Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 17

Was the pre-1860s Democratic party really for "states rights" and "limited government"?
The previous version of the lead a few weeks ago stated that pre-1860s Democrats stood for "states rights" and "limited government" in domestic affairs. Is this actually accurate?

This concept has been criticized as far back as Henry Adams in 1882, who stated: Between the Slave Power and states' rights there was no necessary connection.

The Slave Power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision—all triumphs of the Slave Power—did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the Slave Power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina. As well as an increasing number (perhaps a majority?) of political scientists and historians. (Including in the subsequent Confederacy)

Am I wrong to think that the original phrasing should be removed or significantly altered? KlayCax (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

United Democratic Alliance (Kenya)
Hello could you help me change the default colour of the political party I've linked above. I've tried to change but it seems I can't. It predominantly uses yellow as their choice. The code is # F4CB23. Thank you.154.70.0.223 (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest you discuss this matter at the talk page for the United Democratic Alliance.  N Panama   84534  10:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Shift left" is missing a piece of the story
The current changes to the lede are missing the part of the story starting in the late 1970s when the Third Way, Blue Dog Coalition, and "triangulation" and "Sister Souljah" gradually eroded the more old-school New Deal Democrats like Paul Wellstone. Check out sources like Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? (book), Listen, Liberal. It's not just a shift left in the 2010s but the shift was actually center-right between the late 70s and the 2010s, compared to the LBJ/Kennedy era and the FDR era. In fact the entire United States shifted right with the Reagan revolution and Dems moved along with everyone else. The country then shifted further left in the late 1990s. See  [00:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)] The single source is not sufficient to state in the first sentence of the lede in wikivoice that the entire Democratic Party has shifted left. In fact that article discusses the Problem Solvers Caucus and more moderate, center Democrat Josh Gottheimer. There are also other examples like Henry Cuellar which have coverage in RS for being more conservative. It's too much weight and an NPOV issue. Andre🚐 02:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are other sources that reflect this. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt there are several sources that say the Dems have shifted left, but I think there are also many sources that describe the period from Carter to Clinton and even through Obama and Biden as a shift toward the center-right compared to the FDR, Kennedy, and LBJ era. Probably, the former variety of sources come more from moderate/center views, and the latter from progressive views. However, as written, there is an NPOV and weight issue. The Democratic Party is a big tent that includes many people. It's too vague and an overgeneralization to paint the big tent with such a broad brush. See also: Tip O'Neill Andre🚐 17:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are several sources that mention a left-wing shift . X-Editor (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * These sources are all valid, but they should be balanced with sources such as these which tell a more nuanced story And the main missing piece is the story of how the New Democrats moved the party to the right in the early 90s, so as per the political piece, while there is a shift left compared to 1992, it's a return to the Dems 1960s Great Society and 1930s-1950s New Deal roots. The issue is the recency focus of the last several years. I'm not saying to leave it out entirely but it needs to be contextualized properly. Andre🚐 01:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added info from the new sources you provided, which I thank you for finding. X-Editor (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks much better already, thank you! Andre🚐 02:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, going to remove the tag since the problem has been solved. X-Editor (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Andre🚐 02:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Remaining centrist is sourced (although it can certainly be weighed less heavily than moving to the left, which is far more sourced) but shifting right is certainly not well sourced and has no belonging in the lead. Bill Williams 02:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Aside from the Thomas Frank books above, which can definitely be cited for the Democratic Party moving right on organized labor issues, there are other sources There are claims that the Obama era moved the party right on Wall Street, also on foreign policy and immigration     Andre🚐 02:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Does not belong in the lead whatsoever. You found sources for very specific positions when the vast majority of sources state the party is moving left, not right. That is no where near enough for the lead, and extremely misleading to readers. There are also far more sources that describe it moving left on those very same positions you describe and there are dozens more sources available. Falsely claiming that Democrats have moved right is ignoring the weight of the sources, which the vast majority say the opposite. Bill Williams 02:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a misleading perspective. There are a lot, but not all or even 80%, of sources that have identified that the party is moving left. Andre🚐 02:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with that this claims Democrats have moved to the right are extremely misleading, if not outright divorced from reality. I'm reverting to the status quo to allow discussion. Progressives being upset that Democrats aren't liberal enough isn't new, let alone enough to actually outweigh or "balance" anything. Like on other articles,  is dragging irrelevant decades-old sources to try and argue against stuff that's actually happened   in the modern era, and this isn't really worth adding. Toa Nidhiki05 03:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You have an NPOV problem on multiple articles where you want to say that the big tent party has moved left, despite many opinions to the contrary that must be balanced. This is not so clear cut as you say it is. Mostly conservative and moderate thinkers think the party has moved left, while progressives and left-leaning believe it has moved right or to the center, and there are enough sources for NPOV to balance this. The party is made up of many types of ideologies and you are trying to homogenize it. Andre🚐 03:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're trying to force content that isn't accurate across multiple articles while hiding major changes as "copyedits". My editing isn't the issue here.
 * As for your claims - again, progressives not liking moderates and liberals isn't new. Claiming the party has shifted right is such a demonstrably false statement that it doesn't even warrant a rebuttal, but if you're going to make it you should at least provide sources that aren't ancient. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 04:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not "hiding" my changes, I edited the copy and also wrote that I was adding references and balancing NPOV. Your accusation that I am "hiding" edits (how could I "hide" my diffs?) is not WP:AGF. This is a content dispute. As I stated, there are many sources such as scholarly articles that discuss the party's triangulation the shift away from organized labor, inclusive of Obama, and how Obama ran as a progressive but governed from the center. The current articles paint Obama and Biden as left-leaning progressives when they have largely tried to thread the needle of party unity between the party's progressive and moderate/conservative wings. Just look at the current Inflation Reduction Act. It's a huge compromise with most of the social safety net programs cut to satisfy conservative Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Biden has long been a centrist. Regardless, you are trying to impose your own POV and ignore the other views in the sources that deserve some balance. I am not advocating for eliminating the view that the party has shifted left, but contextualize it with the progressive minority POV as well as other scholarly and historical views that put that in context with a longer-term shift right from the New Democrat movement versus the New Deal and Great Society era. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 04:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s pretty telling that your sources (which aren’t even sufficient to begin with) are mostly Obama-era complaints from progressives like a decade ago. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 04:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an article about all of the history of the Democratic Party - not just the last couple years. Stuff from the last 30 years is recent. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 04:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence is literally just about a shift from the 2010s on. That Democrats have shifted left since then is not a matter of actual debate in reliable sources. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 04:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of debate since 2010 was 2 years into Obama's term, and I offered you several articles from 2012, 2015, etc, and you're saying they're too old, and yet you say 2010s on. Sounds like you're just cherrypicking whatever sources say what you like, and writing off the ones you don't like. This is too much weight for the lede for this. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 04:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should even have a sentence in the lead focusing entirely on news coverage of the party since the 2010s, at least not in a vacuum; but the important part is what this means in the larger context of the party's entire history, which the article covers. Higher-quality sourcing seems to largely describe the party as returning to its per-Clinton roots (ie. it shifted rightwards under Clinton, then slowly shifted back.) Summarizing this in the lead as just "the party recently shifted left" is misleading, which is part of the reason why it is better covered at more length deeper in the article first, after which we can summarize the full context rather than one or two sentences pulled out of recent news articles and tossed in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be more appropriate to put this information in the "Political positions" section rather than the lede, since a lot of this discussion centers around recentist news articles in the popular press. X-Editor (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources have to say on the subject. X-Editor (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The party has shifted significantly left in the past ten years, and there are dozens of sources on the matter. Since Obama their policies have changed massively, such as on policing, immigration, healthcare, climate, etc. BLM, DACA, Medicare for All, and the Green New Deal, along with various shifts left on other aspects of those issues, are a major change, and arguing otherwise is misleading to readers. The number of sources on this matter is massive, and plenty have already been provided, but if you want a massive citation dump, I can give you some more. Bill Williams 13:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the contested section of the lead to the last stable version; now that it's clear that there's a dispute over the rewrite, we should slow down and talk it over bit by bit. I'm concerned with the excessive focus on recent news sources, many of which are only passing mentions, and particularly concerned with citing a key to a single NYT magazine article. What part of the body does this summarize? Things like this should be covered in the body first, with a wide range of sources; only by looking at those can we then determine whether or how it is appropriate to summarize them in the lead. Pulling one sentence out of one article and putting it in the lead isn't how lead sections are written. I'm also concerned that the lead is already massive; given that this is the broad article covering the history of the entire party, devoting huge amounts of the lead's text to coverage from the last few years isn't appropriate unless we have higher-quality secondary sourcing indicating its significance. --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree with this point. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 05:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a citation dump would be very helpful here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Aquillion, the status quo should be kept while we discuss this. Clearly there's an NPOV issue Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 17:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to urge you to revert yourself, . Aquellion's edit is NOT that status quo, and the text in question had been here for weeks with no issue. And as below, there's clearly consensus for some mention of this in the lead. I highly encourage you to revert. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Aquillion clearly is contesting the changes made in the last couple of weeks versus a stable text that was there for probably years, so I'm inclined to support his request. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 17:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He didn't make a request, he made an opportunistic drive-by revert. I would encourage an uninvolved editor to revert to the actual status quo, which is likely this August 9 edit before major changes were made to the lede. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 18:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reasonable way to argue that the version on August 8th was stable. Over the weeks prior to that it changed massively, like this, with a significant number of reverts and disputes in the process. The last stable version was around July 12th; that version had been stable for over a year - going back a year, by comparison, looks like this, with only minor wording tweaks. It's fine to support a WP:BOLD rewrite to that stable version, but you need to focus on the content and demonstrate a consensus for it, not just repeatedly revert back to it and then somehow claim it's stable or to try and push through a version that lacks consensus using plainly inaccurate procedural arguments. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, going back to fucking May and claiming that's the last stable version is ridiculous. Wow. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, we could go back to July 12th instead; there's no need to go back as far as May, I just chose that because the article itself was incredibly stable at that point. But beyond that, why would it be ridiculous?  The last stable version is the last time the article was, well, stable, before any of the major current disputes occurred. After the sentence was added there was almost immediate flurry of edits and reverting to refine it and the lead hasn't really been in a particularly stable state since. I've gone back six years to find a stable version in one case (an admittedly unusual circumstance because the article was protected for most of those years, but it was still clear there had been an ongoing dispute the whole time.) What makes a stable version stable is an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS backing it up, and I just don't see how you can credibly claim that that implicit consensus formed for a version that was constantly being edited over the course of barely a month. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A few weeks is not a status quo, especially since the article almost immediately destablized after the changes were made (ie. there were objections and reverts back and forth between different versions immediately.) The key to the status quo is that the article was stable, with no objections, for an extended period of time, with large numbers of people having read it without objecting or changing it; to figure out when that was I simply went over the edit history to when the contested section started to substantially change from its longstanding version - the point when, prior to that point, there were no significant edits or disputes anywhere on the article for an extended period of time. I grabbed the version from May 14th, specifically, since the entire article had almost no edits in that timeframe, although the specific paragraph in question had only marginal tweaks until July 12th and that version hadn't been substantially changed for over a year and half. Obviously now that there's clear objections, if you want to propose substantial changes you're going to have to start from the version that persisted for a year and half and demonstrate consensus for changes from there - not the version people immediately started fighting over last month. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You came in here and reverted right as people on the talk reached an agreement. Are you at least going to bother to stick around and discuss, or are you going to drive-by revert without helping resolve a situation you've now contributed to.? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

KlayKax: "Economics" and "social/cultural" policy should be discussed separately
I'm uncertain if this conversation is about the economic portion of the sentence or is referencing all of the claims made by The New York Times article.

I think there's a good argument that the "economics" portion could be redacted from the lead. Whether Democrats have moved left/right on economic stances has seen notable dispute among political scientists, historians, and economists. On the other hand: I don't know of any major political scientist or historian who disputes the notion that Democrats have moved significantly to the left on social, cultural, racial, and religious issues. (e.g. See drug legalization, same-sex relationships, immigration, abortion, et al.) Would 1940s Democrats be in favor of any of those stances? This isn't even mentioning a subject such as interracial marriage: a specific topic in which 2020s Republicans would be considered "far more racially liberal" (in the sense of racial egalitarianism/removing barriers of race in law) than many 1980s — and definitely 1940s/1950s — black Democrats. KlayCax (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the mention of Democrats moving economically to the left should be removed. I don't see the rest of the claims as problematic or that controversial and think they should stay. Although perhaps it could be placed in the second/third paragraph of the article's lead instead of the first. KlayCax (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would accept this as a good solution to the above discussion. There is very little no dispute that I've seen that Democrats have moved left on social, racial, and cultural issues, specifically. The dispute is, as you say, mostly about economic issues, foreign policy, and probably immigration (immigration is complicated because even George W. Bush and Reagan had a much more liberal pro-amnesty policy than today's both parties), but there is pretty much no dispute that a lot more, or nearly all Democrats now accept same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and drug legalization, compared to much fewer 30 years ago, or nearly none 50-100 years ago. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 04:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYT source currently used does not mention an economic shift to the left, so I've removed it from the article. X-Editor (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's productive and I think it addresses enough of my objection, provided we leave the sentence where it is in the sequence of the lede - I don't see why it should be the 2nd sentence 1st para of the article. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 05:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The proposed change here is fine. Seems there's broad consensus for this. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I find Aquillion's point persuasive so I think we should address that. As I stated, I think the article could include the Dems' shift left on social issues. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 17:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that saying they have moved to the left is misleading. As social values have changed, liberals have tried to keep up, while conservatives have tried to slow it down. Issues have changed, but the relative positions of the two groups have remained the same. Eventually conservatives come to accept social changes, and new social issues arise that never would have been considered in the past. For example, support for same sex marriage was 27% in 1996, but today is 71%, including most Republicans. TFD (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Big Tent
Someone removed the Big Tent descriptor which is one of the key descriptions of the party. I reverted to the status quo per Aquillion. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 17:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Aquillion's edit is not the status quo. This August 9 edit is likely the status quo, before major changes were made that led to the current edit war; I'd highly encourage an uninvolved editor to revert to this. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The disputed text was still there at that time. I think perhaps the July 31 Jul 17 version would be a fair status quo. The diff shows differences between the Aquillion version but nothing significant, but I will support a revert to that one. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * July 17 is almost a month ago. Ridiculous to try and pin that as the status quo. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The status quo should be the version before the edits that are being disputed. A few weeks compared to years of stability. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 19:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what status quo means, and you know it. Content was here for weeks with no dispute, and then rolled back without explanation from a drive-by user in spite of ongoing discussion. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the status quo does mean the version that was stable before being disputed. You've now tagged the article with "neutrality" and "factual accuracy" tags. How does that make sense? The article is not neutral and is now factually inaccurate because the lede section doesn't discuss the party's shift left? Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 19:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The last stable version was the one before you started removing things, strictly speaking - and yes, the article now not mentioning the shift that political scientists and dozens of news articles have reported on means there are now substantial NPOV and factual accuracy issues. This is, again, mostly thanks to your editing. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So put an NPOV tag if you really feel that way, which I did myself earlier. But why the factual accuracy? What statement in the article is not factual? Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 19:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrevan, the source you added does not back up the claim that the working class is still an "important part of the Democratic coalition". Moreover, it's directly reverting my addition of a tag - that would be your 4th revert. Please undo your edit or I may have to consider reporting you for a 3RR violation. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert your tags, I filled a citation needed tag. [19:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)]
 * As the source claim, I think it does clearly say that Biden had to win back an important constituency, the white working class, but I can probably find a different source that is closer to the wording you are contesting. [19:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)]
 * I added 5 more references to the sentence. It's quite obvious that Biden's gains versus Clinton/Trump 16 in the blue collar voters in the Rust Belt were critical to his flipping back Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, and the working class remain a key constituency of the Democratic Party. If you're still not satisfied I can find some more sources. There have been tens if not hundreds of books and articles written on the 2020 recovery amongst Democrats with the working class voters in the Midwest.Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 19:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these sources back up the specific claim that the working class "remains an important Democratic constituency". Please stop adding sources that do not back up this claim; it's violating our policies to do so. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the wording is broadly equivalent to what the sources say, but I'm open to change the wording. The current wording says, "the working class remains an important component of the Democratic base", the sources all offer evidence for this claim. The sources says, "Biden’s winning coalition was a race-class coalition", "Joe Biden won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the Democrats saw an increased share of votes from white working-class voters in 2020" (1st HBR source), "Joseph R. Biden Jr. has durable support from a multiracial coalition of working-class voters" (NYT), "At campaign events, Biden frequently talked up the power of unions and how the working class, not Wall Street, had built the country... The goal was to siphon just enough blue-collar and Republican support from Trump to carry the day." (Reuters), "The president’s failure to match or exceed his 2016 performance, in a county tailor-made to his politics, was part of a broader letdown in his efforts to juice white working-class votes across the board." (Politico), "To gain his victory, Biden outperformed Clinton among groups to the right of the average Democratic activist. He gained significant ground among white men, including some gains among the blue-collar white men who form the strongest part of Trump’s support. He also won 54% of suburban voters, a 9-point improvement over Clinton, and took a solid majority of independents, a group that split down the middle in 2016, Pew’s numbers show.", (LA Times) Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For someone complaining about recentism, it's pretty funny to see you cite articles about literally one candidate that don't even back up what you are saying here. Apparently dozens of articles from political scientists and reliable news outlets aren't enough to say Democrats have shifted left, but this is. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How don't these sources back up what I'm saying? And I do think there is a recentism problem in the claim of a shift left, but there is indeed a shift away from organized labor issues from the 1970s on - a shift right - which alienated the working class. Regardless, the working class have always been a key part of the Democratic voter base even in the Jacksonian era. Do you want some sources that show the working class was a key constituency for FDR, Kennedy, Clinton, and LBJ? I assumed that was a given? Or can you be more specific as to what the issue is with the sources I provided supporting the claim of working class voter base? Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When you say, "the working class remains an important component of the Democratic base," the implication is that they reliably vote for the party in large numbers as for example black people do. But in the last few elections, the Republicans have marginally outperformed the Democrats, and Trump beat Biden with 57% of their vote. In fact working class voters have never been overwhelmingly Democratic. TFD (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure I see that implication. I think all it is trying to say is that Democrats need to win a large share of working class voters to assemble a winning coalition - or at least, they consistently have. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 00:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They won the 2016 and 2020 elections with a minority of working class voters; Trump won the majority. You cannot say the working class is a component of the Democratic base when most of them do not vote Democratic. Saying a group is a component of the party implies that they vote on mass for them. You could say however that the base includes a working class component. It's also important to note that unions have overwhelmingly supported the party, even when they have not taken all, or even most, of their members along. You could also say that they make an appeal to working class people, at least to some degree. TFD (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a component of the base, or the making an appeal to working class people, both sound fine. [02:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)] Have edited accordingly. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 02:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep the tags off the article while the discussion is ongoing. The problem is also not the entire article, but a few sentences, so general tags are simply inappropriate. X-Editor (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The disputed text was removed, so I agree the templates are not appropriate. Maybe we should start an RFC. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 16:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You will not be removing those tags, and if you do I'll add them back. There is an active dispute over content. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool it, guys.
 * As for the tags, the Tagging pages for problems essay advises, "Rather than reverting or edit warring over the placement of a tag, use dispute resolution procedures. Start by engaging in a calm discussion on the article's talk page." I would say keep the tags, as there isn't a consensus by all sides that the dispute has ended, and keeping the tags does not harm the page. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the NPOV tag but I do want to point out that one of the tags used, for factual accuracy, has no basis. Nobody has substantiated an issue of factual accuracy in the article. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 19:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By omitting reliably sourced information, the article is factually inaccurate in its presentation of the Democratic Party. Because of this, it has factual issues, warranting the tag. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not what factual accuracy refers to. That would be a neutrality or NPOV issue. Which you've already tagged it with. There are no factual issues with omitting that statement, you are simply asserting a neutrality issue. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think that is an issue of weight, specifically, balancing aspects, rather than reliability. The criterion for rs is accuracy, rather than neutral presentation of facts. What facts should be reported is a matter of judgment, made by authors of reliable sources and applied to Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

What remaining information is there in the article that is problematic? I've removed the non-verified claim about working class voters. What else is there to fix? X-Editor (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The reliably-sourced information indicating the party has shifted to the left in recent years has been removed from the lead. If that information is added back, I'd be fine removing the tag. If that information is not added back, the tags will remain as there is an ongoing discussion on the matter. In short: if you want the tags removed, add the information back.<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should the entire article be tagged because of one sentence? That makes no sense. X-Editor (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want the tag removed, and it sounds like we need to start an RFC because @Toa Nidhiki05 will accept nothing less than the lede stating that the Democratic Party has shifted left in recent years. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd accept the compromise in the above section that specifically focuses on social issues, which was widely agreed upon before Aquellion swept in, ignored the talk page, and reverted to a fake status quo. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would accept, defend, and would not revert an addition of a sentence to the lede stating that the Democratic Party has moved left on social issues Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added the shift to the left in social issues to the lede. Would removing the tags be appropriate now? X-Editor (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed them. Can we discuss the sentence that was removed after the shift of the labor unions in the 1970s, where we want to say something along the lines of, "Democrats still try to and need to win the working class blue collar swing vote" Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I object to including this. The lead should only focus on groups Democrats are strong with or win a majority of the vote from. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Democrats' relationship with working class voters has been critical in their success as a party from the 20th century, including particularly the New Deal Coalition. The loss of the working class vote happened largely after the 1970s. I've posted more about this above. The idea that Democrats aren't strong with the working class is a right-wing talking point. Democrats' relationship with the working class was critical to both their loss in 2016 and their gains in 2018 and 2020. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I think it would read better to simply say social, cultural, and religious issues, rather than spelling out the race, criminal justice, abortion and gender identity. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But they haven't moved to the left. As society has evolved so have the policies. At one time voting rights for women, blacks and people who don't own property was considered radical. Does that mean both parties today are left-wing? TFD (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you raise a good point, as you said before and I agreed. As society moves left, progressives help it along, and conservatives fight back or complain. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 22:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * TFD's point doesn't make any sense and contradicts what political scientists say. And yes, both parties are exceedingly liberal by historical standards. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have just agreed with me. The reason "both parties are exceedingly liberal by historical standards," is that what is liberal has changed (although the term was not used in the U.S. until the 1930s.) Conservatives today do not believe that women, blacks and people who do not own property should not vote. The parties are not moving to the left, they are both accepting changing opinions. The Dems are ahead of the curve and your party is behind. TFD (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your general claim here is that social liberalism simply doesn't exist, which is ridiculous and rejected by actual sources on the matter. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to an extent, it's interesting to compare to the lead of Republican Party (United States). That lead does mention a shift to the right...  in 1912, far enough back that in theory there should be high-quality sources supporting it if it's true. (Though it doesn't seem to be mentioned much in the body, and I'm personally skeptical - I think high-quality sources are usually more cautious about using simple left-right framings.) But what leaped out at me is that it makes no mention of Republican left / right shifts or shifts towards conservationism since the 1980s.  In fact, it doesn't treat Reagan's election as a leadworthy aspect of the party's history, which is a bit shocking - the fact that conservatives claimed full control of the party in 1980 is extremely well-documented, and certainly in the popular press there's a lot more coverage of the Republican party's rightward shift (even the sources above are generally worded along the lines of "the Democratic party has also shifted, though not as dramatically as the Republicans.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that sounds more like an argument to edit the Republican Party page and improve it. I'd say the major points I'd want to hit on there are the period of post-Nixon, Goldwater, then Reagan is super notable for the Cold War, Reaganomics, Gorbachev, Star Wars, etc. That's major 20th century history. Probably no reason to mention Newt Gingrich or Bob Dole in the lede. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * US Democratic Party Logo.svg

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2022
Hi, I would like it if you added stonewall democrats to the Dems page as the LGBT wing like why did the republican party have it before us? This is not helping our cause. We need to stop wanting to lose and start wanting to win. https://www.stonewalldemocrats.us/ here is the link again. RadicalDisability (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You need to provide an independent secondary sources to demonstrate this is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"In recent years", the party has lost significant support among members of the White and Hispanic working class and gained support among affluent and college-educated Whites
This is true, but when is "in recent years"? MOS:REALTIME (and common sense) tells us to avoid constructions like that. For example, the NYT source from 2022 says "over the last decade". Should we be saying something like "Since the 2010s"? Endwise (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"Democratic Party (United States" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Democratic Party (United States and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Affluence and hispanic voters in the lead (and body)
I don't think the sourcing we have now is enough to justify a section devoted to "affluence"; and certainly not in the lead. The focus on Hispanic voters are similar - the sourcing for that is limited, notes that the shift is slight, and most importantly effectively covers only two election cycles. That's not enough to be leadworthy for a broad long-term article like this without much more focused sourcing indicating a fundamental change to the party's base of support (which I don't think even these sources justify.) It's particularly WP:UNDUE to weigh it equal to the shift of support among white voters, which has far more coverage describing it as a core, fundamental change in the party's identity going back decades. --Aquillion (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There's a substantive amount of political science literature and media reports (such as this and this) that have covered the topic. There's a consensus in the literature that the basis of support for left and right-wing political parties in the developed world has shifted since the 1960s: with affluent, more socially liberal voters moving towards left-wing parties (such as the Democrats) and working-class, more socially conservative voters moving towards right-wing parties (such as the Republicans).


 * These trends hold even accounting for race, with a majority of working-class Hispanics now identifying as Republican, and an overwhelming margins among whites. As a recent Politico article covering the 2022 Nevada Senate race stated stated: and


 * There's also a multitude of political science studies stating the same that could be cited. I just didn't add it due to WP:OVERCITE. KlayCax (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The trend is with educational polarization. More education, more left wing. I agree with Aquillion and Muboshgu. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 01:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Educational polarization is a part of it as well. But even adjusting/accounting for education: Democrats perform better among affluent voters than Republicans. There's been many political science papers and articles describing it as Income is now also conversely correlated with support for economic conservatism: despite that seeming counterintitutive to most people.  It's also what reliable sources state. I'm uncertain what part is being objected to. KlayCax (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And other studies and papers show the opposite only 10 or 20 years ago so it's too much weight for a limited level of conclusion, and recentism. In fact if you look at the chart on this page it shows the top echelon relatively split, down from strongly Republican. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 02:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's objectionable to state that affluent voters are trending towards the Democrats. All of those sources back up what would be stated.
 * However, I removed "affluent" from the lead and merged the "working class" and "affluent" subsections into a singular "class" subsection. Since the Democratic coalition is increasingly becoming an awkward mixture of socially liberal, college-educated whites and most minority groups. KlayCax (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not certain what the demographic data reveal about the political orientation of Hispanics. But for the past couple of decades, the Republicans have embraced right-wing populism. And the voters of this movement are always opposed to the recent trend of demographic shifts. As noted in the main article on this brand of populists: They "have mobilized on concerns felt by voters over non-Western immigration, Islam, terrorism, loss of national identity or sovereignty, and beliefs that the political establishment has ignored concerns felt by ordinary people." Immigrants became the bogeyman for entire segments of the American population, and the Democrats are increasingly perceived as elitist. Perhaps right-wing populism seems more attractive to the American working class, which would explain why they are flocking towards the Republicans. Dimadick (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Politics in most developed countries are becoming aligned with cultural, social, and religious positions, rather than economic class. (i.e. The days of socially conservative, economically redistributionist Democrats and socially liberal, affluent Republicans are just about over.) Similar trends have been occuring in other developed nations, . The only unique part in the U.S. is that the parties haven't (majorly) shifted their economic positions. (Outside of free trade, immigration, globalization, and other topics among an "open society-closed society" basis.) While parties (esp. right-wing populist) in Europe — particularly in Hungary, Poland, and, briefly, the United Kingdom, although their missteps seem to have ended this realignment — have often taken more economically redistributive, "leftist" positions than many mainstream center-left parties. KlayCax (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We must be careful about interpreting too much of a WP:RECENTISM trend. Consider the WP:10YEARSTEST and make sure we are not veering into WP:SYNTH WP:OR Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The trend dates back to the 1960s. (Slowly, then, since the 90s, rapidly.) But there's a multitude of sources dating back to 2012 — and particularly since 2016 (so 6 years or so) — about the trend. It's well-established in WP: RS that affluent and college-educated voters are trending towards the Democratic Party and vice versa. Are you objecting to just the hypothetical wording in the lead stating that Democrats win "affluent" voters in general? Or that mentioning a "trend of affluent voters" moving towards the Democrats is problematic?
 * I think the latter statement is undeniable and don't know of any WP: RS, political scientist, or reliable poll which denies that trend. KlayCax (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an article about everything about the Democratic Party from the 1800s on. It's too much weight for this demographic trend data and the idea of the Democratic Party being the party of the affluent is one piece of a larger picture that you're putting too much weight. Certainly in the 1960s and 1970s, the Democratic Party was the party of labor and the working class. The shift from What's the Matter with Kansas?, really hits the story with the Democratic Leadership Council. I think there is indeed a shift here to do with the Reagan revolution that realigned the entire country to the right, but you could talk about the civil rights era and the Solid South] flip too. In the 1990s though the party lurched right-center and some argue that it has started treading back in recent years to the FDR/Kennedy/LBJ heritage. Those are my 2c. So yes, on paper there's a recent trend of Democrats winning the affluent, but it shouldn't be taken in isolation. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 01:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It far exceeds the ten-year-rule. . This has been a trend since the 1960s. It seems obviously notable for the lead.KlayCax (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questionable Claim
Claiming the Democratic Party is ideologically more diverse than the Republican Party is the best joke I've heard all year. Democratic politicians clearly almost universally tow the line. 96.40.73.225 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Evidently untrue, just look at Manchin and Sinema. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 02:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andrevan I'd say that is an extreme example and an exception, not the rule. 96.40.73.225 (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That party members "tow the line"(what else would you expect?) does not mean that individual members are not ideologically diverse. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

But Republicans do not toe the line, in fact, almost a majority of the senate Republican Caucus has voted with the democrats at least 50% of the time.

Also, Under Republican Presidents, there aren't just one or two Moderates like with Manchin and Sinema, there are dozens, usually leading to very Centrist legislation passing.

So no, the Democratic Party is not more ideologically diverse, given that with 1-2 exceptions, they are party-line almost completely, while the GOP has nothing similar. Mr manor11 (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not what reliable sources say. Democrats are ideologically diverse, while the GOP generally gets in line. Provide reliable citations otherwise. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 11:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There are at LEAST 1/2 dozen sources for the statement in the lead that says "The party is a big tent,[14] and though it is often described as liberal, it is less ideologically uniform than the Republican Party (with major individuals within it frequently holding widely different political views) due to the broader list of unique voting blocs that compose it.[15][16][17][5][18]". It literally makes no difference that anyone in this thread makes their own arguments for or against the statement with any reasons they could come up with.  Reliable sources have characterized them as such; those sources have greater established expertise in political analysis than any of you randos here.  The statement is not going away any time soon.  Unless you can find higher quality sources that contradict that, there's really no point in arguing.  Sources are what matter, not your own reasons.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll have to let others argue against your position, IP. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Working class voter - 2022 midterm
"Democrats won the majority of voters earning under $30k and $50k. Republicans won the majority of voters earning over $200k." Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 00:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That's primarily a measure of significant racial inequality in wealth/income in the United States. (Democrats win an overwhelming majority of African-Americans: 85%+.)
 * Poor minorities — as well as whites — are more likely to vote Republican than their respective racial demographics..
 * It's just that far more minority groups vote for Democrats. It's not a contradiction. KlayCax (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You could look at it the other way and say that the divide you're talking about is urban vs. rural, not about affluence. Either way, I just don't think that there are enough sources focusing on "affluence" in the way you're using it to mean here - even most of the sources you've provided only mention it in passing, and often only as a brief single-election data point. It's not comparable to the racial or urban / rural divides and is largely just a consequence of the latter divide. --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Among other things, voting varies with income and education. The higher one's income is, the more likely one is to vote Republican, while the more education one has, the more likely one is to vote Democratic. TFD (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Political Position
Does everyone agree that the Democrats are Center to Center-left? If so please add the political position. RayAdvait (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a thing that is subject to polling. Do you have reliable sources that have such a categorization?  I should note that the political positions of the party are already listed in the article and that facile categorization of the party is not really useful.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because different people use these terms differently and what they mean is only understood through context. TFD (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How about using the Wikipedia definitions and adding the positions? RayAdvait (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? TFD (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because 99% of party articles have political positions. RayAdvait (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, why should we use the Wikipedia definition. Wikipedia is not supposed to define terms but to explain how they are used. Unfortunately, there is no agreement of what center and center-left mean. TFD (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That could just mean that the other articles need to be changed. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party is mainly of two camps, the centrists & the progressives. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are three groupings: Blue Dogs, New Democrats and Progressives. Before the Blue Dogs were the Yellow Dogs, which included Klansmen and Birchers. Rep. Macdonald for example headed the Society. Bernie Sanders set up the Progressives, but most of its members are fairly centrist. There is also the Squad and other groups to the left of the mainstream party. Can you provide a precise mapping of all these groups on the political spectrum? TFD (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes so we will separate it into majority and factions. The majority would be Centre to centre-left and in the factions would be Left-wing for the progressive RayAdvait (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even in the Blue Dog coalition article it says they are centrist RayAdvait (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * and the modern liberals as well RayAdvait (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, those are subjective assessments and different informed observers would place them differently. Joe Manchin for example might be considered to be on the right, and certainly would be if he moved to the Republican Party, but you consider him to be centrist because he is a Democrat, which you have defined as center to center left. Essentially, these classifications tell us nothing except how you personally place people along the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Republican
Please don't associate the Republican Party in any way with the Democrats. This is just pure ignorance. 2600:1700:AAB0:C850:A8DF:4EBD:15BB:1EB4 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you referencing, exactly? 331dot (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Katherine Clark Inclusion in Infobox?
Why is House Minority Whip Katherine Clark included in the Democratic Party Infobox? The Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin is not included, nor are the House and Senate Republican Whips included on the Republican Party page. EDZ Madrigal 21 (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Membership
I’ve put this topic on both Democratic and Republican Party talk pages, because both are shy of much information on this subject.

I recently did an edit on List of largest political parties, adding a footnote to the LEDO as follows:

''The definition of "membership" varies widely from nation to nation, which has a significant bearing on the numbers and percentages listed on this page. For example, United Kingdom memberships are limited to paid-up subscribers to each party. By this description the two dominant parties - Conservative and Labour – together have about half a million members, and are less than one per cent of the UK population. At an opposite extreme, United States memberships can include all registered voters who have self-identified their party preference, and who may number in the tens of millions, making their percentages of US population comparatively large.''

I’m confident of the UK statement, but the US statement, on reflection, raises questions:


 * The numbers which each party claims as “members” are apparently summed up from the 31 states (plus DC) which give voters the option to self-identify their party. That leaves voters in all the other states unaccounted for – therefore a significant undercount. And probably unknowable, since those states don’t ask the question.
 * “Members” in this context seems to be misleading: Very few have any involvement with the party other than casting votes in elections. “Supporters” or “Followers” or a similar term might be more accurate.
 * Is there a “subscriber” or similar level of membership, which gives persons some voice in party policies, candidate selection, etc.? And how does one apply?
 * What qualifies persons to become members of national and state party committees?

I’ve (so far) not been very successful in finding citable answers, or even unverifiable ones. Both parties’ official websites barely touch on the membership subject, beyond asking for financial contributions and volunteer staff. Regards, Kokopelli-UK (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally, AFAIK, all such people are volunteers, and moving "up the ranks" of the party structure generally involves being noticed by people for your low-level volunteer work. It may start out volunteering as someone who canvasses for the party during elections, and then as one does that repeatedly, they are given more and more responsibility within local/state party structures.  Many years ago, I wrote a bunch of the article for Raymond Buckley, who is the current (and long-serving) chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, and he got into the party by canvassing as a teenager, becoming well known to be selected for state-level offices before he was old enough to drink.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but as far as the question of becoming a member of the Democratic Party, I believe you become a member primarily due to your voter registration. The Democratic National Committee also has a membership level which is attained due to a financial donation. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no national central registry of "Democratic Party Members" writ large, and there is no vehicle to do so in any reasonable sense. (same, by the way, for the Republican party).  There are organizations and committees one can join, either by volunteering with them or by donating money or some such, but that represents a small number of people who might (by any loose sense of the term) be deemed "members" of the party.  Colloquially, whenever anyone says they are a "member" of a party, it means they are registered as such on the voter registration rolls, but this is managed differently in each different state.  There's no national system for tracking this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

“The democratic party is less ideologically uniform then the Republican Party”
Good joke now where's the punchline? Because from what it seems the Republican Party has a extremely diverse group of people while the Democratic Party basically universally have the same views on gun rights, gay marriage and affirmative action while the Republican Party has members that both support and oppose gun rights and support and oppose gay marriage rather then universally follow the same ideas like the Democratic Party with untrue stuff like this being written in the article it's no surprise that the founder of Wikipedia himself admitted a bias exists 2600:8801:1187:7F00:20B5:28D8:8863:DEF9 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope, not accurate, no reliable sources provided [by anon for their claims Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)]. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there are currently, at this moment, five reliable sources (numbers 15, 16, 17, 5, and 18) which make it verifiable. If you're going to say something which is untrue (like "no reliable sources provided") you could at least say something untrue which was not so easily checked.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)  struck inaccurate assessment, based on below.  Again, I apologize profusely for this. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant there were no reliable sources provided by this user for their claims. The sources in the article for the statement that the Democratic Party is less ideologically uniform are of course reliable and substantiate the statements. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize profusely. I thought you were agreeing with the OP that the claim in the article was not accurate.  I am very sorry I mischaracterized your response.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah it's my fault for dashing off a quick response to this OP without characterizing what I was noping to specifically enough, but apology accepted and no harm done. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

" Bill Clinton marked a move for the party toward the Third Way, adopting culturally liberal positions"
I suggest we consider removing that, because that title belongs to Barack Obama, who successfully did what we are attributing to Bill Clinton- he moved the party left on social issues. Not Bill Clinton...I'm not sure who wrote this, but this is inaccurate. The election of Bill Clinton did not see the Democratic party adopt "culturally liberal" positions, but in fact the opposite. In 1992 and 1996, under Bill Clinton; the party reversed course and supported the death penalty. This reversal of death penalty opposition surprised many, especially in light of the notorious 1988 Debate featuring Dukakis rejecting the death penalty. Next, For the first time in modern history (at the time), The Democrats advocated for restrictions and welfare reduction and elimination of cash payments. This is a notable shift compared to previous platforms advocating cash payments without work requirements (see 1972 platform for example) in their 1992 platform stating "Welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life. We want to break the cycle of welfare by adhering to two simple principles: no one who is able to work can stay on welfare forever" and "restore the covenant that welfare was meant to be: a promise of temporary help"

Another notable example, under Bill Clinton the Democratic party took measures to appeal to voters "against illegal immigration" and supported immigration barriers, including controversial refugee restrictions, a monumental step the party took to win over "White, working class voters" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/17/the-forgotten-story-of-how-refugees-almost-ended-bill-clintons-career/

1996 immigration quote from platform: "Before Bill Clinton, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away" This is a notable shift from the platforms before it, that made no mention of illegal immigration nor the ill-effects of it

1996 (and 1992 for that matter) Death penalty support, restrictions on welfare eliminating cash payments and new work requirements, immigration hard-lining: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1996-democratic-party-platform

Bill Clinton may had advocated for same sex-unions, but anti-discriminatory support for the protection of LGBT people was formally written into the 1980 platform, before Clinton: 1980 Democratic platform protecting same sex people: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1980-democratic-party-platform

1972 Campaign documents show George Mcgovern even going further than Bill Clinton and protecting same-sex people from military-discharges and every form of discrimination https://jfk.blogs.archives.gov/2017/06/23/pridemonth-the-lgbtq-rights-movement-and-the-1972-presidential-campaign/

I don't see any evidence Bill Clinton moved the party left on cultural issues, but in fact shifted Democrats right in light of "New Democratic" proposals appealing to "White, Middle Class Americans" Including Bill Clintons support for a constitutional amendment to allow organized prayer that was not coerced [https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/13/us/president-defends-a-place-for-religion-in-the-schools.html#:~:text=the%20first%20year.-,Mr.,prayer%20that%20was%20not%20coerced. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/13/us/president-defends-a-place-for-religion-in-the-schools.html#:~:text=the%20first%20year.-,Mr.,prayer%20that%20was%20not%20coerced.]

Bill Clinton rallied Democrats under the banner of "Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones" https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Clinton-issues-directive-to-permit-school-prayer-3141488.php

Bill Clinton was notable right on social issues, especially compared to the four previous Democratic nominees from 1972- 1988. Again, I feel this achievement belongs to Barack Obama.

Sufficient half (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * So, the Bill Clinton Third Way move is actually moving the party to center-right on economics. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I realize my post was long but as already noted with citations; on social policy, with supporting school prayer, supporting the death penalty as well as moving considerably right on immigration policy. There is zero evidence or citations Bill Clinton moved the party to the left on social issues. Sufficient half (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misread your response, sorry. YES that's basically all Bill Clinton did Sufficient half (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "neoliberal economic policy" Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Democratic socialism
In relation to democratic socialism, I think that you cannot necessarily classify all self-described democratic socialists in the Democratic Party as social democrats. While that's certainly an argument some make, I think we can establish that a worker cooperative-based economy in the non-public sphere would be more in line with market socialism in terms of economics than social democracy. This goes further than merely having strong labor unions or sizeable public sectors in a capitalist economy as in social democracies. Without going into the state and local levels, there are currently 5 members of the US House of Representatives, all part of the Democratic Party, who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is an explicitly anti-capitalist organization that advocates for a combination of significant public ownership and significant worker ownership to eliminate capitalist firms. To give one specific example, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who is one of those five, has made worker cooperatives a central part of her platform to shift away from traditional private ownership. @KlayCax Bryce Springfield (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying that there's democratic socialists within the Democratic Party — that seems obvious — but it's not sizeable enough to include within the infobox or lead.


 * Additionally, while it might seem contradictory for affluent voters to predominately cast their ballot for the more economically left-wing party, Zacher (2023) states here that: In a wealthy country such as the U.S., voters are prioritizing cultural concerns. . KlayCax (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) What is big enough, you think? When you reverted my edit, you claimed that "democratic socialists" in the US are actually social democrats, which you seem fine to include as a prominent faction. I demonstrated here that this is not the case, as the self-described democratic socialists, at least those that are most vocal about it, are part of an anti-capitalist organization and include market socialist, non-capitalist economics in their views. This doesn't even mention the fact that democratic socialists are present at every level of government as part of the Democratic Party, that Democratic Socialists of America members controlled an entire state party for a couple of years until recently, and that democratic socialism is a pervasive ideology in other state parties under the Democratic Party such as in  North Dakota and  New York.
 * (2) The fact that, over time, affluent voters have shifted to a more Democratic vote on average, and poorer voters the reverse, or even that the wealthiest voters had a couple of elections where they voted majority Democrat, has nothing to do with the question of which demographics the Democratic Party does best in *overall*. As demonstrated in the citations I provided (and here are a couple more), Democratic votes in the 21st century have fared better overall for low- and middle-income voters. One of the sources I linked in the parentheses here says the following:
 * An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns. Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.
 * While that was in 2012, we see a similar general trend in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022, with the Democratic lead and deficit being more pronounced for the lowest income and highest income groups, respectively. I can go back for previous years too, but you get the idea. Bryce Springfield (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, . Sorry for the late response. I just saw this.
 * At a national level? Even individuals like AOC, Sanders, et al. are predominately social democrats - not "democratic socialists" - and support a continued capitalist economy. (Whether in name or not.)
 * Right, I'm not disagreeing. This change in overall voting preferences is very, very recent. (Post mid-2010s.) However, exit polls - including from the Washington Post - are often inaccurate and have widely ranging results for subdemographics. Zacher, 2023 is a much more reliable source here. With most studies showing that income/wealth is newly correlated with Democratic support. I suppose we could leave it entirely out of the lead for now. What do you think? KlayCax (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want other editors to comment, you should provide a link to the edit. TFD (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I propose changing social democracy to democratic socialism; I think social democracy can be covered by progressivism as those who espouse social democratic ideals, often citing scandinavian countries as examples, identify themselves as progressives. This way it is easier to separate those who simply want to expand the welfare state or union representation, to those who want to overhaul the economy altogether. Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I saw today about this topic, I checked carefully discussion here and in my opinion editor KlayCax is totally right here, minor for now and should be out of the lead and infobox. Nubia86 (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed, DSA is a tiny faction, even if the Squad might consider themselves members, they are a fringe caucus and not the party leaders. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 19:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)