Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 2

Colors
Since when have either the Democratic or Republican parties adopted official colors? The articles report Dem=blue and GOP=red. Just because the media uses these colors in electoral maps doesn't make them official. They should be deleted from articles unless someone can show that they have been adopted officially. (In practice, I think both parties may claim red, white and blue as used in versions of their logos). NoSeptember 01:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. Unless someone can produce some official color selection, I'd say delete it. JamesMLane 12:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I remember Barack Obama talked about Republican red states and Democratic blue states in his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Regardless, red is associated with the GOP and blue is associated with the Dems at this point with things such as merchandise. Is that unofficial? --Blue387 15:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Highly unofficial. As recently as 1996 the media used the reverse colors.  I believe it goes as such in terms of media usage:


 * 2004: Democrats Blue, Republicans (incumbents) Red
 * 2000: Republicans Red, Democrats (incumbents) Blue
 * 1996: Republicans Blue, Democrats (incumbents) Red
 * 1992: Democrats Red, Republicans (incumbents) Blue
 * 1988: Democrats Blue, Republicans (incumbents) Red
 * 1984: Democrats Red, Republicans (incumbents) blue
 * 1980: Republicans Blue, Democrats (incumbents) red.
 * 1976: Democrats Red, Republicans (incumbents) blue


 * As I understand it, the media has, at least through 2004, used the system that the color used for the incumbent party switches every four years. Whether they will continue this in 2008 by switching up the colors remains to be seen, but there is no warrant for saying the colors are official.  Both parties on their official websites use (as one may have suspected) both red and blue. john k 17:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * After the 2000 election, the usage of the terms "red state - blue state" for Republicans and Democrats, respectively, became quite common, which had not happened before with regard to either way of assigning the colors. I suspect that the colors will remain fixed for quite a while. JamesMLane 02:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

List of notables
The historic section has been augmented by some Democratic Presidents who, as Presidents go, aren't all that notable. Maybe we should create a third category, between the current ones and the historics, for "Democratic Presidents". JamesMLane 23:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Dr. K's changes: 2005 mid-Jun.
For the last couple of days, I've been trying to add some depth to the article, thinking it lacked it. I've tried include more clear descriptions of the issue positions shared by the vast majority of Democrats and include some recent history. I tried to discuss some of the inner struggles of the party, given that its bitter division is important to understanding why it is as it is now. I don't know how to make footnotes, but I carefully numbered the references to the section for recent history and listed them in a new section for references. More importantly, I've described the ideological factions, rather than the microfactions previously listed, and tried to assertain why liberals, progressives, conservatives and moderates are all under the same party banner and what caucuses and networks are in each faction.

The results of my work are imperfect and my biases may have crept into it a little. Plus the section for principles needs the Democratic views on campaign finance and enviroment. But I think it's a good model for improvement. I encourage other wikis to further edit it for encyclopedic quality.


 * Wow, I'd encourage you to be bold, but it looks like you need no such encouragement. One thing I'd caution regarding the principles section would be to say that Democrats favor X while Republicans favor Y.  Taking social security as an example, both Democrats and Republicans will say that it is one of their top issues, and they may even mean it, but where they'll differ is in implementation.  Democrats tend to think that public institutions can better serve the people while Republicans think that private industry can use the money more efficiently.  The same goes for education, the environment, and healthcare. --CVaneg 19:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to add more info on the party's actual political beliefs, but the section as it stands is seriously problematic, and likely to only get worse. Wikipedia cannot be in the business of deciding which are the most important "issues, principles, and values" of the party -- that's an inherently biased exercise in original research, prohibited by our editorial policies. Nor does it serve any useful purpose to develop a smorgasbord listing of every issue in American politics, and our best guesses as to where a majority of Democrats might fall on it (even with repeated caveats that the party is not united).

I'd like to suggest that we start over with something closer to what's in the GOP article: a listing of the party's stated political principles (from either the platform or charter), and a brief description of the party's core political identity (or lack thereof), and work from there, preferably using specific citations at every turn.

Thoughts?

RadicalSubversiv E

Also, the article overall is in fairly bad shape, so I'm going to spend some time going over the other sections now. I'll leave the first section alone for the moment. RadicalSubversiv E 02:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HowardDean's Edits
I completely disagree with User:Radicalsubversiv deleting my edits. They are in no way POV, in fact I actually deleted a few lines that were indeed POV and didn't give both sides of the political argument. What I simply did was edit the article to make it less bias and more informative. That's why I'm going to re-add the edits. Mr. User:Radicalsubversiv I don't have any personal problem with you, so let's this civil and not start some sort of editing battle. I'm not here to push any political junk, just be informative. -- HowardDean 7 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)


 * At the very least some of HowardDean's edits are legit. I'm returning some of the non-controversial additions. -- OldRight 7 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)


 * I see a serious issue with the wholesale changes to the abortion paragraph. --FCYTravis 7 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)

PSzalapski's additions
I've just removed several of PSzalapski's additions to the issues, principles, and values section:


 * "Democrats are often against any funding of abstinence campaigns, and are often against abstinence-emphasis sex education." In addition to not being about abortion (the heading under which it was placed), the debate over sex ed is not a major partisan divide (it's mostly between the Christian right and the public health lobby) -- and it's characterized in biased terms (nobody opposes including abstinence in sex ed curricula -- what they oppose is not including information on other practices to limit the spread of STDs).


 * "Democrats also tend to advocate increases in funding for domestic Federal programs, hoping that government spending might stimulate the national economy. They also advocate small tax increases, usually on the highest levels of income, to fund these increases and reduce the deficit." The Democrats certainly used to be united in favoring government spending to stimulate economic growth, but they aren't anymore, and the ones who do tend to be the least concerned with budget deficit.


 * "a siginficant portion of Democrats advocate a socialized medicine system." 'Socialized medicine' is a term used only by conservative to oppose public investment in health care -- it does not describe a specific proposal or even a specific set of proposals.

Note that I am on record opposing this entire section to begin with, as I believe it to be a magnet for endless debates over which minute policy positions can be attributed to a party which can't even agree which direction is up much of the time.

RadicalSubversiv E 17:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ballot symbols
Hi, I would like to start an article on the various ballot symbols used by U.S. political parties in different states. I have never seen a source for these anywhere. I think with the diverse knowledge of Wikipedians, we can compile a comprehensive resource right here. Help out at User:Pharos/List of political party ballot symbols by U.S. state. I've already added a few for New York. Thanks.--Pharos 21:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

moved from article:
Hello, will some of you answers some questions for my research on wikipedia. Please e-mail Tiffany at chadek@u.washington.edu thanks! The questions are short and will take about 10 min. --

Ideological label
As I've already stated at Talk:Republican Party (United States), I don't see the need for the infobox to include a blanket "ideology" label in the first place. But if we're going to have it, our obligation is to be accurate, not to create some sort of false parallel between the Democrats and the GOP where none exists in reality. The reality is that the Republican Party is unquestionably a conservative party -- that being a relative broad labels which includes several flavors and degrees. Sure, there are a few outliers (Lincoln Chaffee comes to mind), but they are just that.

The Democrats cannot be thought of as liberal in the same sense. Democratic moderates are not an informal grouping of the "somewhat less liberal" -- they are an organized, dominant faction which specifically eschews the liberal consensus which once dominated their party, in favor of a "third way". The issue here is not an odd outlier like Zell Miller -- it's prominent party leaders like Bill Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, and Tom Vilsack.

RadicalSubversiv E 19:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * that is all fine and dandy right there what you say. However you are suggesting (ie POV) that the democrat party (it is not democratic by anyone's measure) is less extremist than the republican, and this is false. They are way more radical, this started in 1972 when they nominated poet socialist George McGovern and they haven't stopped veering left since.--82.156.49.1 22:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV disclaimer added
I believe an NPOV disclaimer is needed for this article. The article takes a consistent slant that the Democratic Party is "more centrist" than the Republican Party. The ideology label is only the most visible manifestation of this and is persistently added by a few people with the opinion that the party is "more centrist" than the Republican Party. In a system with two major parties, one left and one right, it's nothing but POV for someone to believe that their party (or the one they associate with more closely) is the correct, or more moderate/center one. Go to a red state and ask people which party is more center, and people will tell you it is the Republican Party -- their opinion too. Until the article (articles, really) drop the positioning of one party as moderate and the other as hopelessly dogmatic, the NPOV disclaimer is needed on one or both. Daniel Quinlan
 * See RadicalSubversive's opinion above, which I fully agree with. Anyone who holds the Republican Party to be anything but conservative (in all its flavours, I suppose) is incorrect.  Hell, you assume that some leftist editors on this article are adding "centrist" to the Democrats' column as though they personally view it as a positive state for the party to be in? Shem(talk) 22:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. However, even if some people are adding it as a negative, it's still POV.  Daniel Quinlan 22:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "adding it as a negative," I said that they personally did not view it as a positive, because you were apparently assuming that sole POV motive (which I sincerely doubt is actually the case). Shem(talk) 22:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note, I still disagree with your first point. There are definitively aspects of the Republican Party platform, Bush's policies, etc. which are completely centrist (support for farm subsidies and steel tariffs, government spending increases on various programs, and many more). Those just go unnoticed by people who are leftist. Daniel Quinlan 22:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * One would think an editor with your experience would avoid such broad-brushing rhetoric. Shem(talk) 22:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If I added "getting-electedist" and "staying-in-powerist" to both partys' pages, would that be POV? These certainly are more accurate descriptions of the politics of both partys than words like "conservative", "liberal", or "centrist". -Acjelen 22:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

One broader point... motives don't really matter, although I sometimes let an implication of that leak into my discussion of articles (it is definitely not a major point in my argument here, though). All that really matters is whether or not the articles contain POV, which they do. Daniel Quinlan 22:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

While I wish the Democratic Party was as much a liberal as I am (I'm a member of the party), you can not ignore the many Democratic Leadership Council members who infiltrate the party (Vilsack, Hillary Clinton, Bayh, and others). DLC is an unofficial organization of centrist and conservative Democrats who want to move the party rightwards than the Democratic National Committee. The Republican Party is unquestionably very conservative, however the Democratic Party has many elected members who have a rather centrist stand on issues most of the time. Most of the members of the Democratic Party are left-wing though. But as much as you can point out the centrist members of Congress, there are also many liberal members, such as Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Boxer, Dennis Kucinich. By the way, there is nothing POV about this issue in my view, and liberals are not adding "centrist" to make the article "look good" or whatever, in fact, I'd wish "centrist" needn't be there in the first place, since I wish more Democrats would take a more liberal stand on issues. But Wikipedia is here to reflect the reality. And the reality is that the Democratic Party is divided on this issue, of whether to be left-of-center or to move rightward, so both "liberalism" and "centrism" should stay there. --Revolución (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The mere fact that Howard Dean is party chair and Harry Reid is Senate Minority Leader speaks volumes about how divided the party is.

Thanks for adding those pictures
Thanks for putting other pictures up. I was the one who added FDR's picture. Do you think we should add Howard Dean's picture, as he's the chairman of the party? --Revolución (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Some sort of political change graph
Do you think this is a good idea: A graph of how the Democratic Party has changed politically over time, you could show it starting out as conservative, then moving to liberal in the '60s, then moving a bit centrist later. I guess we should have it resting a bit left of the center for the current situation. And if it moves to the left or right politically then somebody could update it. (although I have no idea how to update an image, if somebody knows please give me some info on User talk:Revolución.) --Revolución (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you could get an objective basis for setting each data point so as to draw a graph. Furthermore, the party has moved differently on different issues.  No single number could represent the party's overall ideological location at any given moment. JamesMLane 07:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article
Has this been a featured article before? I'm just making sure, so if I ever feel this has reached featured article status (it's looks close to that!), I can nominate it. --Revolución (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If it had ever been a featured article, it would have said so at the top of this page. Feel free to nominate it, although there might be a problem with a lack of cited sources.

Centrism
I'm not one to get into edit wars, so I'm putting this here, at least until there is other support.

In the United States, there is an evenly split electorate. Both parties have a legitimate claim to the center, by numbers alone. This edit summary "RV! Listen to the reasons you just gave, if the GOP is centrist the DNC is what......? ah yes, NOT centrist" is fallacious: it assumes that the "center" is monolithic, and can belong only to one camp. Not so. Both parties claim "centrism." Antandrus (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

see how many wiki-goers think Democrats are 'centrist'--I-2-d2 16:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't happen to think the country is as "evenly split" as you seem tot hink it is, but to avoid an edit war, I'll be the bigger man here, and suggest a vote,


 * That's just not how things are done. You'll find that many people think that it's centrist, and many people think it's not. There are two reasons why centrism should be included there - #1, the party claims it, and #2, there are clearly centrists in the party, for instance, and trying to edit from your view, I expect you would say Zell Miller is a centrist, that Ed Koch is a centrist and that Tom Vilsack is a centrist. Hipocrite 16:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, both parties contain "centrists", but I think defining each parties ideology as centrism is misleading. It should focus on what makes the parties different, not similar. We should focus on the base of the parties (Dem. = Left, Rep. = Right). We shouldn't just list every ideology that every member has. Look to the core. --SkeeloBob 17:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * exactly, now that it is clear that the majority of the people here agree with me, would you mind ever so much if I removed the centirst claim--I-2-d2 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. Do not do so. It is not clear, and this is not a majority decision. Hipocrite 18:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why should anyone listen to you? you've opennly admited to being my stalker--I-2-d2 18:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. Comment on the matter at hand, not the commenters. Aside from that, I believe that our edit histories, viewed side by side, show exactly why I'm watching your edit history. You should listen to the admin trying to educate you on your talk page. Hipocrite 18:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I-2-d2, you seem to be of an obvious POV all over the place. Please try and look at things from your opponents view. Write for your enemy, as they say. I am not sure this belongs in here, but wait for a real consensus to develop before changing hotly debated topics such as this. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, not this shit again. Listen, the Republican Party is very conservative/ right-wing. It is not in the same situation as the Democratic Party, in which there is a faction of centrists with alot of influence. I would like to add that I don't think the Democratic Party having a centrist tendency is a good thing at all, in fact, I despise the centrists who want to move the party right-ward. --Revolución (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Revolución, you are not fully correct. While there is an established group of centrists in the Democratic Party, there is just as great an influence by centrists in the Republican Party. The truth is that the Dems are left wing, and the Reps are right wing. But since there are tons of people in the middle with no party, they have to piggy-back on the major two. A look at the Reps shows many very powerful centrists... as does a look at the Dems. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, there isn't. There may be a few centrist Republicans, but nowhere near the number of centrist Democrats aka New Democrats. Let's see, just look at this, from the Democratic Leadership Council article:

Members of the Senate "New Democrat" Coalition: 18 centrist Democrats in the Senate, out of 44 total Democrats.
 * Sen. Max Baucus of Montana
 * Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
 * Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington
 * Sen. Thomas R. Carper of Delaware
 * Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York
 * Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota
 * Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
 * Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California
 * Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota
 * Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
 * Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
 * Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
 * Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
 * Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
 * Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida
 * Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
 * Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas
 * Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan


 * HRC a centrist? Don't make me laugh, she only pretends to be and casts a few tactical votes to fool gullible people that she is moderate, but she has always been an extreme left wing Marxist radical.

"New Democrat" Governors:
 * Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin
 * Gov. Michael Easley of North Carolina
 * Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan
 * Gov. Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware
 * Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona
 * Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania
 * Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico
 * Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas
 * Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa
 * Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia

10 centrist Democratic governors out of 22 Democratic governors

That's the reality. A hard, unfortunate reality for us liberal Democrats. --Revolución (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I disagree with you on your main point then. Just because someone is in the DLC does NOT mean they are a centrist. I know a lot of conservatives that would disagree with your labeling of some of those Sen. and Gov. And it doesn't really matter anyway. Can we just try and figure out if "Centrism" deserves to be in this (and/or the Republican Party) article? I don't think either should include it, since both parties have members who are centrists. Stick to the platform and the general ideology of the two parties, which has been said many times before. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)  19:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So consensus has it, clearly the centrist title must now be removed--I-2-d2 04:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I should point out that I, myself, cannot do it, as it will take about 3 seconds before everybody jumps down my throat, and leaves me all sorts of messages about "civility"--I-2-d2 04:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I see a lot of stuff here, but no consensus. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the concern that "centrist" is a subjective label. "Third way" is not -- it refers to a very specific ideological movement, which is why I've added it twice as a supplement to liberalism. But again, my preferred solution is to remove the "ideology" line from the template altogether. RadicalSubversiv E 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree, definitely no consensus here. That is all. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * centrism in the democrat party (in no way is this party democratic) is only to fool people into voting for them, as soon as they are in office they will revert back to the hardcore extreme left wing Marxist radicals they really are.
 * Don't start a political fight. WP:CIVIL may be in order here. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * wow, I can't believe what this anonymous user just said. Does he know nothing of politics? Excuse me, but Bill Clinton was in office for 8 years, and he was not much of a liberal, more of a "third way" left-leaning centrist. He certainly didn't espouse any communist ideals while in office. --Revolución (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

One of the best ways to defuse these kinds of arguments, and get the article-writing back on track, is to stop focusing on what we think but on how the political parties label themselves. Does the Democratic party claim the label of centrist (they do)? Does the Republican party claim that label (they do). That, together with the abundant evidence of self-identified centrists among both Democrats and Republicans, suggests keeping "centrism" in the article.

Polite note to the newcomers to Wikipedia: this is not Usenet. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. They are not suggestions, they are official site policy. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm deeply concerned by the "centrism" issue. In particular, given the tremendous overlap between the policies of the GOP and the Dems, it seems to me highly POV to describe exactly one of the two as centrist. Either they both are, or neither is. WMMartin 16:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh please, I think most people can see which part is centrist and which is pure fringe--I-2-d2 21:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's easy to tell. The centrist party is the one that includes opponents of the war in Iraq, the position of most Americans.  The fringe party is the one that includes wackos who call for the assassination of elected foreign leaders. JamesMLane 01:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I doubt you would find many Republicans who self-identify as "ultra-conservative". Revolución's recent edits are POV and should be reverted. --Bziobnic 19:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, you would find many of them who would self-identify as such. --Revolución (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but "ultra-conservative" is necessarily POV. It is a relative term which has no meaning absent some comparison to other points of view. By declaring Republicans to be "ultra-conservative" you are declaring them to be far to the right of some imaginary midpoint that you have defined. "Ultra-conservative" is a simple value judgment on your part and not an empirical fact. --Bziobnic 17:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Though hardly scientific, a google search for "republican ultra-conservative" yields 220,000 results versus 20,000,000 for "republican conservative". It appears that most English speakers, at least, do not identify Republicans as "ultra-conservative". I have reverted Revolución's edits pending some credible demonstration that the Republican Party can be fairly labeled as "ultra-conservative". --Bziobnic 01:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent 2000 election dispute.
1. You cannot state unequivocally that Nader was a spoiler, because there is compelling evidence that Gore would have lost to Bush even without Nader in the race.

2. You cannot trivialize the similarities between Bush and Gore by listing only two issues. Their similarities were many and varied and were the main reason why all those people voted for Nader and Buchanan.

3. Never, never, never say that one candidate "stole" votes from another, unless you have proof of electoral fraud. Liberal votes didn't belong to Gore and conservative votes didn't belong to Bush. They belonged to the people who cast them, and if those people cast their votes for Nader and Buchanan, that's their right as Americans.

1. By the definition of "spoiler" in this encyclopedia, Nader was a spoiler. See the link.

2. You cannot trivialize the differences between Bush and Gore by not listing all of them. The past five years ought to have demonstrated what the differences are between these two candidates.

3. I was using "stole" in the colloquial sense.

The problem here, I think, is that the description of the 2000 election focuses on the Greens and Nader, when really the election was between Gore and Bush. How do you analyze that? If not for Nader's role in Florida, he would have been a footnote to the election, just as he is a footnote to the 1996 and 2004 elections and is not mentioned here. Nader's role in the 2000 election would better be covered in the entry about Nader and the entry about the 2000 election. The description here should be written in a Bush-Gore context. Why did Gore lose to Bush, not to Nader (Gore clobbered Nader). I'm going to give some thought to this and write it up in the next few days.

1. It could be argued that a variety of factors, including but not limited to Pat Buchanan, sight-challenged old folks, Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court of the United States of America decided this election in favor of George W. Bush and you cannot lay the whole thing at Nader's door.

2. Since you don't have a crystal ball and you cannot see into a parallel universe, you really can't say what Gore would have done differently than Bush. And I did not, by any means, list all of their similarities. I summarized.

3. Don't use "stole" in any sense. Nader and Buchanan didn't steal anything. Those votes belonged to the people who cast them, and if they cast them for someone other than Bush or Gore, hard cheese.

No doubt a number of factors contributed to the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. That goes without saying. But Buchanan, butterfly ballots, and the like aren't the main reasons. The real question is: Why did so many vote for Bush? This Wikipedia entry deals with the Democratic Party. Why did it lose the election? The Nader discussion from the subject, as I argued earlier, and Nader in 2000 is a more fit subject for Ralph Nader. The Green Party has become a footnote in American politics.
 * That's actually not the main question. The main question is, "Why did the 35,000 people who voted for Ralph Nader in Florida vote for Ralph Nader?" Why is that the question? Because most of them had previously voted Democrat and voted Democrat for other offices that year, so why did they vote for Nader over Gore for president?
 * First off, there were 97,000 votes for Nader in Florida. The election ended up hinging on these votes, but really they are a small part of the larger picture that has to do with why the Demos have largely been failing to win national elections since LBJ. Carter and Clinton were anamolies. Carter benefited from Watergate and Clinton from the Perot candidacy. A real analysis of the 2000 election would look at a bigger picture than the Nader candidacy, whose chief feature was its spoiler role. Nader only got 2.7% of the vote.
 * The fact that almost 100,000 people voted for Nader in Florida alone when they could have voted for Gore actually furthers my point. And the reason that Carter and Clinton are the only two Democrats to win since LBJ is tied into the many similarities between Bush and Gore. I believe it was Harry Truman who first said that if the voters are to choose between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, they'll go with the Republican every time.
 * I'm pretty sure Nader and the Green Party would consider Harry Truman an imperialist warmonger if he were alive today.
 * 97,000 votes is not very many votes. It constitutes only 2% of voters in Florida. I stick to my main argument, that this entry in the Wikipedia deserves a better treatment of the 2000 election, as the current one focues to narrowly on Nader and Florida.
 * When a presidential election is decided by less than 500 votes, 97,000 votes is a lot. And the reason that those 97,000, or even 500 of those 97,000, chose Nader over Gore bothe xplains why Gore lost and ties into the section's explanation of the Party's rightward slide.
 * Statistically, the 97,000 didn't amount to a hill of beans. Anyhow, I sure wish about 1200 of them had heeded the warnings -- some from Nader's own raiders -- and voted for Gore instead of Nader. Good night.
 * Something like 97% of all of Nader's Raiders backed him in 2000. The guy who didn't worked for him for six months in the '70s. "Statistically" doesn't matter. "Actually," they cost Gore the election.
 * Of course Nader cost Gore the election. But in an election which is that close, there are literally thousands of things which can just as legitimately be said to have cost Gore the election.   I see no especial reason to focus on Nader. john k 04:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph on events of 1824-1828
The second paragraph of the "History: Origins" section is kind of out of chronological order, and semi-confusing. There's a word missing from this clause: "...with the forming the Democratic-Republican faction..."

Factions in the Democratic party
The wikipedia definition of Political faction states that a faction is "grouping of individuals within a political organisation," and a "power bloc, or a voting bloc." It futher states, "Where factions differ is the amount of organisation and internal structure they possess. Most factions are very loose organisations, having no definitive list of members and little in the way of common goals besides the advancement of particular individuals."

By the wikipedia definition, several of the factions under "Factions in the Democratic party" are not factions at all, but are organizations whose members have joined together to influence the Democratic Party in some way or to advance their political ideas. Under the wikipedia definiton of factions, I believe these groups should be taken out of the list of Democratic Party factions: Democratic Leadership Council, 21st Century Democrats, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Progressive Democrats of America, and African-American Leadership. These are actually organizations, not factions of the Democratic Party. Some have member lists; some are closed to outsiders; all are not "loose organizations."

What say you to making this a true list of factions? -- Groit

Those are factions. sorry, but they're staying. However, I think "Clintonistas" should be taken out, because supporters of Clinton do not even call themselves that, and most likely they could be classed under the DLC. --Revolución (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about the Clintonistas, although maybe they should be given a different name (I think Rush Limbaugh came up with the term "Clintonistas", which would qualify the term as perjorative). However, Clinton followers and admirers form a large voting bloc within the party. As a voting bloc, they consitute a faction. Maybe call them "Clinton Democrats."

Once again, I refer you to the wikipedia defintion of Political faction. I believe we should keep the terms straight. If this list is to have organizations, not factions, maybe its name should be "Prominent Organizations in the Democratic Party." -- Griot

Gun Control Added for obvious reasons
Gun-control is a significant party platform that deserves attention as the democratic party's position is generally opposed to that of the Republican, and other parties.Tetragrammaton 01:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't object to a section on gun control. However, you inserted your own POV language, such as "The party's position on gun-control ranges from "moderate" restrictions to outright total disarmament." This is not true (the "total" disarmament part), and also the "moderate" in quotations in unencyclopedic and POV. --Revolución (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The Clinton administration supported the Brady Campaign and SAFE (both of which call for total disarmament of US citizens openly on their websites). Therefore, some of the Democratic party's leadership and members did support outright disarmament both directly and indirectly during the Clinton years. I realize there has been major backpeddling on this issue by the Democrats, its about time too. How can the party rally to protect a women's right to an abortion and a gay person's right to marriage, but not the right to keep and bear arms for self defense? (which the DOJ says is an individual right. Seems both illogical and hypocritical, IMHO.


 * Nobody cares what you think about the Democratic Party's position on gun control. I don't believe that, as a matter of official party policy, the Democratic Party ever supported "total disarmament."  Nor has any Democratic presidential administration supported this.  I would be interested to see if you can find a democratic gubernatorial administration which has explicitly supported this goal.  And the fact that Clinton "supported" the Brady Campaign, which supposedly supported total disarmament, is a red herring, too - you have to demonstrate actual support for total disarmament.  Beyond this, I would add that there have always been elements of the party, especially in southern and western states, which have been good NRA soldiers, and have opposed most restrictions on guns.  At present, the Democratic position probably ranges between maintaining current gun control laws, on the laxer end, and adding some modest gun control measures beyond those already in place.  Few Democrats probably would support either rolling back the current laws, or massive new gun control efforts, and I would suggest that you'd have a tough time finding any major elected Democrats who support "outright total disarmament." john k 04:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

California, Massachusetts, and Washington D.C., are all excellent examples of what some Democrats (not all, I understand there are those who understand the constitution) want to do to the rest of the country. I have seen the senate bills to renew and/or replace the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" over the last few years. The usual suspects keep pushing for stronger and more unconstitutional legislation. Tell me John, where will it stop? When there are no firearms left to own? As for the Brady Campaign HERE is their "position" on the second amendment. Basically, their position is that the second amendment is an "anachronism." Essentially this organization is saying they have the right to illegalize gun-ownership completely. That IS total disarmament, and both Bill and Hillary Clinton support this group, and had numerous photo shoots with Sarah Brady during Bill's reign. Other Democrats support this organization, like Ted Kennedy, Dianne Fienstein, Barbara Boxer, and the rest of the so-called "Brady Bunch." As for having to demonstrate "total support", I would like to see any politician that "totally" supports any issue, no matter what party he belongs to. Modest gun-control does not exist, it is a fallacy, for the simple reason that what one group finds modest the other may find extreme or intolerable. This is akin to saying that there can be reasonable restrictions on Gay rights, like not allowing them to get married. Or "modest" restrictions on abortion like only allowing abortions if the woman has been raped. Maintaining current gun laws is still considered to be unreasonable by the standards of those they effect most, gun-owners. Therefore, I say that the entry which gives a spectrum going from moderate gun-control over to total disarmament is a fair analysis of the Democratic party's stance on gun-control.Tetragrammaton 08:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, nobody cares about your policy preferences, or your interpretation of the second amendment. The interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Democratic Party would be valuable, but the Brady Campaign is not the Democratic Party. Furthermore, saying that the 2nd Amendment is not about a right to individual gun ownership (a position which has not yet been contradicted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which, so far as I am aware, has yet to find any gun control measure unconstitutional, except for obvious overreaches like the Gun Free Schools Act) is not the same thing as saying that individual gun ownership should be banned. Nor is registration of guns the same thing as banning private ownership of guns. Is the private ownership of cars banned because all cars have to be registered? BTW, the DOJ position that you elucidate is a new one. Until the present administration, the DOJ always agreed with the prevalent Supreme Court interpretation that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right having to do with the formation of militias. Obviously, the Supreme Court has not fully decided this issue, but it is misleading in the extreme to act as though the NRA position is the mainstream one, just because a Republican DOJ decided to change its position a couple of years ago. Beyond this, you have yet to provide any evidence of anything, except some libertarian scaremongering. As to Massachusetts, California, and DC, it doesn't look to me as though any of those jurisdictions have authorized "total disarmament." They all require permits, apparently, and DC has banned sale and possession of handguns, but that is not the same thing at all. Note that my source is the NRA's website, which can hardly be accused of being biased against 2nd amendment rights! john k 23:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all John, I am far from the only individual who is able to read and properly understand what the 2nd amendment means. The fact that the DOJ has finally officially recognized this is no surprise. People of varying backgrounds, social status, and race understand it. Even the BATF's special council on "assault weapons" determined that the "assault weapon ban" as it was written "may violate the individual rights of citizens" and made exceptions and policys which allowed the continued production and sale of "military sporters" and replacement "magazine bodies." According to the BATFE's 2003 NICS statistical report to congress, there are 20.5 million more gun owners than in 1999, making the total number of gun owners at some 85 million (NRA statistics put it at approximately 147.5 million). This is hardly a minority viewpoint, I can safely assume that people who are willing to pay $1000.00 to $3000.00 dollars for a decent rifle, $500.00 to $1800.00 for a quality pistol, and $300.00 to $1200.00 for a quality shotgun, are buying these weapons with the understanding they have an individual right to keep them. Of equal interest is the Census Bureau's statistics on licensed hunters, there are only 13 million licensed hunters in the US. Hmmm, wonder what the other 72 million own? I can answer that question, handguns, and OMG, military sporters. Yep! The BATFE estimates that 45% of all firearms sold between 1999-2003 are of the military style civilian type rifles, 40% are pistols, and only 15% are "hunting" guns. Otherwise gun ownership would obviously decline. Your assertion that "Until the present administration, the DOJ always agreed with the prevalent Supreme Court interpretation that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right having to do with the formation of militias.", it just dead wrong. [http://www.hoboes.com/html/Politics/Firearms/miller.html US. vs Miller] makes clear who the "militia" and "people" in the second amendment are otherwise they would have focused on Miller and not the shotgun. Common sense tells us (well most of us anyway) that no amendment is necessary to grant power to the states so they can "keep and bear" arms, that has been the custom and policy of governemnts the world over for the better part of 5000 years of man's history. I believe this is enough said. John, you will not change my or any other gun-owners opinion on this subject, nor shall I or anyone else I presume, change your opinion on this subject. Therefore, we are at an impass. As for the article, I shall research the issue of total disarmament more closely especially around the registration issue which, as has been shown in every country that has passed registration laws, usually leads to either partial or complete disarmament of the population. Tetragrammaton 04:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Clarification please
''Most Democrats support the continued decriminalization of same-sex partnerships and progress in their nationwide acceptance, though their legal standing continues to be debated nationally. As such, the majority of the Democratic Party considers engaging in a same-sex partnership a civil right of the American people.''

Is this referring to gay marriage or gay sex? I need to know, so I can change the language in this paragraph to make more sense. --Revolución (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Decriminalization makes no sense with respect to gay marriage. Gay marriage is not criminal, it is just invalid. You can't be arrested for performing a gay marriage ceremony, so far as I am aware. "Legalizing" and "Decriminalizing" don't mean the same thing at all. If it means gay sex, it likewise makes no sense - gay sex is no longer criminal since Lawrence v. Texas. john k 04:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Need input on adding a "Negative Press" section to the article
Since it is apparently NPOV to add a "Negative Press" section to the Libertarian entry, I am flirting with the idea of adding similar sections to both the Democratic and Republican party articles. Any objections?Tetragrammaton 03:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, yes. john k 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with John. --Revolución (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

issues
I turned the list into prose. --Revolución (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)