3] "President-elect Barack Obama resigned from the Senate effective November 16, 2008, dropping the total number of Democrats to 48, and the total number of senators to 99. However, Independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders caucus with the Democratic Party, giving the Democratic Caucus the majority (50/99)

"Seats in the Senate 48/100 [3]"

Please, can somebody change it? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.146.228.170 (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing the current Congress with the Congress elect that doesn't take office until January 3rd. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gays

• It appears that someone replaced the past section with someone written along the lines of "We're Democrats, and- for you gays out there who are a little less than pleased at our performance- rest assured: We're fighting for YOU!" *Bites lip, makes the Bill Clinton thumb.* Not only was it blatantly promotional, but it had zero sources (which you would expect since it was factually incorrect). So, I added this:

The Democratic Party is divided on the subject of same-sex marriage. Some members favor civil unions for same-sex couples, liberals commonly favor legalized marriage, and others are opposed to same-sex marriage on religious or ideological grounds. A June 2008 Newsweek poll found that 42% of Democrats support it while 23% support civil unions or domestic partnership laws and 28% oppose any legal recognition at all.[55] The 2004 Democratic National Platform stated that marriage should be defined at the state level and it repudiated the Federal Marriage Amendment.[56] Senator John Kerry, Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, did not support same-sex marriage.

President-elect Barack Obama has stated that he considers marriage to be "something sanctified between a man and a woman" and has cited his Christian faith as the reason for his belief.[57] He campaigned for the election promising to "give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples" in civil unions.[58] At the same time, Obama opposed California's Prop 8[59] and has promised to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.[58] Obama has stated that generally "decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."[60]

A broad majority of Democrats have supported other LGBT related laws such as extending hate crime statutes to cover violence against LGBT people, legally preventing discrimination against LGBT people in the workforce, and repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Some issues are controversial while others have wide support. A 2006 Pew Research Center poll of Democrats found that 55% support gay adoption with 40% opposed while 70% support gays in the military with only 23% opposed.[61]

Other than prehaps adding some info about how gay people have been elected into office by Democrats, I don't see a problem. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe Biden's Role

Joe Biden's no longer a Senator, he's Vice President. Does he still belong in the top info box? I don't *think* so, but I don't know for sure. Joe (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you mean Biden's place in the main infobox as "President of the Senate" then that does belong there because the Vice President is the President of the Senate.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Social Democracy

While I would love for it to happen, the Democrats are far from Social Democrats.--67.240.87.16 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Iraq

Obama says that all but 50,000 will be gone by August 31, 2010. Democrats and Republicans alike support his plan.

I've tried to present this information as neturally as possible. The Squicks (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

DEMS disambiguation page

I came here looking for information on DEMS (the radio service) and got redirected here, without even a link to a disambiguation page like most other acronyms have. Shouldn't this be added? Fhaigia (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the radio service have an article on WP? If so, we could add a disambiguation line at the head of the article, similar to what is at the Republican Party article for GOP. As it stands now, I don't believe there are many articles using that acronym to justify a stand-alone disambiguation page for the D.E.M.S. Like GOP, Dems is common shorthand for the U.S. Democratic Party.DCmacnut<> 23:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Democratic Party (also known as The Democrat Party)

Response to Primalchaos and Jersyko concerning use of the phrase "also known as The Democrat Party". I understand what you are saying, but is WIKI about accuracy or about political correctness? Regardless of the positive or negative connotation some choose to place on the noun 'Democrat' or the adjective 'Democratic', the issue here is not one of spin. The specific issue is whether the 'subject' of the Wiki article, the American political party commonly known as 'The Democratic Party' is 'also known as' -- or known by -- other words. And also whether those words are ones commonly applied to the subject, and commonly understood to mean the subject. If the answer is yes, then incorporating the words that the subject is 'also known as' is a valid and appropriate usage, and that includes whether or not one chooses to interpret those 'other words' in positive or negative light. I will also post this message on the article's discussion page. Fungible 09:40, 05 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political forum, there is already a page for the history of the political epithet at Democrat Party (phrase). Any such references in this article will be removed.--Jersey Devil (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jersey Devil. The use of "Democrat Party" in a disparaging manner is well documented in reliable sources as demonstrated at the article linked by JD; there's no valid reason to use it in the first sentence of this article. Also, please note that in order to to link to user pages, one must include the word "user" in a wikilink. For example Jersyko is not my user page, User:Jersyko is. I moved the comment you posted at Talk:Jersyko to my user talk page at User talk:Jersyko. · jersyko talk 14:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. The word phrase is noted in the "Name and Symbols" section and that is more than accommodating for this. Popular disparaging word plays like "Micro$oft" for Microsoft by its critics don't show up in their article and with good reason. See Satiric misspelling. Settler (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

One could also say that the Republican Party is also known as the Repugnant Party, but such a statement would be no more appropriate than the parallel remark about the Democrat Party. Encyclopedias are not about propagating insults. Paul (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan

Democrats in the House of Representatives and United States Senate near-unanimously voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists against "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States" in Afghanistan in 2001, supporting the NATO coalition invasion of the nation. Most elected Democrats continue in their support of the Afghanistan conflict, and some have voiced concerns that the Iraq War is shifting too many resources away from the presence in Afghanistan.

The fact that a large minority of Democrats oppose the war is certainly notable. I added this: Some Democrats also oppose the invasion. In spring 2008, Gallup found that 41% of Democrats called the invasion a "mistake" while a 55% majority disagreed. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• It could be added that those democrats opposes the war now that it is politically inconvenient however when politically advantages after September 11th, 2001. Of the democrats that voted on the war only one, voted against war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.65.206.180 (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I also added Senator John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President in 2004, did not support same-sex marriage while 2008 candidate Barack Obama does so. Most Democrats have supported other civil rights laws such as extending hate crime statutes to cover violence against LGBT people. and Democratic Presidental candidate Barack Obama advocates a withdrawal of combat troops within Iraq by late 2010 with a residual force of peacekeeping troops left in place. I know this page has been a battleground in the past but I can't see anything controversial about these statements. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a ref for Obama's support of same-sex marriage? I think he's opposed to federal legislation banning same-sex marriage, but that's not the same thing. —KCinDC (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... his position is actually the most absolutely nuanced that any person can get. He:

1) Personally opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds. 2) Yet he sent his congratulations to couples who recently got married. 3) Has not expressed support for legislative measures to legalize it. 4) Yet he opposes iniatives banning it. 5) And he supports court decisions legalizing it.

[7] [8] [9] [10] GOOD GRIEF!

The Senator John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President in 2004, did not support same-sex marriage while 2008 candidate Barack Obama does so should probably be removed.24.32.204.89 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. And since 'when' does Barack Obama support same-sex marriage?! SweetNightmares (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop adding Social Democracy

Could those people whom keep adding Social Democracy cut it out. I say this as a Democratic Socialist whom would love for the party to be more left-wing. The Democrats are far from being anywhere near Social Democrats however, far! Indeed they would almost be Conservatives from a world-point of view. No major elected official, or non elected offical, from the Democratic Party espouses Social Democracy.

And to those who claim some members hold Social Democratic views; perhaps, but I'll bet one or two Republicans also hold fascist or national conservative views, and yet we aren't adding that to their article are we?--Saffron831 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"outright" vs "caucus" majority

The article said "the party holds an outright majority in the House of Representatives and the Democratic caucus (including two independents) constitutes a majority in the United States Senate." I have changed this to "the party holds an outright majority in both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

The original was qualified that way because they didn't hold an outright majority in the 110th Congress: "Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes." Notice correct use of the past tense in the 110th Congress article

dbw (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Liberal International

I can find no evidence to support the claim made on this page that the democratic party belongs to the "Liberal International" organization. They are not listed as members on the organization's website. Frankly, I would be downright surprised if they were members, considering the fact that democratic politicians run away from the "Liberal" label like the plague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.5.98 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. I have removed that bit. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I got a good chuckle out of the phrase "Historically, the party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities;". Review the historic voting record and it's comical how wrong this is about ethnic minorities. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.157.113 (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for your opinions.

There are many internet forums for discussing your opinions about whether the Democratic Party is centrist, centre-right, centre-left, liberal, progressive, whatever. Wikipedia is NOT one such internet forum. All posted material must be cited from reliable sources per Wiki Guidelines.

One thing we do NOT do on Wikipedia is debate things on talk pages and try to come to a consensus on what Wikipedia's opinion on something is. Wikipedia doesn't have opinions on anything but Wikipedia policy, or at least ideally we do not. As such, debating about whether the Democratic party is "Liberal" or "Centre-right" or whatever is pointless, unless you are providing a RELIABLE AND DEMONSTRABLY NON-PARTISAN source for your claim.

I will do my best to protect this article from unscrupulous preaching of opinion, even if it means we won't (just like EB doesn't) have a sentence addressing what so-called political ideology the party supposedly espouses. Same for the GOP article. MarcelB612 (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Center-left incorrect

In the lead it states the Democratic Party supports a center-left platform. That's quite incorrect. They are center-right. Centric if you want to be kind. Everywhere but the United States recognizes this. Anyone with any background in political theory can easily tell you the Democratic platform is center-right. I've update the lead to reflect these facts. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You've provided absolutely no source for your claims. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, if a true center-left/social democratic party came in the US it would easily be regarded as "communist/socialist". In world-politics, if similar parties like the Democrats and Republicans existed in a country they would most likely both be to the right of the center, and thus cooperating easily in coalitions and such. Besides some individual social issues like healthcare and so on, in reality US elections is voting for either "free market liberalism" or "slightly regulated free market liberalism". Of the full spectrum of politics, the current political state in the US is actually quite narrow. (For the record, I am not social democratic myself) -GabaG (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

To expand, the only thing I could agree with the Democrats being Center-left is that they might be socially Center-left/Centrist. If someone try to say that the Democrats are fiscally Center-left they truly can't have any kind of understanding of economic politics. In my country, Norway, I think the true full political spectrum is nicely representated (in Sweden for instance, it is not as much, as all major parties pretty much revolve around social democracy/liberalism): The major "left"-bloc consisting of (from far-left): Socialist Left Party (socialist)-Norwegian Labour Party (social democratic)-Centre Party (centrist), and the "right"-bloc of (from center-right): Christian Democratic Party (christian democratic)-Liberal Party (social liberalism)-Conservative Party (conservative liberalism)-Progress Party (national conservatism/classical liberalism). In Norway the parties that probably most closely resembles the Dems and GOP would be the Liberal Party and the Progress Party. The reason that Americans tend to believe that the Democrats are "left-wing" is in my mind merely because of the fundamentally strong standing of free market capitalism in the society, so that even the modest regulations will automatically be deemed as socialistic/leftist. This is because a national politically standard is potentially pretty relative, in the Soviet Union for instance the Democrats would probably be viewed as far-right. I suggest at least firmly establishing in the lead that the Democrats are only center-left by American standards. -GabaG (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Relatively speaking, many of the ideas held by the Democratic Party are solidly left-wing, prehaps even far left, when you take an international view. Take, for example, their support of the abortion of healthy, viable infants in the last term of pregnancy for any reason (my boyfriend left me, I don't want to hurt my job career, etc.). Most of the centrist, non-right-wing parties of Europe would regard this as barbarism. Even those on the center-left would believe that this practice should be legal would balk at the idea of having it funded by the taxpayer. The Squicks (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See Abortion_law#National_laws. Even, say, France won't consider pure personal choice alone enough to merit the abortion of a viable end-term pregnancy. The Squicks (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing 'campaign'

What reasoning is there to remove the word campaign from 'promoting Democratic campaign activities'? -Falcon8765 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Democrats have now turned against the war in Afghanistan?

The Washington Post says:

Should Obama embrace his generals' call for even more forces, he would risk alienating some of his staunchest supporters. Although 60 percent of Americans approve of how Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan, his ratings among liberals have slipped, and majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troop levels.

Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs, and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels.

Including this alone would smack of recentism, but this is the same story that I've seen in other sources that- unfortunately- I can't recall at the moment. Does anyone else know of any collaborating sources? The Squicks (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I found another one. The Squicks (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"safe,legal and rare"

Quoth the article: "The Democratic Party, in its national platforms since 1992, has called for abortion to be "safe, legal and rare" — namely, keeping it legal by rejecting laws that allow governmental interference in abortion decisions, and reducing the number of abortions by promoting both knowledge of reproduction and contraception, and incentives for adoption."

No, dears, that is wrong.

The 'safe, legal and rare' language was cut in advance of the 2008 election.

The 2004 platform (w/ slr)

We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf (pg. 38)

The 2008 platform (wo/ slr)

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empowers people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs. http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5f0f_bcm6b5l7a.pdf (pg. 50)

76.169.91.14 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE SOMEONE WITH PERMISSION CHANGE IT!!! It's like it's mocking me now. 76.169.91.14 (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Education section misleading

The graphs give the percentage of Democrats and Republicans who are 4-year college graduates, but that is the wrong thing to use. We should use a graph of the percentage of 4-year college graduates who are Democrats and Republicans, and reword the section appropriately - while it is true that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats have college degrees, this is largely because the Democrats have millions more voters who are black and hispanic, and thus have below-average rates of college degrees. If you look at the absolute percentage of people with bachelor's degrees who are Democrats and Republicans, it gives a far more accurate picture. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this current means of comparison would be misleading. While I agree that it would be good to include the additional statistic you suggest, these two different means of comparison merely seem to demonstrate different aspects of the differences in the constituencies of the two parties. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

To assume that the failure of Democrats to achieve a higher rate of education due to race is offensive. It would be equally detrimental (though likely more accurate) to attribute the lack of educational aptitude to the tendency for Left leaning individuals to assume a posture of holding one's hand out rather than applying a nose to the grindstone. --Polipolly (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The statement describing the graphs does not accurately reflect the content of the graphs. It says "Although Democrats are well represented at the post graduate level, self-identified Republicans appear to dominate among those who have, at the least, attained a 4-year college degree." This implies that the graph represents the percentage of college graduates who are Republicans/Democrats, when in fact the graph represents the percentage of Republicans/Democrats who are college graduates. The wording should be changed to reflect this, and to avoid misleading the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waceaquinas (talk • contribs) 01:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Center/center-left

Before I even state an opinion on this seemingly heated issue, I would like to call your attention to this site: www.politicalcompass.org

Every major "left of center" party in the liberal democracies it maps out occupies the center-right region of the map. This includes the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Labour Party (U.K.), and the Australian Labor Party. --Shamir1 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Future Trends?

I'm noticing a "future trends" section on the Republican Party entry... how about we include one for this entry also? 152.13.187.95 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Name and Symbols

I don't know a lot about US politics, and I came here to find out about the history of the donkey and elephant as the main US party symbols. I noticed that although the section on symbols is quite high up in the Republican Party page, it's very far down on the Democratic Party page. I think it would make sense to try and match the order of the sections, so that it's easier to compare and contrast them. I don't want to mess around myself as my knowledge is quite limited though, and I haven't had time to go through the archives to see if this was discussed previously. Snorgle (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Republican comparison

I've noticed that this article, compared to the one on the Republican Party, seems to be longer and have more subpoints. Shouldn't two articles with topics that are related but different have the same format?

I also find it amusing to point out that this discussion page is much more tame and civil than the one on the Republican page, since there are so many ill-wishers on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Academia

I just restored some graphs pertaining to 4-year college education by gender and party identification. Although these graphs present information that may not fit the prevailing assumption that Democrats are more likely to have college degrees, the information is well-sourced and relevant. I don't see how we can state the claim that Democrats are more likely to have post-graduate degrees (disputed by many) and leave out the undisputed fact that Republicans are more likely to have 4-year college degrees. If anyone wants more evidence (e.g., from Pew or Gallup) let me know because there is plenty of it. Nicholas007 (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Center?!

Calling the democratic party "center" is a joke! They are the political left in the United States, and the leadership of the party is far from center. The party is center-left. period, just as the republican party is center-right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.2.61 (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international website, and as such it should use "absolute" worldwide references, not references relative to the United States. As far as worldwide political considerations go, Democrats are solidly center if not center-right. Meanwhile calling the Republica Party "center-right" is utterly insane at both the US and international levels. They're at best solidly right-wing, and many of their policies and behaviors are the hallmark of far-right parties in the rest of the world. Masklinn (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as worldwide political considerations go, Democrats are solidly center if not center-right.

This is a silly statement and you know it. Try going to Spain, Germany, Ireland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and other similar countries and argue that infants in the process of being born should be allowed to have their skulls crushed in since they happen to be disabled. That would be regarded as 'left-wing' at least ('far-left' most likely).

In any rate, the article currently says this=

Fiscal: Center-left, Center

Social: Center-left, Center

Which is true, given that the party is a big tent with elements of each. The Squicks (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Got to ask: These countries that would consider the murder of disabled children as a 'left wing' policy: you sure about that? Either I don't understand what you said there, or I think you might have your wires crossed on a massive scale. Pollythewasp (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks' referring to the abortion debate, specifically as it relates to partial-birth abortion. I don't know much about abortion politics in other countries, but from what little I know, I believe it's true that the Democratic party is firmly to the left by European standards. As a general rule - and of course there's much variation on this rule - Democrats tend to defend a woman's right to choose pre-viability of the fetus(for any rationale she likes), oppose requiring parental notification in the case of minors, oppose partial-birth abortion bans that don't contain health exceptions, etc. In the U.S., pro-choice positions are associated with the left, and I suspect the same is true in Europe. 24.5.193.228 (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In a lot of European countries abortion is not a live partisan issue. In most the debate is about the details (mainly cut-off times and also precise requirements - e.g.how many doctors) not about the basics of whether it should be allowed or not. In most countries you can find both pro life and pro choice politicians in all the main parties and it is hardly ever an issue that determines candidate or leadership selection. Activist groups do exist but they don't try to hijack political parties as vehicles to impose their position on everyone. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTCHOLA

Which is true

Absolutely not. It might be defensible relative to social policy, but relative to fiscal policy they should be labelled Center or Center, Center-right. Center-left and leftist elements fiscally are treated as extremists even within the democratic party — Masklinn (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The terms 'Center-left' and 'leftist' do not mean the same thing, and you should not pretend that they are the same thing. The Squicks (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling the party left-wing is ridiculous of course and even calling it center-left is barely accurate. Elected Democrats are having a hard time getting their members to support a compromise in the form of a public option for healthcare much less single-payer like most countries have, nor can they keep their party together on the issue of abortion (see Stupak Amendment), the compromise of civil unions for gays, they're having trouble ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, enacting employment non-discrimination for gays, immigration reform or climate change legislation. 18 Senators of 60 are moderates that come from conservative states like Indiana, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Montana, West Virginia and Alaska. Blue Dogs and New Democrats make up a huge portion of the house Democrats as well and their influence is undeniable. Its foolish to say there are not hugely influential moderate and centrist elements in the Democratic Party.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Israel

The article notes "[disambiguation needed]" regarding George Miller. The reference should be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Miller_(California) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sganot (talk • contribs) 07:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputable statements on the Democratic Party (United States) page

Problem Statements in Wikipedia page on the Democratic Party (United States)

These are two statements I found misleading when I reviewed this page. I was actually searching for information on the Democratic Party as dominated by attorneys. The party really should be renamed the "Lawyer's Party".

1. “Many Democrats are opposed to the use of torture against individuals apprehended and held prisoner by the U.S. military, and hold that categorizing such prisoners as unlawful combatants does not release the U.S. from its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Democrats contend that torture is inhumane, decreases the United States' moral standing in the world, and produces questionable results. Democrats largely spoke out against waterboarding.”

My objection to the misleading nature of this comment is this: -It implies that conservatives are somehow in favor of torture. -It presumes a universal agreement that waterboarding constitutes torture. More appropriately the statement should read "Many Americans are opposed...".

2. “Today, Democrats advocate more social freedoms, affirmative action, balanced budget, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (mixed economy).”

I find this statement self-contradictory, and certainly false in it's premise. More social freedoms? I must say that the party of lawyers is all about increasing the burden of the law upon individuals. An obvious example is the party's stance on 2nd ammendment rights. The most recent administration, along with Congress, clearly disregards Constitutional restraints at every turn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmland1 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

End "center right/center left" discussion!

This "discussion" about the Democratic and Republican Party's alignment has gone nowhere and clarified nothing. There is obviously no consensus. There are other online sites where this can be argued out. The original author made a good faith effort to describe each party's alignment and perhaps it should be left as is. Foreignshore (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Foreignshore

ADD: The mud slinging and language used in some places here is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia. (I removed the F word off one obviously intelligent, clear thinking individual's post.) Discussion is just that-- free of insult-slinging and profanity. Keep this off Wikipedia or I will remove it myself. Foreignshore (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Foreignshore

Agree. The discussion is getting nowhere. Opinions aside, lets review the facts:

1. Discussion as to whether or not the Democratic party is center-right has failed to reach a consensus.
2. The article has been edited to state that the global perspective of the Democratic Party is center-right without consensus.
3. The citation given for the claim that the party is center-right is not an established, reliable source.
4. The citation does not even claim that the Democratic party is center-right, making the information a violation of WP:NOR.

Based on the lack of a reliable source and consensus to support the change I'm restoring the information to it's earlier format. The claim should not be brought up again until it is supported with a reliable source.--Abusing (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Center-Left?

How are they Center-Left? They can be called Center(liberal) at least, but they are not any more left than that. I think we should change it unless someone can prove that they are center-left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire 55 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to the "Center-Right" Republican Party, the Dems are "far left". It just all depends on who you ask: however, the consensus is that the Dems are "center left" and the GOP is "center right". --Midnite Critic (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then they are Socialist, Social Democratic, or Social Liberal, Which they aren't. Compare the Democratic party to the New Democratic Party of Canada which is socialist/social democratic and they don't match. Now try matching them with the Liberal Party of Canada, which can range from Social Liberal to Liberal and they don't match "completly", but do a little bit. Now the Conservative Party of Canada, which is not as right as the Republicans, but still is Center-right, and they don't match, but they do match a little bit too. If you look at this they are a Liberal Conservative party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fire 55 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In countries with a well established two party system "left" and "right" tend to be defined by the respective positions of those two parties far more than any abstract concept of some over arching "left" and "right" spectrum. Unless you're arguing the Democrats are to the right of the Republicans, it seems pretty clear that they're the centre left part of US politics. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would call the Republican Party right-wing, bordering on far-right, and rate the Democratic Party as barely avoiding center-right status (despite the best efforts of the DLC to push it in that direction). 71.203.209.0 (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• • On the national level, the Democrats are simply considered left, and the Republicans are simply considered right.
  • On the international level, the Democrats would be considered center-right. They're more pro-business than their counterparts in Europe or Canada, even with the arrival of "Third Way" politics in those parts; and they usually (though not always) advocate moderate regulation of the economy, as opposed to nationalization as the social-democrats in Europe have supported for ages.
  • On the international level, the Republicans would be considered far right. Partly because business has more power in the U.S. than in Europe or Canada, which encourages the GOP to move even further to the right; partly because of the hard-core nationalism seen in foreign policy; partly because of the theocratic inclinations of the Religious Right, which have no counterpart anywhere else in the world. (The closest equivalent would be the neo-nationalist movements in Europe, like the French Front National or Jorg Haider in Austria, but they don't have the kind of power the fundamentalist movement does in the United States. Not even close).
  • Will the GOP in its current form ever mellow out? Certainly would be nice, but they'll be a far right party for the forseeable future. 147.9.233.254 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the democrats are centre right. Since this website is an international one, I don't see how the national level would matter. Unless of course you are advocating that wikipedia should only cater to Americans. http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by HUGENAT2 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hugenat2 hit the nail on the head. Judged against parties such as the British or Canadian Conservatives and the Gaullists, the Democrats definitely qualify as center-right. The mere fact that a majority of them oppose single-payer health care indicates this. See my remarks on the Republican Party talk page.Amyzex (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time Political Compass is not a reliable analysis that trumps the conventional terms, it is a website trying to promote its own subjective interpretation and says nothing about its methodology. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In the mostly two party system that the US has, one is Left and the other is Right. All this Republicans are far-right and Democrats are center is subjective nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.4.52 (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is center-left, not left-wing. Left-wing positions that are taken for granted in Europe, Canada and parts of Asia, in the U.S. are either soft-peddled, toned down, moderated or completely abandoned by the Democratic Party in an attempt not to appear "too extreme."

- Instead of government nationalization, they tend to only advocate regulation, respecting the integrity of the private sector while the purely left-wing reaction is usually to nationalize it.

- Have since the Reagan revolution embraced deregulation and the private sector to a certain extent, balancing between labor and business (see Bill Clinton and Third Way) where the purely left-wing reaction would be pro-labor, damn business.

- Have to soft-peddle their stances on social issues such as abortion, darwinism and gay marriage where a purely left-wing reaction would be to endorse and applaud all of them.

- Have as often as not embraced the unilateral, aggressive streak of U.S. foreign policy.

The Republican Party by contrast is rabidly far-right, proudly and openly pursuing policies which in most other democratic nations have been dismissed not only as extremist but pure lunacy.

- Welfare state; seventy years after the New Deal, the GOP is still happily trying to privatize social security and attacks even the slightest increase in government welfare programs. In no other major democracy can a party so adamantly oppose guaranteed health care, or even think about attacking retirement security.

- Business and labor; while the Democratic Party since Roosevelt has tried to strike a balance between labor and business, the Republican Party is overwhelmingly pro-business and hasn't even the slightest interest in unions and try to run them out of business every chance they get. (Enough of them still don't even believe in minimum wage).

- Ultra-nationalist rhetoric; see the blind worship of the U.S. military by the population, the knee-jerk support for any politician who waves the flag and apple pie in voters' faces. The war in Iraq could not have happened in any other major democracy.

- The religious right. Nowhere else in the world, democratic or not, could a political party seriously question the theory of evolution and be seen as anything other than complete lunatics. That something like the religious right can exist in the U.S. (and there is no equivalent on the left) and actually be taken seriously is a testament to just how far to the right the nation is.

The Democrats are not left-wing, not by international standards. They're center left, advocating moderately leftist position but with far too many concessions to the free market, nationalism, religious fanaticism et al to be called truly left-wing. Nor are the Republicans run of the mill right-wing, they're extremists advocating a system that died between sixty and forty years ago in the rest of the free world.

Cheer up. In Europe, it's the other way around... "right-wing" parties like the UMP or CDU are actually center-right, while the "left-wing" parties could be characterized more as far-left. 147.9.229.4 (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To an extent, but please don't let your very obvious political bias cloud your judgement too much 147 71.216.157.246 (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

By international standards the democrats are center right and the republicans are far right. I think people think that the dems are left wing to try to distinguish them from the reps. 24.79.129.48 (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In the United States, the Democratic Party is considered to be the centre-left party, as opposed to the Republican Party that is centre-right. While internationally the Democratic party may be seen as right wing, in the American political spectrum, it is considered left of center. Seeing as this is an American political party, the American political spectrum should be used as reference. 76.29.110.161 (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on the Republican Party article, the Republican party are center-right and the democrat party are center-left. Putting the "center" first seems to confuse some of the less "well read" viewers on these article. Center-left/right means that you're on the left/right part of the scale without being at an extreme end. No one can seriously say that either major party in the United States has gone to the extreme end of the political spectrum yet. Anyone who claims any different has an agenda and is just trying to make the other side look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.103.123 (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Democrats are Centre-Right

The United States has a very unique political spectrum that is vastly pro-business. Right Wingers might disagree but this is because they're FAR to the right themselves. The point is that The Democratic Party in America is a CENTRIST Party with small elements of both liberal-left and conservative members. The New Democrat Coalition, the DLC and the Blue Dogs FAR outnumber the Progressive and Left elements though. Most people erroneously place the Democrats in the leftist category because of their social stances on abortion, gay marriage and gun control, which is stupid considering the political spectrum is one based on the fiscal stance. Liberals in this nation are really moderates and the elements that are mainstream in most of Europe (Socialists, Social Democrats, Progressives) are marginalized as "far" left. I think there should be a sentence in this article that explains that in the US political spectrum the party is considered centre-left but on the international scale it's a Centre-Right Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Considering the wealth of the average American compared to other nationals, the Democratic party is rather leftist for its demographic. Abductive (reasoning) 08:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Factor analysis ha shown that the political spectrum is actually two-fold. One fairly clean way of breaking it down is social freedom/restriction and economic freedom/restriction. Abortion and all that play quite nicely into the former category. You can look it up on wikipedia political spectrum. Kevin Baas^talk 14:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Seats in Senate

The U.S. Democratic party has 58 senate seats, not 60. The majority caucus, which includes the Democrats is 60, but only 58 of these people are members of the Democratic party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyjag (talk • contribs) 07:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Solution to the Center-left or center argument

Okay, since there seems to be some disagreement over whether we should say that they are center-left(on the American Spectrum) or center (International Spectrum), perhaps we should say something like

Center-left(American Spectrum) Center(International)

What are everyone's thoughts on the matter? 76.29.110.161 (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe removing Center all together is more proper as of right now the majority of "friendly" nations to ours are held by I.D.U. member parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.212.89 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I second that. If the views of the IDU parties are accepted as the standard, then the Democrats are a left-of-center party internationally. That shouldn't be an offensive or POV issue, given that the GOP are only listed as center-right.Sadistik (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, we can fairly state that both parties are dead center, largely the same, & just leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.113.143 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Party size and influence

You need to have a closer look at the citations. It's all there. Also have a look at the article for the Chinese Communist Party. It's the world's second largest party with 70 million people. The Democrats have a membership of 72 million. I added the comment about Democrats being the dominant party because it has been the majority party in the United States for most of its existence, although clearly not all of it. This is common knowledge in the United States. I'm going to revert your change. If this bothers you then it looks like we'll have to work out a compromise. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If the party is the largest in the world then you need reliable references to prove it. And just because you think it's common knowledge that the Democrats have "dominated" American politics, does not mean it is. I seriously doubt if you asked most people on the street, that they could name the three branches of government or their elected officials much less what party has "dominated" the US for the longest. Also the term is very vague. Dominated in what terms? Controlled the most state legislatures? The most time controlling both chambers of congress or just one? How do you count split chamber control? Do you factor in the President at the time? What about the fact that more Republicans have been President than Democrats? It's simply too vague to added in the lede.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You didn't read the cititations carefully. All of the information I claim is there in the citations. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your reference was a book defending conservatism saying that conservatism will win the day in American politics written by two conservatives. I'm not going to read a biased book to find one or two tiny references. You also haven't discussed how the claim that Democrats have dominated American politics is too vague or answered any of the questions I posed.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Books are acceptable citations on Wikipedia even if you're not willing to read them and it's pointless to cite common knowledge. If that's the case we might as well cite the fact humans need air to survive or that chickens lay eggs. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely missing the point and so far have failed to contest anything I've said. Of course books are used as references in Wikipedia, as well they should, they are vital sources of knowledge for anyone. That being said, the book in question is promoting conservatism and is written by conservative writers, this makes it an unreliable source because of its biased approach and point of view. If you can find reliable sources that say the Democratic Party has dominated American politics or one that says it's the largest party in the world, then we'll have a discussion. As for the "humans need air" and "chickens lay eggs" analogy, it's a ridiculous comparison that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one on Wikipedia expects others to read entire books for references and I'm not the one citing common knowledge, you are when you said it was common knowledge that Democrats have dominated American political life. I look forward to working with you to improve this article with reliable references.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil Libertarians

The "protectionism, corporate welfare, government debt," bit is kind of misleading, the idea that civil libertarianism has anything to do with economics is debatable at best as you can see by reading the first few paragraphs of the article on libertarianism, i know in the USA libertarianism is often seen side by side free market capitalism, but in the rest of the world its got less association, could someone who aint a wikinoob/lazy like me fix this please, or put a "neutrality is disputed" tag at the civil libertarian section. Thanks. 86.131.212.67 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I hadn't noticed. But you're right, civil libertarianism has little to do with economics. I think the best thing to do would be to expand this section to include libertarians and civil libertarians.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Civil Libertarianism is a totally social issue, and has nothing to do with economics. There are multiple parties that favor civil libertarianism in the U.S., and they fall all over the economic spectrum (Libertarian, Democrat, Green). ReignMan (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Center-left/center-right/center

Since the Democratic Party is ideologically all over the place and has no real unified goal, wouldn't it make more since just to list the party as center? Center-left makes absolutely no since; it is associated with social democracy. Would anyone here try to tell me that the Democratic Party of the United States is ideologically the same as say the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party? Of course not . . sbrianhicks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

American politics don't make sence, don't try to make a meaning out of something which is ment to be a puzzle for the rest of us. --TIAYN (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that they are ideologically all over the place but it seems roughly that 40% are progressive (which is basically European social democracy), 40% centrist and 20% conservative. As much as people want to say American progressivism is different from social democracy there really isn't that much difference if you look at the aims (single-payer healthcare, universal education, regulations and market interventions, progressive taxation). Even if you disagree about the similarity between American progressivism and European social democracy, it's still worth noting that social liberalism is often considered center-left but sometimes considered centrist. That seems to fit overall with the Democratic Party, somewhere between center and center-left, which is what is currently in the info-box.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but look at politicians who come from the party: Obama, Reid, Hilary Clinton; they are all on the right of the political spectrum. There seem to be few Progressives in Congress. Even "progressives" tend to be right-wing. Obama calls himself a "progressive" yet supports the death penalty, the war, took record amounts corporate funds (very non center-left), opposes youth rights and universal healthcare. And even in your argument, you admit that less than half of the party is left-wing. 40% centrist + 20% Conservative = 60% not center-left, 40% center-left. Therefore, it seems logical to me to classify the part as "center." Just my thougths.sbrianhicks (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.154.224 (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The progressives in Congress are truly on the left of the spectrum, although they may not be as far left as you are. I believe your perspective may be altering your view. Obama and Clinton may not be progressives but most Americans think they are liberal and most conservatives think they're socialists but as it turns out, they're both pretty centrist. Obama may have taken record amounts of corporate cash, but if you'll do your research most of his money came from under $50 donations. Additionally Obama has stated that he supports single-payer health care if he were reinventing the entire system but to gain support for needed reforms he ditched that option. On the wars, he's drawing down troops in Iraq and winding up the war this year and next summer he's bringing home troops from Afghanistan (granted, not as fast as I would like but nevertheless). And I really have no idea how exactly he opposes "youth rights." Thank you for the math lesson, I do realize what the numbers I stated add up to. They are however very unscientific and I'm sure there are numerous conflicting polls dividing the party on ideological grounds. I think the way things are on the page are fine as is but I wouldn't be opposed to listing center first then center-left. But again I think it's important to remember our biases and keep center-left on the page.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This entire argument is absurd. You know what I'm seeing here? Lots of allegations and absolutely no reputable sources. To fix that mistake, I've now modified the lead to reflect the party's current ideological character, per highly distinguished and reputable scholars (see citations).UBER ^(talk) 05:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The following three reputable sources support the current version of the first sentence that I just wrote. Unless you have something better, please do not tamper with the lead.

• Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science (2008) by Ellen Grigsby pp. 106-7:

In the United States, the Democratic Party represents itself as the liberal alternative to the Republicans, but its liberalism is for the most the later version of liberalism—modern liberalism.

• Imposing values: an essay on liberalism and regulation (2009) through Oxford University Press, by Arnold Scott p. 3:

Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States.

• The state after statism: new state activities in the age of liberalization (2006) through Harvard University Press, by Jonah Levy p. 198:

In the corporate governance area, the center-left repositioned itself to press for reform. The Democratic Party in the United States used the postbubble scandals and the collapse of share prices to attack the Republican Party...Corporate governance reform fit surprisingly well within the contours of the center-left ideology. The Democratic Party and the SPD have both been committed to the development of the regulatory state as a counterweight to managerial authority, corporate power, and market failure.

About some of the authors:

• Jonah Levy is Professor of Political Science at Berkeley University.

• N. Scott Arnold is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama.

In other words, these are people who know more about the subject than you or I do. Please don't mess with them.UBER ^(talk) 05:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid use of the term "center-left". The US party system differs significantly from other countries and none of the sources can be considered authoritative. Grigsby's book is a US freshman textbook that provides no sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And because no one single source was authoritative, I gave three.UBER ^(talk) 05:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the United States does not have ideological parties, it does not make sense to put them on a political spectrum. See e.g., The Constitutional bases of political and social change in the United States (p. 6)[11] The Four Deuces (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What you said is false, and the sources presented above are more authoritative than the one you gave anyway.UBER ^(talk) 05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The book is by Shlomo Slonim, Chair of the Department of American Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who gets plenty of hits at Google scholar,[12] is dedicated to Walter H. Annenberg and is published by Greenwood Publishing. Seems like a better source than a US Intro Polisci junior college textbook. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Jonah+Levy"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=80000000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 Jonah Levy gets more hits at GS, and two of my books came through the Harvard and Oxford presses. Hmm...Harvard and Oxford...versus the Hebrew University. It's a tough choice Deuces.UBER ^(talk) 06:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Greenwood Publishing is every bit as credible as the Oxford or Harvard university presses. BTW there is nothing in the article about the principles that prospective members must agree to follow or how the party enforces ideological discipline on its members. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On this particular subject, two university presses of such high prestige easily take the cake. And not only are my sources more authoritative, there are more of them. Plus, even though the sources don't make the distinction, the article currently states in the "US political spectrum," which restricts the power of the claim. It should be noted that I myself don't think the Democrats are center-left even on their best days, but, as I've told you a million times before, our personal opinions don't matter. If reputable sources call the Democrats center-left in overwhelming numbers, then the Democrats have to be treated as center-left for the purposes of Wikipedia.UBER ^(talk) 14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no guideline which says one reliable source is more reliable then another reliable source. We all know the American political spectrum is far-left idiocy.--TIAYN (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Providing lots of sources does not make a case stronger and usually shows a weak position. The comment that university presses are more reliable than the private academic press is novel, and I have posted a question about it at WP:RSN. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Lots of sources"??? Don't give me more credit than I deserve; I provided three sources, mostly because I wanted to reinforce the point. Since you asked, I would hesitate to make a blanket generalization about university presses versus commercial ones, but in this case, there's no doubt that Harvard and Oxford should take precedence.UBER ^(talk) 18:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Those sources you use proves our point, from an American persective the party is seeen as centre-left, while in European persective it is seen as a purly right-wing party, nothing more nothing less. --TIAYN (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we say that the Democrats are right wing, but Americans think they are left-wing? The Four Deuces (talk)

We should say what the sources say.UBER ^(talk) 00:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Deuces, beyond the occasional source or two, I don't know where you're getting this idea that the Democratic Party is not ideological. First of all, as I've mentioned in other places, the Democrats were the most powerful leftist party in the world next to the Communists of Uncle Joe during the middle of the twentieth century. They had a consistent leftist streak (not just center-left) after FDR for about four decades, but they have tamed their positions significantly after the right-wing backlash of the last four decades. Right now, as I've also mentioned before, I think they're generally centrist. People who know better than me disagree, however. But one of the best examples that ideology still runs through a major part of the Democratic Party is the Progressive Caucus in the House, which is the most powerful wing of the party and is solidly center-left, social liberal. There are other factions, of course, but they don't wield the same clout. Anyway, take this last piece of information as the icing on the cake, since what was presented above more than justifies the inclusion of the center-left label.UBER ^(talk) 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide us with the "left-wing" set of principles that prospective democrats are required to follow and the procedures they follow to ensure that members follow these principles. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a rubbish and arbitrary standard to adopt when determining the ideological character of a party. It also misses the point of how Wikipedia handles situations like these: we go first and foremost to reputable secondary sources, not to primary ones. Primary sources, especially on potentially controversial issues, have a tendency to manipulate and deceive, so what the Democratic Party says about itself or what it requires (or does not require) its members to be is irrelevant for Wikipedia. When you've got scholars from Berkeley saying they're center-left, that's relevant.UBER ^(talk) 00:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

When one joins an ideological party - Communist, liberal, Christian democrat, etc., they are required to agree to follow certain principles and may be expelled for disobeying them. What principles must Democrats adhere to and what procedures are there to expel members who fail to follow them? (If you provide the principles then me may determine whether they are left, right, or centre.) The Four Deuces (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to provide those because your request is illegitimate and ignorable.UBER ^(talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideological parties, like the Liberal Democrats, have stated principles that all members must follow and members who betray those principles are expelled. We can read those principles in order to categorize parties on a left-right spectrum. My suspicion is the Democrats do not have core principles and do no enforce them and therefore cannot be categorized. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not your job to categorize the Democrats, although thank you for staying true to the very bold spirit of Wikipedia. I don't believe that the entire party is ideological for a second; I already told you that they're broadly centrist. However, their most powerful factions are ideological, and those are tipping the scales in favor of the "centrist to center-left" approach...well, they and the sources. Now, I'm not going to waste my time giving you something that I consider to be ridiculous in the context of our debate, so do you have anything else to say or are we done here?UBER ^(talk) 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to take issue that the progressive wing of the party is the most influential. It's members chair half of the House committees yes but that's the only example of their power. Look at Obama's cabinet, Hilda Solis is the only progressive while every other person is either associated with the DLC or was a Republican. The Progressive Caucus only has 79 members out of 255 Democrats in the House and it's usually the Blue Dogs, or the New Democrats who wield more power since they usually have no qualms over voting with Republicans against something deemed too liberal. Obama himself has declared that he is a centrist "New Democrat" when he had a meeting with them and the last liberal to be nominated for the presidency was Dukakis. Rahm Emanuel won the House back for Democrats by recruiting conservative Democrats and Obama won the Whitehouse by following Deans fifty state strategy of going after red states. I simply can't see how a party can be ideological when it never has been. It's always been a loose coalition of disparate groups that often have competing or diverging interests (pro-war/pro-israel vs. anti-war/pro-civil liberties, coal/industry state vs. green interests, gays and allies vs. socially conservative minorities and southerners, government friendly/populists vs. market friendly/wall streeters) ever since FDR. All you have to do is look at news reports and hear about moderate/conservative Democrats and how they think the party's being pulled too far left or liberal/progressive Democrats who see the party as being run by special interests and big money and capitulates too much with the right and big business. The party has always been pretty divided but the Republicans are a lot better at sticking together around one set of roughly conservative principles. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama actually declared himself a "progressive" in one of his books, although he's fiddled with several terms over his career, including denying any ideology completely. But again, it doesn't matter what people call themselves; they're politicians. Obviously they have ulterior motives. This is why we should stick with reputable secondary sources. The Progressive Caucus is the most influential for a number of reasons, not least of which is because it has the ear of the Speaker and essentially drives the legislative agenda in the House, although they don't always get what they want (health care being a great example).UBER ^(talk) 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the arguments that Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg make. Anyway I have posted to RSN asking whether publications of the Harvard and Oxford University presses are more reliable than those published by the private academic press and welcome any comments there.[13] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No I'm pretty sure that sounds like the arguments that WP:RS makes explicitly:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources.

You were saying?UBER ^(talk) 19:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What does reliance on a book published by Greenwood for the ideology of the Democratic Party have to do with relying on primary sources? Since you think it violates RS please comment at RSN.[14] The Four Deuces (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I was commenting on your allusion—through references to Beck and Goldberg—to the primacy of primary sources, not to the actual source you gave. I have no problem with the source you presented. I just think mine are better.UBER ^(talk) 21:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think your sources are better then please join the discussion at RSN.[15] My comment about Beck and Goldberg was that you seem to derive your opinions from them. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll join in due time if I think it's necessary. Disputes like these should normally be resolved in the talk page of the article, not in the deep bureaucratic chasms of Wikipedia. I'll pretend I didn't read the part about Beck and Goldberg.UBER ^(talk) 01:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) When there is a dispute about reliable sources, the proper forum is RSN. Since you are challenging the legitimacy of the privately-owned academic press, you should defend your views there. And yes your views about the progressive movement controlling the Democratic Party are straight out of Beck and Goldberg. Your only dispute with them is that you think it is a good thing. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's get two things straight:

• I am not disputing the legitimacy of your source. This is an absolute red herring. I've told you repeatedly that your source is acceptable. All I'm saying is that my sources are better.

• If I was getting my views from Beck and Goldberg, I'd be calling the Democrats socialist, Marxist, Leninist, fascist, radical, or any other kooky and inapplicable term you can think of. The lead currently calls them "centrist to center-left," and I'm pretty sure I'd faint if I ever saw Beck refer to the Democrats in such mild terms.UBER ^(talk) 01:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In case you forgot you said, "two of my books came through the Harvard and Oxford presses. Hmm...Harvard and Oxford...versus the Hebrew University. It's a tough choice Deuces....On this particular subject, two university presses of such high prestige easily take the cake. Since you asked, I would hesitate to make a blanket generalization about university presses versus commercial ones, but in this case, there's no doubt that Harvard and Oxford should take precedence...." If that is your opinion then please defend it at RSN.[16] If your are "not disputing the legitimacy of [the] source" then please retract your statements. By the way your views are very similar to those of Beck and Goldberg, which is where you probably got your opinions. They both talk about the "progressive movement" etc. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

All of those comments speak about the superiority of my sources relative to yours. Nowhere do I say that your source is "illegitimate." Relative to my sources, it's inferior, but that doesn't mean it's inferior in general, and it's certainly acceptable by Wikipedia standards. I have similar views to Beck and Goldberg like the sky is yellow with pink roses. Either way, I'm flattered that you care so much about my views, but for the billionth time, they do not matter. You don't see me taunting you about your views, whatever they are. Don't do the same with me.UBER ^(talk) 03:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why a book published by Harvard or Oxford University presses would be more reliable than one published by Greenwood or Routledge and the editors at WP:RSN#Oxford, Harvard University Presses v. Greenwood Publishing appear to agree with me. However, we may be wrong and would be appreciative if you would provide your comments there. You may wish to change the reliable sources policy. (BTW it was not published by the "Hebrew University" as you claimed.) The Four Deuces (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to where the professor teaches, not to the publishing organization. Actually, the people there don't agree with you at all. They're talking about mentioning all relevant viewpoints where reputable sources disagree, as they may on this subject (and as they do on nearly all contentious issues, no matter what the academic discipline). On the other hand, you're pursuing a slash-and-burn strategy in hoping to remove center-left entirely from the lead, completely ignoring the fact that reputable sources classify the Democrats as a center-left party.UBER ^(talk) 03:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the sources cited were by professors at Oxford or Harvard. My objection to the term "center-left" is its ambiguity. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...we've been down this road before. Deuces, you know what you and I really need to do? Go to the center-left article (well, its talk page) and finally decide on what it means, to whom it applies, and conversely to whom it doesn't apply. This talk page, however, is not the appropriate place.UBER ^(talk) 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That article has been tagged for "original research" and there is no clear meaning for the term. If we label the Democrats as center-left we should use a source that explains what the term means. I did go to the talk page btw but received no reply. Usually when the term is used it refers to a coalition between a liberal and a social democratic party, e.g., a coaltion between the Liberal Democrats and Labour would be centre-left. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Originally I also wanted to include modern liberal, and the Grigsby book both explains what that means and gives the Dems that label. However, Sparrow and I agreed to leave the term out from the current version. I've seen center-left used frequently to describe individual parties (liberal or socialist) as well.UBER ^(talk) 05:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Scott book does throw in a few other parties with the term center-left and describes modern liberalism in that context.UBER ^(talk) 05:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I like how the Democratic Party is described as "centrist" but the corresponding article on the Republican Party does not. Surely both parties contain centrist elements or neither do? I suppose it's yet another example of the pernicious editing slant on political articles in wikipedia: left-leaning political parties are "centrist," while right-leaning political parties aren't (the better to convey the impression that rightwing politics is extreme). 119.74.220.59 (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The article currently describes the party's platform as "centrist to center-left," so your characterization is not accurate.UBER ^(talk) 07:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. The Democratic Party may be center-left, but to claim center is a huge leap. In a nation that is center-right it is not possible for the major liberal party to be center and poll after poll show this. Arzel (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If the US is a center-right nation it explains why the country does not have any left-wing or even center-left parties and also why Americans might mistake centrism for the center-left. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're both wrong. The US is not a center-right nation (this is a right-wing meme) and it does have a center-left, though currently not as strong as it once was. Arzel, past consensus reached this result in the lead, so you'll have to discuss here in the talk page before making further changes to such a sensitive part of the article.UBER ^(talk) 16:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to justify the term "center left" for a party that is more right-wing than the UK or Canadian Conservative Parties. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

TFD, Don't take this personally, but since this is an article about US political parties, and the terminology is in reference to the US it doesn't matter in the least what the rest of the world thinks about our terminology. Political ideology is all relative to the population to which it serves.

UBER, the most recent polling on ideological perceptions in the US put Conservatives at ~40%, Independents at ~35% and Liberals at ~25%. Ergo, the US is a center-right country. Concensus cannot trump facts. Do you have some proof that the Democratic Party is a party of the center? Arzel (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No one would take it personally that you think "it doesn't matter in the least what the rest of the world thinks". However mainstream US politics represents a narrow range of the political spectrum and the article is designed for an international audience. Also American academic writers do not use the popular jargon used in US opinion pieces, but the language used in the rest of the world. Incidentally if the US develops its own political spectrum without reference to the rest of the world, then it makes no sense to say the US is center-right. Center-right compared with what? With the American center? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a highly reputable source clarifying the centrism of the Democratic Party. Deuces would actually like this source because it talks about the labels while giving a historical context about what they mean (even though, again, it's not our job to bother with those details for this article). Arzel, ideological self-identification is notoriously perilous and subject to a wide range of ambiguities. I've seen polls, for example, that show up to 20% of conservatives support abortion rights or that up to 20% of liberals do not support same-sex marriage. Just because people adopt a certain label does not mean they go all in with the stereotypical positions associated with a certain ideology. Far more indicative on where this country falls in the political spectrum are questions about central social values or the role of government. On these questions, Americans come out as broadly centrist.UBER ^(talk) 18:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't get where this discussion is going. The Democratic party is mainly a center right party, not center, not center left. Only Americans could possibly consider the Democrats left. There are only a very small handful of Democrats who fall on the left, Kucinich and Sharpton being the only ones I can think of.

Indeed, the Democratic party platform reads like a moderate right wing platform from any other country. They favor government options for things like healthcare and education, not mandatory universal government systems. They oppose television showing nudity and radio and television allowing expletives. Not even in the most liberal parts of the United States do you see billboards with nudity, and legal prostitution is only allowed in one state. No state allows the use of drugs, even marijuana (a mild drug) is illegal, and you face jail time for its use. Gay marriage is illegal in most states, and many states have amendments or acts specifically banning it. The Democrats do not favor income caps, or limits on wealth. They do not oppose land ownership. They do not favor polygamy being legal.

Where Americans find the left wing in this, I'd like to know. ReignMan (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for personal opinions. If you do not have reputable academic sources for what you're claiming, your statements are meaningless.UBER ^(talk) 17:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess this [17] won't work? Either way, the Democrats are not a left wing party. They are moderately right wing. This is pretty well understood outside of the United States. ReignMan (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No it won't work. Political Compass is cute if you want to have fun with the subject, but it's not considered a reliable source per WP:RS.UBER ^(talk) 01:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "reputable academic sources", the only sources for the Democrats being left-wing are from Jonah Goldberg and others who claim that they have a hidden agenda. Perhaps UberCryxic could provide a reputable academic source for the Tea Party point of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Democrats are not left-wing and the article does not say they are left-wing. Like red herrings much?UBER ^(talk) 07:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

UBER, I do not see the highly relibale source that you claim indicates that the Democratic party is centrist. Also, your opinion of what polls are actually saying is original research. We report information from reliable sources, we don't interpret what those sources say and introduce new orginal research. Additionally, much of the logic being presented to classify the Democratic party is based on original research of comparrison between the Left of the US and the Left of the rest of the world. Since this article is about the US and the Democratic party's place in the US it should represent the view of the Democratic party within the US, and not some arbitrary view of what it would be like if it were in some other country. Arzel (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the term "generally" is being used as a clarifier for the definition of Centrist which implies that most people believe that to be true. There is no way that most people in the US believe the Democratic party is centrist. You will have to provide a reference that makes that statement. Arzel (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean you don't see it? It's cited in the article right now. The source is the following:

• Warren, Kenneth (2008). Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns, elections, and electoral behavior, Volume I. On page 366 it says:

Developed in a time of political upheaval in Europe, the left-right distinction was a convenient and accurate way to describe political...attitudes towards the continent's sweeping changes: for or against...With the centrism of the Democratic Party, the existence of liberal Republicans, and the prevalence in U.S. political history of liberals strongly opposed to communism or in favor of privatization of services, there is some question about how relevant the model continues to be.

Kenneth F. Warren is a very famous political scientist at Saint Louis University. You were the one originally interpreting the meaning of the polls, so direct accusations of original research at yourself first.UBER ^(talk) 02:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That section is written from the perspective of the Democratic party and is about the Democratic party. As such it is talking about the center of the Democratic part or the move of the Democratic party towards the center. It however, does not state that the Democratic party is centrist. Do you have any other sources that makes this explicit claim? One marginal source that doesn't make the direct statement is not enough for this claim. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The source mentions the centrism of the Democratic Party. What else do you think that means other than it's a reference to the Democrats as centrist? It's also not written from the perspective of the Democrats and it's quite clear it's referring to the party in general.UBER ^(talk) 15:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you have to define what the author is trying to say is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. We are not here to interpret what an author believes or doesn't believe. Unless you have sources that make the explicit statement that the Democratic party is centrist within the US you simply cannot make that claim. Without the book, and without any easy way to read the entire section it is not clear what the author is trying to state. Lets say, however for argument sake, that this author does actual make the statement that you claim, you need more than a single source to make that statement. As it is it would be simply the claim of one person, and subject to attributation. Unless you can provide some additional evidence to back up your statement then you simply cannot put it in the article as a fact. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, don't take this personally, but although this is an article about a US political party, and the terminology is in reference to the US, it doesn't matter in the least what the US thinks about their terminology. Political scientists normally group both US parties as "liberal" and therefore centrist. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

TFD, seriously, what is your issue? This article is about the Democratic party within the US political system. There is absolutely no way that you can describe their view in the world and then parlay that into where they fit within the US political system. If you want to talk about the differences between Democrats in the world and/or Republicans in the world I suggest you create an article that discusses the world view of either/both and how the US political parties fit into that view. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, the fact that the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans does not make them a left-wing party and more than the fact they are bigger than their opponents makes the Republicans a small party. There are in fact left-wing parties in the US, but the US differs from other countries by the absence of any large left-wing parties. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that Democrats are a left-wing party. Please read that sentence again. It is refering to the Democratic party within the US POLITICAL SYSTEM. How other countries view our Democratic party is not relevant in the least to that sentence. You think that the US Democratic party would be viewed to the right within the world view, fine I don't care, and within the European political system you would be correct, but that still does not change how the Democratic party is viewed within the United States. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, but the last sentence is obviously false. Political scientists (and everyone else) do not see the Republican Party as the classical liberal party it once was. And to call the Republicans centrists would be a very ambitious joke. Nearly half the party thinks Obama is not a US citizen and a majority does not believe in evolution. At best, the Republicans are right-wing medievalist, and that's a stretch too. They certainly rival some of the far-right European parties in their level of insanity.UBER ^(talk) 03:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true. The Republicans do not advocate the restoration of monarchy, hereditary titles, or the Anglican church (which would be conservative but not right-wing) or the abolition of private property or the Bill of Rights (especially rights of guns). The Four Deuces (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We're getting off on a tangent here. It's best to stop now before it escalates unnecessarily.UBER ^(talk) 03:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that discussion of the Republican Party belongs in that article, not here. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)