Revision as of 14:40, 7 December 2008 edit99.194.21.215 (talk) →the "anti-discrimination" clause: Need to address contradiction within the article← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:41, 11 December 2008 edit undoJeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk | contribs)346 edits →Oldest in the world?Next edit → | ||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
I think while we have a disagreement about the age of the party we can say that as a political idea it is the oldest. A Monarchy or Tyranny are or were not considered as politics, just Rule. The Greeks are the first successful in instituting democracy and the Romans later with the Republic. So it would be the worlds oldest political philosophy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | I think while we have a disagreement about the age of the party we can say that as a political idea it is the oldest. A Monarchy or Tyranny are or were not considered as politics, just Rule. The Greeks are the first successful in instituting democracy and the Romans later with the Republic. So it would be the worlds oldest political philosophy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
Okay. That was weird. I just read that the Democratic Party might not be the oldest Political Party in the World. On Misplaced Pages. Are you kidding me? For those of you who care THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS IN THE OLDEST PARTY IN THE WORLD. Anyone who tries to say different is trying to sell you something. Why does this great site to continue publishing that? Someone who supports me better stand next to me. Now. The Republicans have changed the definition of the Democratic Party and published it on Misplaced Pages. Call the media. Hello? We need to take this issue a little further up the Misplaced Pages corporate ladder. Let's call ]. HEY, ], come in here on this. You bees needs to know about this edit. To all those reading, I guarantee you this TAX-EXEMPT site will NOT continue to publish that politically motivated message. Do any of you Admins care to help out here? We got some problems. ] (]) 06:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Add section: super-delegate criticism == | == Add section: super-delegate criticism == |
Revision as of 06:41, 11 December 2008
Democratic Party (United States) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic Party (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 |
To-do list for Democratic Party (United States): edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2008-06-07 Things to do:
|
Template:Election box metadata
Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
- n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
- n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
- n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
User: Settler Contributions
The information put forth by User:Settler is interesting and valuable to the article. It expounds on the history of the Dems and balances POV. Why is this content being reverted? IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (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)
- Misplaced Pages 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)
Inaccuracy in Lead
One sentence in the lead states that the Democratic Party includes "42.6% of the electorate." I checked the article that this statement cites and it looks like this statement is misleading. Does this statement mean that 42.6% of registered voters are Democrats, or that 42.6% of U.S. citizens eligible to vote are Democrats. The article clearly indicates that it means registered voters, so I'm going to change the lead to reflect that fact. Huntthetroll (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch, as far as I am aware the stat refers to the percentage of those registered voters. Signature 08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Another sentence in the lead states that the Democratic Party is the "the oldest political party in the United States and arguably the oldest party in the world." This is not necessarily true, as the Federalist Party was established simultaneously. I believe the lead should read "It is the oldest political party currently active in the United States and arguably the oldest continually active party in the world." I don't have an account or I would attempt to change it myself. --170.63.96.108 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the sentence in question as it is untrue... via the U.S. Senate linked below, the Republican Party has a seat in Congress before the Democrats... to say the democrats are the the oldest in the world is quite untrue... there is no affiliation between the democratic party and any foriegn parties, that predate the United States, unless one points to democracy in genreal which is not the sole domain of democrats. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
further more the house of representatives did not exist until after March 4, 1789. via the Great Comprimise
Krisidious (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Republican Party" is the old name of the Democratic Party; it was generally overtaken by the present name in the 1830s. The claim that is made is that it is the oldest (not defunct) political party or among the oldest world parties if not the oldest, not the first party to have ever existed. Settler (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Current event polls
The Sentence, "Senator Clinton has a lead in recent national opinion polls for the 2008 Democratic nomination. Many recent polls have put Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards behind Clinton", is currently inaccurate. As these events are currently changing at a rapid pace, they should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.155.253 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I moved your sentences out of the midst of the preceding section and gave it a header. Feel free to rename it if you want. Anyway, I'll tweak that sentence you brought up. Settler (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Oldest in the world?
The British Conservative Party is older, using just about any standard you like. The earliest ancestor of the modern Democratic Party first formed in 1792, while the earliest ancestor of the modern Conservatives was around in 1678. The more direct ancestor of the modern Conservatives, the Pittites, formed before 1783. The name "Democratic Party" emerged in the United States over the course of the 1830s, and the Democratic National Committee was only formed in 1848 while the name "Conservative Party" was first suggested in the 1820s and codified with the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834. I don't understand how the Democrats are even arguably the oldest in the world. -- The_socialist 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence says, "it is arguably the oldest party in the world." Two references are provided; do you have a reference that says that there is not arguemnt of whether or not it is the oldest party? (That would be needed in order amend that sentence). I personally couldn't care less; seems like trivia indeed ;-) Signature 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- 'Arguably'? Weasel words - I'm correcting and here's potted history of the UK Tory party (also see comment above), and it is still known as the Tory party today. Your ref states: "The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the United States and among the oldest political parties in the world." - it doesn't say it's the oldest so your citation doesn't back up what is stated. I've removed unsubstantiated claim. Mimi 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the American constitution isn't the oldest in the world either, see here and then there's one older in India I think, there's certainly one older than 400 years, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man is 1776 I think, anyway that doesn't matter. You can't even say the American constitution is the oldest unchanged in the world so whether it's the oldest in use is a moot point. Mimi 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's plenty of books that state it is the oldest constitution. But in the case of conflicting reliable sources, Wiki NPOV means that the statement or article must be neutrally maintained: "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner," (emphasis mine). You removed Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, 15. "The country possesses the world's oldest written constitution (1787); the Democratic Party has a good claim to being the world's oldest political party." I could probably add some books with the claim but I'll await other people's thoughts first before bothering to do more work. Settler (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your citation stated "among the oldest political parties in the world." - it doesn't say it's the oldest so your citation doesn't back up what is stated. My citation is factual and contradicts that the american party is the oldest. Before you knock both of us out arguing this further can you ask yourself how much this really matters; whether it is the oldest or not, does it make it any better? Mimi 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- A consensus was reached (not involving me) to leave "arguably the oldest political party in the world". It is not I that have chosen to disregard it. On the talk page, some obscure, anonymously written web page that is not reliable by itself. Settler (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Upon further digging, the web page may or may not be written by one John Simkin.Settler (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm always intrigued by the notion that factual truth can be decided by consensus; it can't, the only fact decided by the consensus was whether to display the truth, or not. The truth is that no American political party is the oldest in the world. Mimi 10:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is intriguing. It's also one of the five cornerstones of modern scientific pursuit - Hypothesis, Experiment, Reproduction, Debate, Consensus. Also, it is the point of encyclopedia to produce the best referenced and reputable material available, not pursue its own research.--Primal Chaos (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely the question of the oldest written constitution has to do with it being the oldest written constitution currently in operation, not the oldest ever written. But even that's not true, since the Massachusetts state constitution is several years older. john k (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think while we have a disagreement about the age of the party we can say that as a political idea it is the oldest. A Monarchy or Tyranny are or were not considered as politics, just Rule. The Greeks are the first successful in instituting democracy and the Romans later with the Republic. So it would be the worlds oldest political philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.149.112 (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay. That was weird. I just read that the Democratic Party might not be the oldest Political Party in the World. On Misplaced Pages. Are you kidding me? For those of you who care THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS IN THE OLDEST PARTY IN THE WORLD. Anyone who tries to say different is trying to sell you something. Why does this great site to continue publishing that? Someone who supports me better stand next to me. Now. The Republicans have changed the definition of the Democratic Party and published it on Misplaced Pages. Call the media. Hello? We need to take this issue a little further up the Misplaced Pages corporate ladder. Let's call Jimbo. HEY, Jimbo, come in here on this. You bees needs to know about this edit. To all those reading, I guarantee you this TAX-EXEMPT site will NOT continue to publish that politically motivated message. Do any of you Admins care to help out here? We got some problems. Jeffrey Pierce Henderson (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Add section: super-delegate criticism
Should a super-delegate criticism section go up for the Democratic party's use of 'super-delegates' to select their presidential candidate? The criticism is this process is in itself - undemocratic, as the delegates collected via popular vote by registered democrat voters can be somewhat nullified by the super-delegates, which are selected party insiders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.220.93 (talk • contribs)
- That sort of material, criticism by WP:RS would belong in an article about the nominating process of their party (such as Superdelegate). The section here is just a meager summary of other Misplaced Pages articles pertaining to the 2008 presidential contest. Settler (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have tried, but anything that is possibly critical is blocked by zealous admins. 70.223.149.24 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Under the heading presidential ticket
It seems that the subscript entry for President Kennedy is incorrect, he was assassinated, currently it states that he "Died in Office." Although that is a correct statement it would be more in keeping with the standard ( as done the republican party ) that he was assassinated.
Kind Regard, Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.123.134.20 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
For constituional purposes there is no difference as to how a President dies in office. --8bitJake (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's history is contradictory
From Democrat party "Misplaced Pages" History (Incorrect)
"Main article: History of the United States Democratic Party
The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party.
From Republican party "Misplaced Pages" history (correct)
Main article: History of the United States Republican Party
The Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.203.92 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see no contradiction there. Am I missing something? · jersyko talk 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neither do I. Perhaps the anonymous user is confused by the fact that the Democratic-Republican Party is not the current Republican Party? --Ali'i 12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the OP may be trolling (or something). He/she refers to the Democratic party as the "Democrat party". This deliberate mispronunciation has become popular among people who criticize the party. Alternatively, the OP may have just overlooked this while editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowmanjj (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Democratic economists?
"American economists strongly support the Democratic Party, with their views on policy being largely in accordance with the Democratic platform."
This is the biggest load of crap I have heard in my life. When it comes to economic policy, economists almost always identify with Republicans. Examples? Higher taxes create a deadweight loss. This is economically inefficient. Price floors (e.g. the minimum wage) also restrict market efficiency, and should thus be eliminated (Democrats tend to prefer a higher minimum wage). Republicans (like economists) generally dislike welfare. Trade is also favored in economics; by a large majority, Republicans voted to pass the NAFTA and Democrats voted against it. I wonder what an economist would say about socialized health care!
I suggest the entire section about economists be removed, as it is misinforming and contains no information valuable to this article.SweetNightmares (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Interesing opinion you have there, but empirical studies unambigously suggest that economists tend to be a) modern liberals and b) democrats. Studies suggest that most economists oppose laissez-faire policy (less than 10% if AEA members were libertarians in a recent studies), over 80% support govt. redistribution and over 70% beleive that inequality has become too high; the Bush tax cuts are strongly opposed (Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts was singed by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates) and universal health care finds widespread support (in welfare economics, it is widely recognized that health care is something the market cannot efficiently provide w/o heavy intervention; I suggest reading Economics of the welfare state (OUP, 2004) by LSE's Nicholas Barr). In any case, the section will not be removed since it is based on empirical, reputable studies. Signature 05:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- "empirical studies unambigously suggest that economists tend to be a) modern liberals and b) democrats. " We need sources on that. The examples you cited (Bush tax cuts, universal health care...) as evidence that economists support democratic party principles is flawed as there were also economists who took the opposing position. In order for this section to stay in, we should have conclusive, and numerous, studies that support it. Otherwise, any evidence to the contrary could refute it. Say, for example, Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, both are economists who lean heavily conservative, to say nothing of multiple Nobel Laureates like Milton Friedman or Von Mises. If there is even a single counter example, the assertion that "American economists strongly support the Democratic Party" is a generalization and should be nixed. A better, more NPOV would be to say that the Democratic party enjoys the support of some notable economists, and then list them. Then, noting some notable economists who disagree. That is a solution that doesn't rely on apeals to broad nebulous assertions that it is based on "empirical reputable studies" while citing only one book... 141.214.17.17 (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.17 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- If a significant portion of economists support the Democratic Party (which I highly doubt), it is due to social, rather than economic, policy. The section currently suggests that there is wide support among economists for left-wing economic policies. That is obviously inaccurate. Also, just because some economists "beleive that inequality has become too high" or oppose the Bush tax cuts does not mean they support the Democrats. Likely quite the opposite.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.246.23 (talk) 20:09, 20 April, 2008
- Is there a consensus on this? I'd like to have an expert's opinion, if we could, so we can resolve this. Thanks. SweetNightmares (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Studies do unambigously suggest that economists lean left on fiscal policy issues and are heavily Democrat. The voting ratio is estimated by about 2.5 to 3 Democrats for each Republican. I cite multiple studies which explicitly state that most economists are Democrats. I am not basing the statement that most economists are liberal Democrats based on my interpretation of these studies; once again the studies explicitly state so. Here are two good online sources, included in the article:
This is really simple: sutides have been made on the partisan affliations and political attitudes of economists; these study show economists as idenitfying as modern liberals, being supportive of redistribution and voting Democrat. This is a factual issue: either reputable studies show most economists as liberal Democrats or they don't. As of now, they do and that's what will be featured in the article. Of course there are "there were also economists who took the opposing position" - did I say all economists are democrats? No. Most, by a considerable margin, are. So long as reputable academic surveys find most economists to be Democrats it will be included in this article. If you beleive these studies to be inaccurate, conduct your own study, get it published and then come back here. For now, this article will feature the conclusions reached by published studies on the subject. Regards, Signature 05:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The study cited in the article was a survey of economists at ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, which have a tendency to be more democratic than republican anyways. When private sector economists such as those who work for banks or corporations are included, they tend to be more republican. For instance, see http://positiveeconomist.blogspot.com/2008/02/economists-outside-academia.html Also, the link above from Mises.org is specifically about academic economists. This distinction needs to be made when using a blanket statement that implies every economist in the world supports the Democratic party's ideas. I think this section is incomplete until someone can add in a source showing the political preferences of a majority of economists, both in training and in practice. Until then, the best solution is to note that "the Democratic party enjoys the support of some notable economists."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.54.91 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2008
The studies mentioned refer to economists at academic institutions. The study also mentioned that the majority of economists that favor free markets seek professions in those very markets whereas the ones that oppose the markets find themselves situated at colleges therefore the statement in the article is misleading. Most economists from academic institutions may very well be democrats and generally oppose markets but these economists also don't know markets very well just because they dont have the experience in the real world. Perhaps there is another study that that surveys economists of the professional world where the ideas actually come into practice but right now I think the article is misleading and should definitely be changed.--65.191.24.85 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Even in academic institutions, they seem to be conservative! I attend a relatively liberal public university, and I've had discussions with many of my professors about politics. I am an economics major and know the department faculty well. I don't know how any of them vote (as it's frankly none of my business), but there appears to be only one professor who is, in fact, liberal. I'm curious, Brendel, where did/do you go to a post secondary institution, if that even took place? What did you study?SweetNightmares (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2008 (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)
- 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. Nor would draft-dodging scum like Bush and Chambliss been able to run against war veterans and present themselves as "patriots."
- - 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. The fucking *Vatican* believes in evolution. 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)
Lincoln-Douglas debate
- Why does this article skip all past the Lincoln-Douglas debate and the history of the Democratic Party before, during and after the Civil War? Telecine Guy 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- That information can be found here. Since that topic has its own article, I would actually recommend that the history section in this article be abbreviated further.SweetNightmares (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And why dose this article skip: Historian Eric Foner observed:
In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.227.206 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Questioning statistic sources and intent of "Working Class" section
I'm not a big face around here but I thought I'd call to question these sources pertaining to the "working class" democrats: 6 ^ a b c d CNN. (2000). Exit Poll.. Retrieved on 2007-07-11.
If you do the math (SUM(%all * %GORE)) for the pertinent tables (votes by income and class) you'll find that Bush won the popular vote in 2000 by 0.09% and 0.42%, respectively. When, you know, he actually lost. So, can I call shenanigans? Not to say that CNN or the original poster had any mal-intent, only that exit polls suck.
Furthermore the line: "...which show the Democratic Party garner the majority of votes from those with low incomes and little education" might make people believe that the majority of the democratic vote come from that subset, which is not the case. While it's still a bit inflammatory, this would be better: "...which show that the majority of those with low incomes and little education vote democrat."
Lastly, what the hell does 9 ^ a b c d e Pew Research Center. (10 May, 2005). Beyond Red vs. Blue.. Retrieved on 2007-07-12. really talk about? I tried to find the pertinent information that backs: "Together socially conservative and the financially disadvantaged comprised roughly 54% of the Democratic base" but I didn't have much luck. From what I read I don't think combining those two subsets serves any purpose, and I'm not sure that is even a valid combination. I'm really not taking my time on this one though, so feel free to blow me out of the water. 64.238.49.65 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit, be "Bold" they say. As for the part about ""...which show the Democratic Party garner the majority of votes from those with low incomes and little education" - That's obviously NPOV -IF- you read it incorrectly, as I just did. I think what the sentence is trying to say is that the Democrats gained most of the low-income and lower educated individuals than the GOP (Republicans) did. i don't think it is trying to say that most Democrats are that. It could be worded a bit better, but, I don't think it is too bad of an issue. Your edit is much better, so, I'll go ahead and edit that in. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Wealthy voters
Do wealthy voters tend to vote for Democrats or Republicans? Our articles seem to contradict each other, both claiming that the wealthy support their party, and both are lacking citations about a general trend. The Republican article says The differences in voting among income groups are small, though poorer voters tend favor the Democratic Party while wealthier voters tend to support the Republican Party. This article states Once dominated by unionized labor and the working class, the Democratic base now consists of social liberals who tend to be well-educated with above-average incomes as well as the socially more conservative working class. Which of these is true? The Republican article follows its assertion with CNN exit poll statistics that seem to support its claim: Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004, 55% of the richest twenty percent, and 53% of those in between. In the 2006 House races, the voters with incomes over $50,000 were 49% Republican, while those under were 38%. So which of these articles is correct? I elected to ask here, since this article seems to be more well-developed. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- They vote for both, depending on region and education. In past there wasn't any correlation whatsoever, today there is: The rich are slightly more likely to vote GOP. But the issue isn't clear cut, rather it is a subject littered with ambiguities and paradoxes. If offer a simple, unconfusing description of who votes how, your probably on the wrong track :) Signature 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The changing party
From the party's inception in 1828 to about 1896, the Democrats were the more conservative party on most social and economic matters, except immigration policies, which they have been liberal on since the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The economic policies of Andrew Jackson seem surprisingly like modern-day fiscal conservatism. They didn't really become the liberal party they are today until Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, was elected in 1912, which only started their transformation that was completed in the 1930s with FDR's New Deal policies, and the start of the Civil Right's Movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.244.199 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Adding Presidential Nominees in Infobox?
I'm posting a similar suggestion in the Republican version of this discussion thread, but instead of unilaterally editing the party infobox, I wanted to know what people would think about putting the most recent presidential nominee in the party infobox? For example if we were to add that category, John Kerry would be placed in there, at least until after the convention, when Barack Obama's name would be there instead. Tell me your suggestions. --Shaunnol (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Ideology and voter base - Academia
I just posted an edit to this (old) section (my first on Misplaced Pages!), and would appreciate any advice. I believe that this section was, and remains, flawed. The section basically makes 3 points (but not in a very logical order): 1. academia leans to the left, 2. the liberal orientation of professors does not affect student political orientation, and 3. the educated population, in general, leans to the left. Frankly, I am not sure that issue 2 even belongs in this piece; however, if it does, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that many conservatives/Republicans claim to be offended and even intimidated by liberal colleges.
In addition, item 3 (regarding the educated population leaning to the left) is flatly contradicted by many findings from Gallup, GSS, and NES, and I would like to make another edit to present those findings. Also, it is very illogical to simply point out that "Among those with graduate degrees, the majority voted Democratic..." We would expect a majority to vote Democratic simply because there are usually far more Dems than Reps. Following that same logic, it is likely that a majority of felons voted Democratic also. Should be put that in here somewhere?
As a newbie to Misplaced Pages, I can't seem to upload charts and graphs. Is there anyway I can get permission to do so? I have access to some good copyrighted graphics, and can probably get publisher permission to use them.
Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
Nicholas007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- In order to upload images, you must be auto confirmed; your accout must be 4 days old and have made ten edits. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback.
--Nicholas007 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, now I finally uploaded an image (the graph of union membership) from Commons. NOTE: I uploaded that image to Commons a few days ago, and sent a copy of the email permission (from the author) to the Open Source Ticket Request system (OTRS) at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. So far I have not heard back, and I am not sure if I need to do more, or just wait. If anyone can provide guidance, it would be appreciated.
Thanks. Nicholas007 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Educated voting left isn't wrong. Look at the polls again, at the question not of who is registered with a party, but who they actually voted for. College graduates overall were tied in 2004, Democratic in 2006. Those with graduate degrees have voted Democratic for more than the past 20% years. Those with just some college, on the other hand, are less still more likely to vote at GOP. Don't confuse Party registration w/ actual voting patterns, it's the latter that counts and there're an awful lot of independent liberals. As for the graduate degree holder/felon argument, think it about it again: following our logic of using Party registration as predictor of voting, the Dems would be winning every election, since they have about 20+ million more members. Yet, the public, among which Dems outnumder GOPs in terms of registration, voted GOP in 5 of 7 pres. elections. Clearly when a demographic consistently votes Democratic, even when the public does not - whether Dems outnumber GOP in terms of registration - that demographic deserves a mention in our base section. Signature 04:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Brendel, I think you jumped to an illogical conclusion. The graphs I put in (and just put back in again) refer to self-identified Dems and Reps - not registered Dems and Reps. In a given presidential election, some Dems will vote Rep and vice versa. Eg, in this election between Mccain and Obama there may be many crossovers - based on perceived experience and/or character flaws - not necessarily ideology. It would be wrong to assume that the people who cross over change their partisan identities and beliefs. You are putting far too much weight on a handful of presidential elections. What about congress, and the senate, and local races? And, even if you included a broader array of political contests, voting should not be the only measure presented. The expressed self-identification of surveyed people, and their level of education, should be revealed. This gives balance and perspective to the article. By the way, among self identified males, Republicans are still far more likely to have post grad degrees, while Democrats are more likely to have post grad degrees among females. (See graphs on pages 76 and 77 of Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality.)
Nicholas007 (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Liberalism
I want to change "Liberalism" to "Cultural liberalism" in the infobox. I read through the archives, and it appears the main issue underlying the discussion of ideological labels has been how to deal with the difference in perspective and terminology between Americans and the most of the rest of the world. I am not sure whether "Liberalism" as used in the infobox is meant to refer to the American sense or the European one. If the former, I think it is confusing (or confused). The list in the infobox is meant to be accessible to an international audience, and the link is to the broad, international sense. If it is meant to be the latter, the combination of "American liberalism", "Social liberalism", and "Cultural liberalism" cover the extent to which "liberalism" applies to the Democratic Party. Could be falsely inferred to mean the party holds beliefs that are actually held by the Republican Party. I hope this will be non-controversial, but I rather think it will not be. -Rrius (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- It would be controversial. Please look at the article Modern liberalism in the United States; it is clearly not an ideology limited to cultural issues, nor is it anti-freedom on economics. It simply defined liberty differently, in such a manner that it warrants a more interventionist economic policy, but like the classic liberalism of the GOP, also beleives in liberty - i.e. it is not any less liberal. Signature 04:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.
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.
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)
- ^ "Afghan War Edges Out Iraq as Most Important for U.S." by Frank Newport. Gallup.com. Published July 30, 2008. Accessed August 22, 2008.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
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. 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 , , and . 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. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I added Pro-life Democrats themselves state that they represent over 40% of Democrats. 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)
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)
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)
- Misplaced Pages 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
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, Misplaced Pages 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.
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 , 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. 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)
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. — Realist 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)
Categories: