Talk:Democratic Party (United States)

Political position

Why don't the American political parties have "political position" as a category in their info boxes? Like where it would say "center-left"? Almost all wiki pages about political parties in other countries have this category. 150.108.240.134 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It has been discussed before. Everyone has a different opinion on where various ideologies fit into the political spectrum. The articles already state party ideology in the info-box. There is no need to add where Wikipedia editors place these ideologies in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you point me to these discussions? I am having trouble finding them and I don't think this is a particularly strong argument. American political parties should not get special treatment simply because a lot of editors have opinions on it - but my mind is open. Carlp941 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

nevermind - found em. I still don't buy the arguments posed, I find them quite off base. Plenty of big tent parties that have a similar character to the Democrats and Republicans have their political positions labeled.

but I can accept that there is no consensus for change for now. I found the attempts at change to be poorly thought out as well. I think people can get "center left" from the ideologies for the democrats and can get "right wing" from the GOP ideologies. Carlp941 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you name any other parties that have no control over membership or who their members nominate for office? In some states, such as Vermont, the party has no membership at all. Can you name any other parties that don't have members? Also, neither party has a statement of ideology. Also, primary elections run by government is fairly uncommon. TFD (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a non-sequitor. Unique party structures do not do away with a political position. Did the European Greens temporarily surrender their ideology by having open primaries for the 2013 European parliament elections? Did the French Socialists suddenly become non ideological because they started to hold open primaries in 2012? Of course not. Every political party has a unique context - they are still ideological and have a place on the political spectrum. Carlp941 (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Could someone revert the edit saying that the Dems are Centre-left? They have so many diverse factions and their economic policy certainly isn't Centre-left so this is inaccurate 101.119.138.41 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely agree. There are a number of sources noting that the party has notable centrist and conservative/right-leaning factions. While I don't deny that there are certainly some "social justice warrior" progressives in the party, they've become a big tent (even "conservative") party of anyone supportive of the constitutional status quo as opposed to the radical right (says The Atlantic). If we're going to put a political position in at all, it should be "big tent" or "center" (since that's where the party "establishment" mostly is) with a note that the party has also has a substantial left-leaning faction and a somewhat smaller right-leaning faction. PtolemyXV (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC) PtolemyXV (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say the most accurate definition would be centre left to centre right. This would include members such as the squad, who fit the profile of centre-left social democrats in many countries, as well as moderate Democrats who are most akin to centre right politicians in peer countries. 184.145.1.225 (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Who are these moderate Democrats akin to centre-right politicians? AusLondonder (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. TFD (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no way Obama, Biden or Harris would be members of the Conservative Party (UK), the Liberal Party of Australia, The Republicans (France) or the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. I'd argue they're all to the left of parties such as the Australian Labor Party or the Labour Party (UK). Both those two parties oppose legalisation of cannabis while the Australian Labor Party has supported tax cuts for the rich, a questionable policy of turning back migrant boats on the open seas and indefinite detention of asylum seekers. The Australian Labor Party was in government opposing same-sex marriage while Obama and Biden were supporting it. AusLondonder (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There has been a rightward drift in the ALP and UK Labour Party which might make them more acceptable to establishment Democrats. However, they could find Malcolm Turnbull's LIberals, Angela Merkel's CDU or One Nation Tories to be too far left. In France,they definitely would be with Macron, rather than the Socialists and in the past would have supported people like Sarkozy. Ideologically, they would have aligned more with the LIberal Democrats in the UK or the Free Democrats in Germany before they moved to the right. Even today, they are closer to the liberal Friedrich Naumann Foundation than the social democratic Friedrich Ebert Foundation. And in Canada, they would more likely be found in the Liberal Party than the New Democratic Party.

The two party system where it exists forces people like them to chose between a party organized to oppose capitalism and one organized to fight against equality. TFD (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Center to center-left versus center-left

It appears a general consensus has been reached across the several talk page sections about the political position of the party, and that the consensus is the political position should be added to the page. However, there appears to be disagreement over whether the text should state "center to center-left" or just "center-left."

I have included several of the sources I've found about this topic below. Thank you Toa for trimming some of the other sources I found that were not as reliable as these (I included the The New York Intelligencer as it is a reliable source as per wikipedia).

References

Notelist

BootsED (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Support center-left, with centrist and left-wing factions. Some of your sources are older, before the Democratic Party lost its more conservative-leaning Southern faction in the 2010s, except for African Americans and some urban areas in the South. Sources:

References

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Center-left, the only stance with reliable sources. Our most reliable sources present the party as center-left, without qualifications; the most reliable presents it as a near opposite of the GOP. The center-left by definition includes both the center and left, making the clarification of "centrist and left-wing factions" utterly redundant. Also, re:Intelligencier - it's an opinion piece, and it's a wildly opinionated one presenting the Republicans as a fascist party. It's not reliable for anything other than Levitz's opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, as has been said before, the party is way too much of a big tent to make a definitive position. Both major parties in the USA are big tents, the ideology section is a much better way to figure out what the party stands for. And to reiterate another point made before, the party is not on the left on the international scale. The only compromise I'd consider is Big tent (perhaps listing centrist and centre-left factions). GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Support, as there are Big tent parties that has political position listed for example Liberal Party of Australia is considered a Big tent conservative party listed as Centre-right to Right-wing plus political position is mostly listed from the standards of the individual country (e.g. compare Conservative Party (Norway) listed as Centre-right and Republican People's Party classified as Centre-left even though the latter is more conservative). Mhaot (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The Liberal Party is considered a broad church by its members, sure, but broad strictly on the right. The Democrats have factions to the left of centre and right of centre. Hence my "big tent" suggestion. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The Democrats do not have any right of center factions. Toa Nidhiki05 14:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Toa Nidhiki05. The conservative Democrat faction has steadily declined in the 21st century, as Democrats lost power in the South. The Blue Dog Coalition has just 10 members (it peaked at 54 in 2009) and moved left in recent years, Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin became independents and won't run in 2024.

Bill Clinton would be considered a very moderate or Blue Dog Democrat by today's standards, not including his record on LGBT rights. Bill Clinton supported the death penalty, enacted a welfare reform law, deregulated the telecom and financial industries, and was lukewarm on labor unions (see my Vox source). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Clinton also did not support LGBT rights while he was president, so I'm not sure why you highlight his history on that subject as if he was anything but moderate on it. 2603:6011:59F0:3C40:E0CE:6FA:FF3D:4FA2 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Clinton was also incredibly tough on crime which is not typically associated with modern day leftism. 2603:6011:59F0:3C40:E0CE:6FA:FF3D:4FA2 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Political Positions are more based current stances and a countries standards

- No use comparing politics today to the 1990's plus Bill Clinton supports same-sex marriage since 2013.

- A center-left party in a non-western country is mostly more conservative than a conservative party in a Western Country Mhaot (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Since 2013... his presidency ended in 2001. 2603:6011:59F0:3C40:E0CE:6FA:FF3D:4FA2 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Of the four sources above, Guardino and Snyder are largely irrelevant. They do not describe the party as centrist, they comment on its efforts to reach agreements with the right-wingers. Marantz is talking about moderates dominating the party, not centrists. Rae describes the party as both liberal and center-left, attributing this direction of the party to the influence of the civil rights movement. Levitz describes the party as centrist (not center-left), but also implicitly describes it as militaristic and imperialist. According to him, the party's goals include the maintenance of a "globe-spanning military empire". Dimadick (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Just because Democrats say they’re center doesn’t mean they are. The only center Democrats are forced out of the party, e.g. Tusli Gabbard. The Democrats are left to far-left by their actions. 2600:1700:FB0:8D70:686C:3D2F:97CD:8F4F (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I am changing my support to center-left. I have found additional high-quality sources that I believe should put the question of whether the Democratic Party is "Center-left" or not to rest.

References

BootsED (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree @BootsED, political positions mostly takes into account the standards of the individual country (e.g. compare Conservative Party (Norway) listed as Centre-right and Republican People's Party classified as Centre-left even though the latter is more conservative). Mhaot (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose What's Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times defines center-left as "a variety of political forces, among them social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners." (p. 5) Others, including most editors in this conversation, may define it differently so for example by excluding democratic socialists. It's circular: if by center-left we include the ideology of the Democratic Party, it is center-left. OTOH, if we define centrism as liberalism, then the party is centrist. TFD (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is covered by the factions section only having centrism and progressivism, not democratic socialism, greens, and whatnot. The book also describes European center-left parties, which are generally more left than the American center-left, and which it acknowledges followed a different historical path than the American Democratic Party. While I was collecting these sources I came across another one that expounded on this point. I will have to find it again and add it here. BootsED (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Like @Mhaot said, political positions take into account the standards of the individual country and independent sources, and generally not international standards (which are hard to define). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Democratic Party is an outlier in the book because it is the only major that does not have Marxist roots. While Marx was advocating the overthrow of capitalism, Democrats were building capitalism. However, it is the most left-wing of the two major U.S. parties, is identified with minorities and labor, and like Marxist parties it has moved to the center. In Europe however, liberal parties tend to occupy the middle ground between social democrats and conservatives.

  While I understand that in some contexts, the Democrats can be seen as center-left, in other contexts, they can be seen as centrist or center-right. It is misleading to describe them as center-left without explaining what is meant. The footnote should say, "By center-left we mean socialist and green parties and, in the United States, the Democratic Party." TFD (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

"the only major that does not have Marxist roots" The Democratic Party was founded in 1828, when Karl Marx was 10-years-old. Both the Democratic Party and the preceeding Democratic-Republican Party were populist parties which represented the American variations of classical radicalism.Dimadick (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is not socialist or green. There have been many discussions over putting in "democratic socialism" or socialism as a faction of the party and all have failed. Why would we put a footnote saying that the Democratic Party is "socialist and green"? BootsED (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of Europe uses a multi-party system, while the English-speaking world uses first past the post voting, which by Duverger's law incentivizes two parties. If you want to compare the Democratic Party internationally, consider comparing it to the Liberal Party, Australian Labor Party, or Labour Party (UK) because those nations have two major parties.

Because of the party's size, environmentalist and socialist positions tend to be represented by say the Congressional Progressive Caucus, not individual coalitions. 2610:20:6B73:240:0:0:0:B096 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic party began before the Communist Manifesto, and before the Civil Rights movement, was a combination of two coalitions--Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats, symbolized by Andrew Jackson (Tennessee) and Martin Van Buren (New York). See the article on Southern Democrats for their full history, while Martin Van Buren stayed loyal to the Union (he died in 1862).

Northern Democrats became pro-labor after William Jennings Bryan toppled the Bourbon Democrats in the 1896 presidential election, and continued with FDR's New Deal in the 1930s. Southern Democrats, which for nearly a century (1877 to 1964) became known as the Solid South, were obviously not a left-leaning coalition; it was reactionary and white supremacist, disenfranchising African Americans and poor Whites. User:JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would you presume defining centrism as liberalism is agreeable to anyone other than your singular self? 2603:6011:59F0:3C40:E0CE:6FA:FF3D:4FA2 (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

An additional source with more information on how the Democratic Party is further to the right than European left-wing parties, and how there is no strong socialist or equivalent "left-wing" movement in the United States. I think with this source, there shouldn't be any more confusion that there are "socialist" elements within the center-left Democratic Party, which I believe should satisfy TFD's concerns.

References

BootsED (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Democratic Party is not a Labor party like the UK Labor Party or Germany's SPD. Part of the reason is the Southern United States, which is heavily racially polarized--White evangelicals in the Bible Belt vote nearly as Republican (80-90%) as African Americans vote Democratic (85-95%). But a party can still be center-left without relying on organized labor, and instead be focused on issues such as abortion rights and environmentalism.

The party is instead comprised of well-educated White voters and racial minorities, particularly African Americans. It could be called postmaterialist among White voters, because educational attainment in the United States is highly correlated with income and wealth. I have three sources for this.

References

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It depends what your definition of center left is. It seems like a term created in order to group European Socialists with Democrats. What information does it provide readers about the Democrats that the ideology box doesn't? TFD (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

TFD, the very Wikipedia page for center-left politics does not list European Socialists with the Democratic Party. Specifically in the lead of the page, "Centre-left politics are contrasted with far-left politics that reject capitalism or advocate revolution." I don't think people will be confused and think that the Democratic Party are socialists. Also, we have a lot of sources now that use center-left to describe the current Democratic Party. Pending some change in this, I think the argument for center-left is strong at this time. BootsED (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Current proposal

For a refresher for those confused with all the references listed and the addition and removal of some of them, this is currently how the political position and the sources used to describe it are proposed to appear.

Political position Center-left

References

BootsED (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Support, because it explains the Democratic Party as ideologically less cohesive (though the Republican Party in recent years has more factions) and center-left. The "Polarized by Degrees" source explains how the Democratic Party is center-left but differs from Europe's center-left because it relies more on the college-educated instead of organized labor. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I went ahead and added center-left as there's very clearly an overwhelming consensus for it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Support center left as the sole position. These sources are excellent. Carlp941 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Support (see sources and comments above). DN (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Mixed oppose Change to "center to left wing" to encompass both the Blue Dog and New Democrat Coalitions, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Dhantegge (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I really dislike this usage, it is ambiguous and confusing. What does it mean? That reliable sources have variously described it as "centrist" and "left-wing"? If so, why not have a footnote explicitily saying this with a list of sources? I would avoid "Left-wing" at all for the same reasons explained by TFD. Is it meant to describe the factions within the party, as you seem to imply here? Why not actually add a proper "Factions" parameter to the infobox as I tried to do years ago because users keep adding anyway an artificial Factions: parameter (as is also done here for the "Ideology" parameter in this very article) so we can list either official factions and/or ideological wings? In such cases, I would just put "Center-left", "Centrist", "Center-left", "Left-wing", or "Right-wing", and have a footnote explaining why the party has also been described the other way and the scholarly debate.

In the case of Democrats, I would go with "Center-left" as that is the more common indicator in the United States (or "Centrist" if we go by scholarly groupings as explained by TFD) and "Right-wing" for the Republicans to underscore their much more significant rightward case. Same thing for the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in the UK, as the Labour Party is a member of the centre-left European grouping whereas the Conservatives are members of the right-wing (not center-right) European grouping and also underwent a rightward shift. In all cases, I would just have a footnote concisely summarizing the debate rather than ambiguous and confusing "Center-left to left-wing" or "Center-right to right-wing". Same thing for "Ideology": in the case of Democrats, I would just list liberalism, linking to the "Modern liberalism in the United States" article, and have a footnote explaining the other ideological factions within the party and do it at an historical level not limited to recentism (after all, if we are going with the ambiguous "to", why not actually summarize the party's historical position on the spectrum and explain the reversal between the Democrats and Republicans from left-wing to right-wing and vice versa? That would be much better and clear than this ambiguous "to" usage), while finally creating a proper "Factions" parameter where we would list and link the Blue Dog Coalition, New Democrats, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the like. Davide King (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose As I mentioned earlier, these terms have no fixed meaning and therefore create ambiguity rather than clarity when used without context. Note that "What's Left of the Left" cited above defines center-left as the Democratic Party in the U.S. and social democratic parties abroad before saying the grouping is controversial. Can anyone explain what additional information this field provides beyond what is already stated in the ideology field? TFD (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support either "Center-left" (per the reliable sources and because it effectively acted as the center-left party in the United States) or "Centrist" (per TFD, who I think raises several important and interesting points and that I hope can be further discussed at Talk:Centre-left politics but that a footnote can address), with a footnote. Oppose any "to" wording usage, which is ambiguous, as I outlined above. While personally favouring "Centrism" (per TFD), I think the presented reliable sources are enough to support "Center-left". I also support the current footnote, and as long as it explains this, discusses the scholarly debate (I would add a summary of the whole evolution of the party and do the same for the Republicans), and reflects that, to quote TFD, "By center-left we mean socialist and green parties and, in the United States, the Democratic Party", I am perfectly fine and in full support of "Center-left (with footnote)".
• Personally, I like "Centrism" because it represents the "Big tent", which I would not use because it is not a proper political position on the spectrum, of the Democratic Party, which is a liberal, not social-democratic, party. Internationally, even left-liberal parties, despite its ideological name, are centrists who effectivly act as the center-left parties, such as in Canada (with the social-democratic NDP as center-left) or the United States. But I would still group them as centrists because the centre is always moving, and just because they may not be equidistant between the Left or the Right, and thus be closer to the center-left, it does not mean they automatically became center-left just because the spectrum and thus the center moved rightward
• At the same time, I think "a variety of political forces, among them social liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, progressives, greens, and human rights campaigners" does not necessarily exclude left-liberal, and thus I would include both democratic socialists (e.g. left-wing social democrats) and social liberals, rather than exclude one or both; I would group more radical democratic socialists as left-wing and closer to what was known as "Marxist centrism" (e.g. even many radical democratic socialists are in fact both reformists and revolutionaries, and even when advocating revolution, they see it more as a democratic revolution rather than a violent one). Also there is a fact to consider left-liberals as center-left, even in the United States: there was an early 20th century liberal, whose name evades me (never mind, I found him: it was Herbert Croly) who rejected the view that American liberal tradition was inhospitable to anti-capitalist alternatives. So even from a more left-wing perspective, American liberalism can be considered center-left. And that is why I also personally support "Center-left" as an accurate grouping for the Democratic Party.
• As an addendum, I think that I believe must be discussed in regards to Center-left politics is its evolution, because it makes it appear as though anti-capitalism is only a far-left position when in fact it was taken by center-left social democratic parties in the 20th century, with the difference being that the center-left was more moderate and pragmatic, and attempted more to trascend capitalism through reforms rather than overthrow it by revolution. Thus, were the pre-World War II social-democratic parties left-wing or center-left, or did they become center-left in the post-war period? I always assumed they were center-left (like the modern center-left, they were more reformists than revolutionists) and that was changed was the political climate and the Overton window. Plus, were the revolutionary liberals far-left? The French Revolutionaries were not all far-left, and in fact far-left was used to refer to those further left of the Jacobins, like the Hébertists, and the Jacobins (revolutionaries) were left-wing. I think this should be clearer and discussed within the context of center-left politics, with a section expanding on the American context. Davide King (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Strongly oppose the center-left label, the democratic party are center-left to center 2A02:587:B1B:2700:C43D:4A83:AA8E:72A1 (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Political position: "Center Left" and "Left"

I suggest adding "Left" to the political position of the Democratic Party.

Brookings Institution: Have Democrats become a party of the left? https://www.brookings.edu/articles/have-democrats-become-a-party-of-the-left/

Washington Post: Biden’s Democratic Party is to the left of Obama’s. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/13/why-progressives-winning-inside-democratic-party/

Center for Politics: Both White and Nonwhite Democrats are Moving Left https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/both-white-and-nonwhite-democrats-are-moving-left/

Classifying the Democrats as only a "Center Left" party seems outdated. This is not the 1990s Bill Clinton Democratic Party anymore. MoldciusMenbug (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

See Headlines: "News headlines...are not a reliable source." In your first example, the article actually says that the Democrats have shifted left because a thin majority is now liberal whereas thirty years ago a plurality was moderate. It does not say it is a left-wing party.

No reliable sources consider U.S. liberalism, which is committed to capitalism, to be left-wing. TFD (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with TFD. There are probably also far more sources labeling it as centrist than full on left-wing (see and the current efn note in the infobox-- plus one or two sources currently under the center-left label either directly mention centrism or don't refer to the party itself as center-left but as having built a "center-left coalition"). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Preceded by

preceded by the democratic-republican party needs multiple citations as it is a very dubious claim. I'm not sure any US political historian worth their salt would contend that Thomas Jefferson set the stage for what would become the Democrat party. 2603:6011:59F0:3C40:E0CE:6FA:FF3D:4FA2 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Historians argue that the Jeffersonian party was an ancestor of BOTH the modern Dem Party and the modern GOP (The Republicans in 1850s explicitly named their new party after the Jeffersonians). However it was more a 'grandparent' than a 'parent'. FDR made a big deal about Jefferson founding his party and you get that in old popular history books. Since 1970s historians largely agree the old Jeffersonian party was dead for years when the modern Dem party was created by Van Buren and Jackson in about 1830-1834. see Second Party System For recent scholarship look at Michael Kazin, What it took to win: a history of the Democratic Party (2022) online. Kazin gives Van Buren the major credit and explicitly states: "The fact that Jefferson neither created the Democratic Party " [p 8] Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Undefined reference

Hello JohnAdams1800! You made this edit the other day which is dependent on a citation named "cambridge.org". But no such citation is defined on this article, so your edit leaves the article with a referencing error. Are you able to supply the missing citation definition so this error can be fixed? Maybe it was meant to be <ref name="Polarized by Degrees"> -- mikeblas (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Party membership

This was previously removed, but has been re-added back. I have some objections to this:

1) This information isn't actually party membership. It's party registration data from the 30 states that actually register by party for the purpose of voting in primary elections. 2/5ths of states do not have party registration, so this isn't even a full sample.

2) Ballot Access News doesn't seem like an incredibly reliable or useful source.

Given this information isn't actually membership, is only a sample from 30 states, and comes from a dubious source, I don't think it should be added. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. These are not party members and should not be presented as such. TFD (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing for party position

There's a few issues with the current sourcing for the party's position centre-left. That is currently backed by the following sources:

• Be Careful What You Wish For: The Rise of Responsible Parties in American National Politics: This source does support the claim, but is 17 years old. A newer source would be better unless there's no disagreement between sources what the party's position is.
• Are We Entering a New Political Era?, quoting "Moderation may be relative, but moderates still run the Democratic Party". That is not the source stating in its own voice that the Democratic Party is a centre-left party. That is stating that it is run by moderates. Unless this source also confirms that it equates "moderate" with "centre-left", this does not support the claim.
• The Oxford Companion to American Politics, quoting "Observes that the terms "progressive" and "liberal" are "often used interchangeably" in political discourse regarding "the center-left". That is likewise not the source stating in its own voice that the Democratic Party is a centre-left party. The citation also doesn't link to the actual entry about the Democratic Party, which I can't read because I don't have subscription to this site.
• What's Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times: This source does confirm the claim, but is likewise old.
• Center-Left Politics and Corporate Governance: What Is the 'Progressive' Agenda?, quoting "This article has argued that a widespread and fundamental reorientation of the Democratic Party toward decidedly centrist national politics over recent decades fundamentally altered the role of corporate governance, and related issues, in the project of assembling a competitive electoral coalition". That "quote" - which doesn't appear to be one, but a summary of the source of sorts - only confirms that the party is centrist. The term "left" doesn't appear anywhere in that quote.
• Bridging the Blue Divide: The Democrats' New Metro Coalition and the Unexpected Prominence of Redistribution: This source is recent and does actually call the party a centre-left party in its own voice.
• Polarized by Degrees, quoting: "Democrats have become the home of highly-educated citizens with progressive social views who prefer credentialed experts to make policy decisions, while Republicans have become the populist champions of white voters without college degrees who increasingly distrust teachers, scientists, journalists, universities, non-profit organizations, and even corporations." Once more, no confirmation.
• Manifesto Project Database, quoting: "According to the Manifesto Project Database MARPOR dataset for 2020, the Democratic Party has a RILE score of -24.662, putting it within the range of being a center to center-left party. Historically, it has classified the party as centrist or center-right, but the database has noted a relatively recent shift to the left in the party's politics." This source confirms that in 2020, the party had a centre to centre-left manifesto. However, I can't find a breakdown of the RILE score on that website. It would be nice if someone could link me to one.

There's a distinct lack of recent sources here that plainly state "The Democratic Party is a center-left party". There's about as many claiming they are a moderate/centrist party. At most, the sourcing is good enough for "center to center-left". Cortador (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed in the past, including recently, in large discussions spanning a broad number of editors. I don't really see any reason to relitigate it again. Toa Nidhiki05 15:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, there were four editors supporting that position, which two being explicitly opposed and another casting doubts. That's weak support, and even ignoring that, this doesn't change that if you cite sources for a claim (which is what this discussion is about), they actually need to support the claim. Here we have a low number of sources supporting the claim, some simply not supporting it, and other outright contradicting it. Cortador (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It does appear several of these sources should be removed because they don't actually make a claim about the party. The ones that do are eminently reliable and say center-left. Toa Nidhiki05 16:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, they do not. Four of the remaining sources as per quotes/excerpts don't use the term center-left/centre-left at all. One does, and another one states that the party is centre to centre-left. Right now, we only have a single sources that 1) is somewhat recent, 2) states that the party is centre-left, and 3) exclusively states that. Cortador (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A paper from the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung called "Where exactly is centre-left" defines it as the position of the social democratic parties of Europe. It's confusing to lump in a liberal party such as the Democrats which would have more similarity with parties such as the Liberal Democrats in the UK.

I realize that social democrats are not particularly radical, but it's hard to imagine them going as far right as the Democrats. I can't imagine for example the Labour Party suddenly deciding to support executions without some media attention. TFD (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why, if we want this article to state that the party has position, we need sources that explicitly state that. Cortador (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The (UK) Liberal Democrats would be more opposed to reintroduction of capital punishment than the Labour Party, if you're implying that the LibDems would be in favour of it due to perceived similarities with the US Democrats.-- Autospark (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The Democratic party opposes the death penalty. I don't know what you're talking about. This is not the 90's! Philosopher Spock (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the above issues with the sources and the fact the prior discussion's consensus (if described as such) was weak, I would be fine with a center to center-left labeling as it appears a wide body of sources don't agree on explicitly defining the party as one of the two. This is also supported by the Manifesto Project Database note. Any sources currently present that state centrist (see above) can be moved to support that position if included. See also HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I’d strongly oppose this. Toa Nidhiki05 06:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with above, as in oppose. (To be honest, I think Infoboxes for political parties should just remove the "position" field as it causes more problems than it solves, and if they have to be kept, should be restricted to a one position per Infobox/article limit.)-- Autospark (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with above, as in oppose. I also agree with the other comments by User:Autospark. --Checco (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this. Classifying the party as center to center-left is accurate EarthDude (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is that political positions vary from region to region, e.g. in Europe the Democratic Party would be considered centrist (or maybe even center-right), however in the U.S. it's considered center-left. Political positions must represent the state politics. However the best solution would probably be to remove them. – Odideum ^💬 14:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that political positions are a bit relative. I'd still be okay with including a position if a large number of sources agreed on a position and named said position in their own voice. I don't think that is the case here, however, with the currently cited sources calling the party a mixed of moderate, centrist, progressive, centre-left, centre-left to progressive, or not mentioning a position at all. Cortador (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the political position for the time being since, as per this discussion, there's no consensus on what the position is supposed to be, the current one has insufficient backing, and several users have questions whether a position should be included at all. Cortador (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted back, because we already had a discussion and consensus on this in a broader discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 18:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed it again. You have not demonstrated that there is consenus to include a position, nor that there is consenus for a specific position. Even if there was, I've demonstrated above that the sourcing is very weak and inconsistent. If you want this included, start a RfC. Cortador (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We already had an extensive discussion that resulted in consensus; this consensus has stood for months, and is even on the talk page infobox here. Now, you're edit-warring to remove content that's been standing here for months. Not only that, you're blaming... me, for returning to the consensus status quo. This is borderline disruptive behavior. I'm going to go ahead and ping the voices from the relevant discussion. You clearly feel strongly about this, but your personal opinion doesn't outweigh consensus or reliable sources. You don't need an RFC to have consensus, but the discussion was formatted similarly.

Pinging from the previous discussion that resulted in consensus: JohnAdams1800, Carlp941, Darknipples, Dhantegge, The Four Deuces, Davide King, Mhaot, GlowstoneUnknown, BootsED, Dimadick. Toa Nidhiki05 21:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no consensus for the inclusion, as demonstrated by this discussion here. The discussion you linked above have almost equal support and oppose votes, and even if support was stronger: saying "support" isn't a replacement for sourcing: I've shown above that almost none of the sources support that position, with some not even mentioning the term.

Lastly, you are being challenged here on something you added to the article, so the onus is on you to demonstrate that your addition has support and is properly sourced, and you have failed to do both. Cortador (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

...what are you talking about? I didn't add it. It's been here for months as a result of a discussion with nearly a dozen participants. We extensively reviewed and analyzed sources for months to reach this consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 21:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You just re-added that three times. If you want the position as it is in the article, you need to demonstrate that there's consensus for it, which you repeatedly failed to do. Cortador (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to be snarky, but did you read that discussion? Not sure how you're getting "no consensus" from it. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the current consensus is unsatisfactory - not pretend that consensus doesn't exist so you can enforce your preferences. Carlp941 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I have read the discussion. There's only four editors (BootsED, Toa Nidhiki05, Carlp941, DN) who specifically supported the addition (Position = Center-left). Everyone else either opposed it, supported a different position, or opposed it as the sole position. There's no "overwhelming consensus" (as Toa Nidhiki05 claimed in that discussion).

That aside, support doesn't replace sourcing. The majority of sources cited either doesn't support centre-left/center-left as the position, or also cite another position. I've already stated that above. E.g. look at the source "Are We Entering a New Political Era?" It is quoted with: "Moderation may be relative, but moderates still run the Democratic Party". How does that support that the party is centre-left/center-left and only that? The term doesn't even appear in the quote. Is "moderate" supposed to equal centre-left/center-left? That would be original research i.e. drawing something from the source that it doesn't outright state. Cortador (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As said above - I agree with you a handful of the sources can be removed. What I disagree with is your belief that removing a few sources topples the general consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 22:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a few source - it's all sources but one. Cortador (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Not true. We have at least three sources there, four if the Manifesto Project is included (~-25 is center-left). Toa Nidhiki05 23:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it's center to center-left. The article itself says so right now. "Bridging the Blue" is the sole source. Also, no breakdown of the RILE score has been provided. Cortador (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There is not only one source saying center-left. Toa Nidhiki05 14:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is. I have explained above why the other sources don't exclusively use the term centre-left/center-left.

Also, I'm still waiting for a breakdown of the RILE score that confirms that the score actually puts the party into centre/centre-left. Cortador (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've full protected the article for two days due to the recent edit war over this issue. I'm hoping editors will not return to edit warring after the protection is over. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Toa Nidhiki05 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we compromise and add all the possible descriptions with an explanation? That way, everone's preferred description can be included and readers will understand what we mean by these terms.

far left (when described by opponents to their right)

left-wing (where left-wing means the entire spectrum to the left of center)

center-left (where center left refers to social democratic parfties and the U.S. Democratic Party)

centrist (where the center is described as a middle position between fascism and communism)

center-right (where center-right is defined as having similar policies to parties such as the UK Conservatives and German Christian Democrats)

right-wing (where right-wing refers to non-socialist parties)

far right (when referring historically to various factions such as Copperheads and Dixiecrats)

TFD (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed the Oxford Dictionary source. As per cited excerpt, the source does not call the Democratic Party center-left in its own voice. It merely states that the progressive and liberal are often used interchangeably in the context of centre-left politics. There's no mention of the Democrats in the excerpt at all. Cortador (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I re-added the Oxford source but as an explanatory footnote, not as a reference supporting the center-left claim itself. BootsED (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Does someone have a breakdown of the RILE score for the last source? I can't find one anywhere. Cortador (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

RILE score

The article currently cited the Manifesto Project Database as a source for the party being centre-left. The link in the article just leads to the page's main dashboard, not to any specific source confirming that. When selecting the Democrats, a score is given, but I don't see where the specific cited number (-24.662) comes from (since the chart doesn't display that number for me), nor where the RILE score is broken down and confirms that the 2024 manifesto was centre-left. Please note that this is the fifth time I'm asking for this information (hence making this a subsection). This information should be removed unless someone can actually back up where this comes from exactly.

It looks like you need to register for a free account to view the data behind the charts. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 04:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see the exact score now, but the page still doesn't show any breakdown of the RILE score for me. Cortador (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It's OR to say that the score puts the party in the centre to centre left range unless the source says that. Furthermore, this is an analysis of the party's manifesto, ignoring their context.[1] For example, a liberal and conservative might both say they will be tough on crime, but plan to take vastly different approaches reflecting their underlying ideology. IOW they alternately understate and overstate their positions. In extreme cases, this has led to parties appearing to being more right wing than parties on their right and vice versa. TFD (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Talking about party's manifesto, there is/was this article in the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that source for now since nobody has been able to provide the RILE score breakdown, and as TFD said, since the breakdown is not provided by the database itself, it would likely be OR anyway. Cortador (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary source

What is the purpose of that source? Cortador (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED Since you re-added the Oxford Dictionary source: what is the purpose of that source there? Cortador (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I re-added the source as a footnote as it provides context to readers that the terms progressive and liberal are "often used interchangeably" when referring to the center-left. If my memory serves me there were a few editors that said since some sources said that the Democratic Party was "progressive" or "liberal" it should be categorized as left-wing. This source was to add context to such discussions. BootsED (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a statement from one source ("The Democratic party is liberal"), taking a statement from another source ("Liberal means left-wing") and then taking that to modify what the first source says ("The Democratic party is left-wing") is coming to a conclusion that the first source does not support by itself i.e. original research. If that the the reason that source is there, it needs to be removed. Cortador (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not making that claim. The source is there as a footnote for future editors who make such claims. It is there to precisely prevent original research by future editors who make such claims by providing a reliable source that refutes the point. BootsED (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would we need this footnote to prevent some hypothetical future OR? Cortador (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not hypothetical. It has been brought up by multiple people. It's the same reason we include notices within the text to not state that the Democratic Party is socialist per talk page discussion. BootsED (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no footnote mentioning socialism. Cortador (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I never said there was. There is a hidden note in the body of the text for this article that says socialism should not be added as a political position due to multiple instances of people doing so despite multiple talk page consensus discussions to not include the term. BootsED (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with this footnote? Cortador (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain what the point of that footnote is? Cortador (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

To resolve your concerns about original research, this source considers the Democratic Party center-left while also acknowledging the Oxford Dictionary's point as described in the footnote i.e. that center-left is often conflated with "liberal" and "progressive". Lazman321 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain what the point of that footnote is supposed to be. Cortador (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I still haven't hear an explanation for what the point of this footnote is. It lists what a single sources considers to be liberal or progressive, with no relevance for the article as a whole. Cortador (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Actual support for the current position

I started this discussion about a moths ago. As of now, there's three sources calling the Democrats centre-left in their own voice. Two are from 2007 and 2011 i.e. fairly old. One is from about a year ago. The other now-removed sources either contradicted the Democrats being a centre-left party, or made no statement on party position. In the previous discussion, a majority of editors did not support making centre-left the party's sole position, and between that, the weak sourcing, and several editors in this discussion supporting no position to be included, I suggest the position to be removed for now until and actual consensus is formed. Cortador (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Those sources are not fairly old, and your claims about the previous discussion aren't correct. Toa Nidhiki05 13:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are. 17 and 13 years is old. The former is pre-Obama. Likewise, there was no broad support for the inclusion of centre-left as the sole position. Cortador (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No. The sources removed did not contradict the statement that the Democratic Party was center-left. Those sources were chosen from a much larger portion of sources that described the party as center-left in a prior discussion. There was consensus that center-left was the position to have. BootsED (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to explain to me how these quotes, as mentioned above, none of which contain the term "center-left/centre-left" or even "left" at all support that the Dems are centre-left:

"Moderation may be relative, but moderates still run the Democratic Party".

"This article has argued that a widespread and fundamental reorientation of the Democratic Party toward decidedly centrist national politics over recent decades fundamentally altered the role of corporate governance, and related issues, in the project of assembling a competitive electoral coalition".

"Democrats have become the home of highly-educated citizens with progressive social views who prefer credentialed experts to make policy decisions, while Republicans have become the populist champions of white voters without college degrees who increasingly distrust teachers, scientists, journalists, universities, non-profit organizations, and even corporations." Cortador (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You are selectively quoting sources. If I am not mistaken, as it has been a while, the provided articles made clear that the Democratic Party is center-left. Either way, we currently have several sources that specifically call the Democratic Party center-left, and there was a prior consensus that this term is accurate. If you disagree with some of the sources used, that should not be used as an excuse to revert consensus, as there are still several sources that are not in contention that back the claim. BootsED (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I am not. These are the exact quotes attached to those sources when they were added and repeatedly readded to the article. Cortador (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain how the above sources support the party position being centre-left? Cortador (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want additional sources, here are several more:

• "Including the American Democratic Party in a comparative analysis of center-left parties is unorthodox, since unlike Europe, America has not produced a socialist movement tied to a strong union movement. Yet the Democrats may have become center-left before anyone else, obligated by their different historical trajectory to build complex alliances with social groups other than the working class and to deal with unusually powerful capitalists. At the same time, from the New Deal through the 1960s the Democrats followed many of the policy trajectories of their European brethren." Cronin, James; Ross, George; Shoch, James (2011). What's Left of the Left: Democrats and Social Democrats in Challenging Times (1st ed.). Duke University Press. p. 20.
• "It is clear that the Democratic Party—the center-left United States political party—does enact some forms of a redistributive economic policy agenda." Zacher, Sam (June 2024). "Polarization of the Rich: The New Democratic Allegiance of Affluent Americans and the Politics of Redistribution". Perspectives on Politics. 22 (2): 338–356. It is clear that the Democratic Party—the center-left United States political party—does enact some forms of a redistributive economic policy agenda.
• "We conclude by considering why Democrats have taken this course, why they are not perceived as having done so, and why, at this fraught juncture for American democratic capitalism, political scientists could learn much from closer examination of the rich world’s largest center-left party." Hacker, Jacob S.; Malpas, Amelia; Pierson, Paul; Zacher, Sam (September 2024). "Bridging the Blue Divide: The Democrats' New Metro Coalition and the Unexpected Prominence of Redistribution". Perspectives on Politics. 22 (3): 609–629. We conclude by considering why Democrats have taken this course, why they are not perceived as having done so, and why, at this fraught juncture for American democratic capitalism, political scientists could learn much from closer examination of the rich world's largest center-left party.

I've taken the liberty of adding them. That's six now. I can find more if needed. It's abundantly clear that this position is supported by reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

One of these is also dated, and this doesn't change the fact that other sources referred to the party as centrist, contradicting these, and that there's no consensus for adding this position as the sole one, of there's consenus for a position at all. Cortador (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus. Come on, this is getting ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

One of your sources is 13 years old i.e. unsuited to make statement about the current party, and another one (Bridging the Blue Divide) is already in the article. Did you not even notice that? Cortador (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you have a very strong point of view on this, but it's bordering on disruption at this point. I'd encourage you to take a step back rather than warrantlessly mass-tagging sources you don't like. Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I've given a valid reason to tag those sources, both in the edit and in the actual tag. Cortador (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus. The Democratic Party is labeled as center-left per the weight of all reliable sources. This was the decision that was reached in the prior discussion on this topic after lots of debate about other sources. BootsED (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Several people supported including more positions, or opposed the inclusion. Do you just want to ignore the sources that don't match this single position? Cortador (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there was discussion and those who offered separate opinions and disagreement. Ultimately, there was a majority agreement that center-left should be used after a very long discussion period that gave ample time for the sources to be discussed at length. The discussion closed, the position was added, and it has been that way for months at this point. You have removed and cast doubt on several sources that you disagree with, and now are claiming that the sourcing is weak and the position can't be justified. Toa has since added some more high-quality sources in that support the center-left designation. BootsED (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, there wasn't. Only four editors supported centre-left as the sole position. Others disagreed, or suggested centre as the position as well. What about those sources? Should we just ignore those? Also, since, only you and Toa have supported this position. Everyone else stated that no position should be included, or that only a single position should be included (which is not supported by the sources).

You had a month to explain why the centrism source should be ignored, and I have yet to see an explanation for that. Cortador (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not the case, you clearly don't know what you're talking about, and it's really unfortunate to see. I would once again suggest you step back and take some time away from this article - we have a consensus, I've presented even more sources to satisfy your complaints, and it doesn't seem to have changed anything on your end. Toa Nidhiki05 19:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why the sources about the Dems centrist - which you yourself re-added to the article several times and which several editors brought up in support of that as a position - should be ignored? Cortador (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, we had an entire previous discussion about this. But they generally don't, and simply saying "moderate" isn't actually listing a party as ideological centrist. We do, however, have a substantially number of extremely credible, academic sources that outright refer to the party as center-left. Your best response to those seems to be to insist anything older than a decade is "outdated", which is pretty silly. Toa Nidhiki05 19:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It was brought up during the discussion above that you allege got a consensus. Feel free to look yourself.

We don't have many sources. We have two dated sources (one, as I mentioned above, pre-Obama and not suitable to make statement for the current position of the party). When you brought up more sources ("If you want additional sources, here are several more") above, you simply listed two sources a second time which had already been added ("What's Left of the Left" and "Bridging the Blue Divide"). The fact that that search just brought up the handful sources that were already there should tell you something. Cortador (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Out of all the discussions, you're the only one complaining about them being dated. As it stands, we have four highly accurate reliable sources. You can dislike this all you want, but that's the situation right now. You are complaining that something is not being included, but have made no case for inclusion, and in fact pretty much all you've done is remove sources you don't like. I don't see how this is productive engagement in a discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 21:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The onus isn't on me to show that this material should be included here, it's on you. There's only two editors - BootsED and you - actually advocating for inclusion, whereas several others (e.g. TFD) advocated for dropping the position. You can pretend there's some consensus here, but if you want to do that, the onus is on you to do so.

You also haven't answered this question: why did you claim to have new sources when two of those were already included? Cortador (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

With the recent inclusion of more recent sources saying in their own voice that this is a center-left party, I feel like this is a settled matter, and the burden of proof has shifted to those claiming that this is a left-wing party. As such, I've taken the liberty to remove the tags. Lazman321 (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lazman321Who has claimed that the Democrats are a left-wing party? Cortador (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

MoldciusMenbug claimed the Democratic Party was left-wing in one of the sections above. I guess you were claiming that the Democratic Party is centrist. Either way, I hope the sources provided are satisfactory. Lazman321 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The new sources you just added ("Center-Left Politics and Corporate Governance: What Is the 'Progressive' Agenda?'Progressive' Agenda?") has this to say: "A widespread and fundamental reorientation of the Democratic Party toward decidedly centrist national politics fundamentally altered the role of corporate governance and related issues in the project of assembling a competitive coalition capable of appealing to working-class and middle-class voters." The party is also called centrist on a few other occasions in that paper.

Can you explain how this supports that the Democrats are a centre-left party? Cortador (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even bring up the quote, which I agree by itself would support the Democratic Party is centrist. The reason this particular source supports this position is because it is discussing the Democratic Party within the context of center-left politics, discussing how the center-left platform has dominated the Democratic Party on the federal level within the past decades. Most strikingly, after a passage about the trend of center-left parties in Europe, the source compares this trend to the recent history of the Democratic Party, saying "The rise of the New Democrats reflected a strong pivot toward the center-left in the late 1980s and the 1990s, responding to the party’s near inability to win national elections in the 1970s and 1980s." Anyway, I don't want to argue further about this, as like I said before, this matter should be resolved. Lazman321 (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

And you just restored the tags once again... You do realize this is not the purpose of the tag you're using. The better source needed template is meant to request sources that are more reliable than the one currently used; the sources you are tagging are obviously high-quality sources. But even if the better source needed tag was the correct tag under your rationale, it would still be wrong to use them as 1) more recent sources have been found and 2) keeping the older sources has value. Not only are they, again, high-quality, they demonstrate that the Democratic Party has been considered center-left over a long time-span, contributing to its validity in my opinion. Please stop re-adding the tags. Lazman321 (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your sources does not state in its own voice that the party is centre-left, it calls it centrist. Whether it drifted towards the left 40 years ago isn't relevant for that statement.

The old sources don't have value because they don't describe the party's current position, they describe a historical one. That can be added to the article body, not the infobox, if at all. Cortador (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador: How is it historical if the position never changed? Lazman321 (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

As per source you yourself added to the article., plus other previously mentioned sources (see "Center to center-left versus center-left"). Cortador (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You know what, I have one more argument that I hope you consider as I momentarily WP:DISENGAGE, as it's nighttime where I'm at. I would like to argue that "center-left" should be preferred over "center" because it is more specific. Saying the Democratic Party is centrist could imply that the party appeals to both sides of the political spectrum, when it doesn't. After all, have you seen a single scholarly source describe the Democratic Party as center-right? I haven't, and I'm going to guess that you haven't either. After all, it'd be blatantly wrong, as too many appeals to the right of the spectrum, such as conservatism and religion, are absent from the Democratic Party. By specifying the Democratic Party is "center-left" rather than just "center", we specify which side of the political spectrum the party appeals to without room for confusion. Lazman321 (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"Centrist" just means a position between left and right. That's all.

I haven't claimed to have an academic source that states that the Democrats are centre-right, nor did I claim that the party was left-wing (what you argued against above), so I don't know why you bring that up. Cortador (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There is an academic consensus that the Democrats moved more towards the center during Clinton's presidency. The RILE score that was removed further backed up this point. However, that does not mean the party was centrist. It was more centrist than before, but still leaning to the left. AKA: center-left. The body of this page has multiple sources of how the party has moved leftward since Clinton's presidency, and more recent sources have called the party center-left. The 2007 source you said needs to be updated also calls the party center-left, as do the newer sources that call the party center-left, so I think the 2007 source and the newer sources that back it up should stay on the page. BootsED (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you just going to ignore the recent source that puts the party in the centre? Cortador (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024

I want to change the president of the party Kamala Harris and the Vice Tim Walz 74.75.160.126 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

They aren't the party president or vice-president. They were candidates for president and vice president of the United States. AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Social democracy

I Have a source justifying social democracy, in an article of Business Insider of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez explaining what socialism is for her. She’s looking at the Scandinavian social democracy. I don’t understand why I can’t add social democracy to ideology. Some democratic representatives align with the Socialist democratic caucus, so I see social democracy as an important ideology within the party presently. Johnymin (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That Ocasio-Cortez supports social democracy does not mean that the party is social democratic. Where is the "long-standing connection with trade unions and the broader labour movement" that is a regular feature of social democratic parties? Dimadick (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A large part of the unions identify with the Democratic Party. More representatives support social democracy. The left wing part of the party would never vote for the liberal party of Canada, they vote the new democratic, that is social democrat 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Considering also that a part of the liberal party of Canada would be republican in USA, the moderate wing. 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Susan Collins or Charlie Baker would be liberals in Canada, also Lisa Murkowsky. THE liberal left of Canada is only akin to Kamala or Pete Buttigieg, more similar to the Colorado Party of Uruguay or the Radical Civic Union of Argentina than the Democratic party that is clearly more to the left. 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Progressivism is probably the 40% of the Democratic party, including social democracy, while maybe is only 10 or 15% of the liberal party of Canada, much more to the centre 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Is a faction, the core is modern liberalism 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In Canada Liberalism is more akin to what americans call centrism or fiscal conservative, only the social liberal part is akin to modern liberalism 2800:2331:5441:81DC:EA21:8619:1326:2BA2 (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The LIberal Party (UK) once sponsored trade unionists for parliament. This only stopped with the creation of the Labour Party. Of course in the U.S., there is no labour party, hence no reason for unions not to support the Democrats. In Canada, there was a long relationship between Liberals and some unions. Note that in the British Labour Party unions had decisive votes and supplied most of the party's funding. TFD (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are saying it, as in the USA a social Democratic Party never emerged a part of the Democratic Party is the social democracy presently, the modern liberal tradition is like a moderate social democracy. Johnymin (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

USA is bipartician, the real “liberalism” in a worldwide view are the republican governance group and the blue dog coalition, plus a part of the Clinton democrats Johnymin (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The rest is oversimplification because you have only two parties. Johnymin (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The liberals of Canada and UK in the past were the popularist or the left wing, but since decades, especially in the UK they are never more that, even the UCR ot the Colorado Party of Uruguay 15 o 20 years ago were to the left of Canadian and British liberals, but not the democrats, that have a wider left wing part. Johnymin (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

or* the colorado party. Correcting my mistake Johnymin (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The word that was a mistake also Johnymin (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The majority is modern liberal, but substancial part is progressive, another is social democratic, and there is also a centrist part. Obviously there are conservative parts and populist and democratic socialist but are marginal. Social democracy and centrism are not marginal, they have to be as factions in box of the Wikipedia article of the democratic party Johnymin (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Various representatives are members of the democratic socialists of America caucus for example Cori Bush or Greg Casar also Ocasio-Cortez, and part of the progressive politicians align with more state control in the economy. A Part of the Roosevelt tradition is the American social democracy. Pramila Jayapal voted for Bernie Sanders that is a social democrat and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez works with trade unions. Summer Lee was a member of democratic socialists of America. There’s no way they are only progressives, they are social democrats. In Canada they would be New Democratic Party politicians or labor left in Britain. Johnymin (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Warren supports worker representation on corporations' board of directors, breaking up monopolies, stiffening sentences for white-collar crime, a Medicare for All plan to provide health insurance for all Americans, and a higher minimum wage. This is kind of social democracy, more moderate than the others maybe.

Democratic Socialists of America has links with Sao Paulo Forum, that’s different than progressive or social liberal. Chuy García also aligned with Bernie Sanders, who is social democrat or democratic socialist (with some populist views) Johnymin (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

A great part of the politicians that endorsed Bernie Sanders work with unions so they are a kind of social democracy. Modern Liberal is clearly a different tradition Johnymin (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, politicians like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders are not even social democrats in the European mould, but democratic socialists! The Democratic Party, of which Sanders is not an official member though, is a big tent, as also the Republican Party is. While its dominant ideology is American liberalism, I would not oppose having "social democracy" as second ideology, while I am less convinced by the infobox's current factional ideologies: "centrism" is no ideology and "progressivism" is quite vague ("social democracy" would suit better!). --Checco (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And why cant We put social democracy in the box? Johnymin (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Bu centrism could be read as classical liberalism or fiscal conservatism, or very moderate conservatism, and progressivism a more left wing ideology than modern liberalism Johnymin (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

But* Johnymin (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

But an important part of the “progressives” are more to the left, they are social democrats and even there is minor democratic socialism.

With Sanders I said that if a great part democratic politicians aligned with himself, they are not only progressives they are at least social democrats. Johnymin (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I added social democracy to the edition part, and if you go to edit the source stays, but the public page doesn’t shows social democracy Johnymin (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Although a handful of elected Democratic politicians describe themselves as democratic socialists, there is no socialist organization in the party and no politicians have been elected on socialist platforms.

Also, it's misleading to say that because some progressive Democrats support policies supported by all major parties in every other developed country in the world that they are social democrats.

The only Democratic politician who talked about democratic socialism was Bernie Sanders, but none of the policies he advocated were social democratic per se, and all of them had been carried out in the past by Democrats and Republicans alike. And he isn't even a member of any socialist/social democratic organizations.

To paraphrase Bernstein, the ideology is nothing, the movement is everything. But there is no social democratic movement within either party. TFD (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a caucus called democratic socialists of America with various members of the Democratic Party. Ocasio-Cortez self described as socialist, and explains that for her is Scandinavian social democracy Johnymin (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s not true that Bernie Sanders is the only that talked about democratic socialism. There is a caucus for democratic socialism where there are some democratic representatives. And being an a observer of the São Paulo forum (this caucus) is a clearly prove that they are not only progressives. Social democracy is not an insult, you can’t call liberal or progressive people who are clearly more left wing Johnymin (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no DSA caucus in Congress. I found an inaccurate article on the Heritage Foundation website that attempts to link the DSA members of Congress to the San Paolo forum. Note it falsely claims that Sen. Sanders is a member of the DSA. It's not clear how many members of Congress remain members of the DSA and significantly, only two members were endorsed by them. TFD (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I would have "liberalism" (meant as "modern liberalism in the United States", as it is now) and, possibly, "social democracy". Contextually, I would remove "progressivism" and "centrism" for the reasons stated above: progressivism is vague, redundant and arguably superimposable to "modern liberalism" (partially at least) and "social democracy" (partially at least), while "centrism", far from being confusable with "classical liberalism" and "fiscal conservatism", is merely a position. --Checco (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

But progressive could mean more state intervention without principles of socialism, I agree with you, but we can’t change completely the box, we can say that various progressives are not enough social democrats, as in republicans some conservatives have traditional views but are not part of the Christian right Johnymin (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say add social democracy and keep the rest Johnymin (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

And add social democracy to an ideology of the progressive caucus, at least in factions. Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush ,Greg Casar, Nithya Raman and Rashida Tlaib are not progressives really, or progressives, they are social democrats, we have to say the truth. Johnymin (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Pure progressives I mean Johnymin (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Who can add social democracy without messing the box info, my source is put, but not applied, I have that phrase that says do not add socialism. If you borrow it the box disappears and it’s all messy Johnymin (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Im the spanish wiki social democracy is as an ideology as faction. As in other language wikis Johnymin (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete not borrow, I'm am spanish speaker Johnymin (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there is no democratic socialist caucus. We don't know who is still a member of the DSA and they don't have an organization or meet to together to promote an agenda. Can you point to any example where they voted as a block? TFD (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America Johnymin (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a big tent, democratic socialist political organization in the United States. My darling, i'm only saying that members of both Democratic Party and DSA are social democrats. This is the reason a faction of the democrats is social democracy Johnymin (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed there are people you describe as social democrats within the Democratic Party, but they are not a faction because they have no common agenda, do not caucus together or collectively try to influence party policy or the election of officials or nomination of candidates. TFD (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The DSA website is updated. Johnymin (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I am supporting "social democracy" because is a heterogenous ideology that suits the Democratic Party. Social democrats can be both centrist or quite left-wing. At the same time, I oppose "progressivism" because it is too vague to be included in a political party infobox. --Checco (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

But Democratic politicians that are not members of DSA but support highly unions and more state regulations are social democrats algo. Even Elizabeth Warren is a social democrats. Think easy, in Canada there is no they could be members of the liberal party. Indeed they are social democrats Johnymin (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

For Example Trudeau is a progressive and partially a social liberal. He is like a moderate member of the progressive caucus of USA, or a left wing members of the Clinton democrats, new democrats Johnymin (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We are probably operating under different definitions. To some people, socialism means any government regulation, a mixed market economy, the welfare state or even income tax. By that definition however everyone is a socialist except members of the Libertarian Party. TFD (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure. By the way, I was talking about "social democracy", not "democratic socialism" or "socialism". --Checco (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Nooo. I'm just saying that a Lot of people that are Democratic in USA would be part of the New Democratic Partt, this is why they are social democrats Johnymin (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

New Democratic Party* Johnymin (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In Canada. Democratic socialist is marginal, is only a part of woke activists Johnymin (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that also the liberal party of Canadá should have progressivism as a faction in the box Johnymin (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The Liberals are in lock-step with the Democrats and invited Hillary Clinton to speak at their last convention. However, I would not add progressivism as an ideology, first because they are more in tune with the Democrats like HIllary and secondly Canadian terminology is the same as the U.S. You wouldn't for example talk about red tories and blue liberals in the U.S.

Don't know why the Canadian New Democrats are marginal since they have been official opposition and governed in six provinces. And wokeness isn't an issue in Canada, outside the far right. Canadian elections tend to be fought on more substantive issues than bathroom access. TFD (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The Canadian New Democrats aren’t marginal, I’m just saying that a part of the USA democrats are more similar to the new democratic party, than the liberal. Also some republicans can be liberals in Canada, just because the liberal party is more to the center compared with the American Democratic Party. A part of the Democratic Party is akin to the canadian liberals, and other part is akin to the New Democratic Party. In Canada liberal is more centrist than in USA, a little. Johnymin (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Social liberalism

I think Social liberalism fits with the democratic party because they describes them perfectly with their political beliefs and policies. 2A02:587:B1B:2700:A6DC:212F:4ABB:DD85 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

But Liberalism in América just mean that, the real liberalism that the rest of the world knows, except maybe Japan or South Korea is what Americans calle centrism or fiscal conservatism, moderate conservatism Johnymin (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe un Canada UK or New Zealand liberalism is something centrist, in Spain is a bit more right wings, and in Scandinavia, Germany and Iberian America is like a centre right Johnymin (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Since some decades a part of the modern liberal movement stopped to be social liberalism and became a kind of social democracy and progressivism Johnymin (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

call* not calle. In Australia liberalism is also more right wing Johnymin (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

In. Not un. I write quite wrong. Johnymin (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

is the keyboard Johnymin (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Social liberalism was a paradigm that Democrats partly supported before shifting to neo-liberalism in the 1990s. While social liberals thought that government programs would empower people to seek self-realization, neo-liberals think it encourages dependency. Instead they promote equality of opportunity along racial and gender lines, what you call wokeness, but is really client politics which both parties have always practiced. TFD (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

But the Blue Dog Coalition (which they are inside the democratic party) believes in social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. 2A02:587:B1B:2700:83DC:7F12:70F9:14A6 (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

By social liberalism, I am referring to the paradigm where economic programs, such as free education, empower people to achieve self-actualization. Both Democrats and Republicans embraced this paradigm to a degree during the post-war consensus, but have largely abandoned it because they think it encourages dependencies. IOW they now favor fiscal conservatism over social liberalism.

In this context, social refers to the economic rather than cultural sphere.(compare with "social democracy,") TFD (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Social liberalism is redundant as it is already included in modern liberalism in the United States, currently Easter-egged into "liberalism". --Checco (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. So liberalism encompasses the full ideological spectrum of all groups or factions in the party. TFD (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

But being social democrat doesn’t mean less intelligence, a faction of the party is social democrat, because they argue for more state intervention than the typical liberal Johnymin (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Some are progressives, but others like Ocasio-Cortez are social democrats. Progressive is in the middle. Johnymin (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

While some people refer to the more generous social welfare policies in Europe as social democracy, it's not an ideology in that context. It's a reference to the Social Democratic Party of Sweden, which pioneered the modern welfare state.

While some Democratic legislators describe themselves as democratic socialists, none of run on a democratic socialist platform or belong to a democratic socialist organization within the party. TFD (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we call it educated liberalism then? The correlation here is absolutely mind-boggling.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

But in some of these states republicans exist and not all are stupid people. Is more a tradition, this areas have been always democratic, and some have more university graduates. But in some of theses states, in the northeast a great part of the population is republican. I see it more like more educated states versus less educated, but not assuming that are democratic people only that have degrees, a lot of republicans or ppl these states are more educated also. Johnymin (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

In these states* Johnymin (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The coastal states are more democratic just because the Democratic Party appealed to immigrants much more than the GOP Johnymin (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

And the gop started to sell it as representative of the national tradition and then conservatism Johnymin (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Democratic Party on the political spectrum--my views

The Democratic Party's core base is African Americans and the college-educated. Of the 19 states (and DC) won by Harris in 2024, all but New Mexico had above-average educational attainment.

The core dispute may be over how distinct the Democratic Party is from many other parties on the left side of the ideological spectrum, which are grounded in the labor movement and social democracy. But it is just as valid, per our sources, to label the Democratic Party as center-left, even if the party is very different demographically and sometimes ideologically from other left-wing parties around the world. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If the Democrats are that different, how can you place them on the left? They're only left when compared to the other major party. How can a party whose ideology is that society progresses because of competition and is unashamedly and openly pro-capitalist `be considered left-wing? Perhaps socialist parties such as Labour have moved to the right, but at least they claim to support cooperation over competition and are classified as being on the left if only for historical reasons. They were founded by trade unionists and Fabians, not Andrew Jackson. TFD (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The United States has never really had a socialist movement or an Iron Curtain divide. In this country, the divide is largely North-South and Black-White. (Yes, there are other racial minorities and states west of the 34 states in 1860.)

The Republican Party's strongest demographic is White Southerners, who disproportionately don't have college degrees and are socially conservative (i.e. in the Bible Belt). Much of the White college vs. non-college divide is really a North-South divide.

• Democrats have never won a majority of the White vote since 1964, nor won less than 85% of African Americans in any presidential election since.

The dichotomy is that the Democratic Party wins both the votes of upper-income, college-educated Whites, which are disproportionately in the Northeastern United States and the votes of nearly all African Americans, who have much lower incomes and educational attainment than White Americans, statistically.

Side-note: I have spent a lot of time analyzing election statistics and the history of the two parties. I wrote about half of the Solid South and White Southerners articles, which you can check the edit logs of. You can't understand American politics without the cleavage between the North and South, which in modern times is socially liberal vs. socially conservative, and college-educated vs. non-college educated. If you want the strongest contrast, compare New England with the Deep South.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Historically, higher income has correlated with being more Republican, while higher education levels correlated with being a Democrat. That's probably still true, although class is declining as a driver of voter intention. Since education and income are inversely related, that would show a shift of working class people to the Republicans. But the lowest income voters are still Democrats while the very highest income voters (like Elon Musk) are still Republicans.

I agree that there is a regional cleavage which has driven party divides. But there's no class cleavage between the parties which you'd find in Europe between right-wing parties and social democrats, at least historically. Hence all you can say is that one party is to the left or right of the other. TFD (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not just that, though, is it? The Pew Research Center claims that until about two decades ago, it was Republicans who fared better with college-educated voters. Likewise, while I don't doubt the gap between Southerners and voters from New England, the Democrat's base also includes the vast black voters, which are also among the demographic least likely to have a college education. Cortador (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Republicans did better among college graduates because they are wealthier, not because they were better educated.

Another issue is that the two parties have become more polarized along the liberal-conservative axis. Studies show that more education makes people more liberal. So a lot of these college educated Republicans would be more likely to vote for Jeb Bush in 2016 than Donald Trump. It isn't that people like Joe Scarborough or Liz Cheney have become more liberal, but that they perceive the Republicans as moving too far to the right. TFD (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces @Cortador

As it relates to the ideological spectrum, we use the standards of the country at the time and reliable sources, not a universal benchmark. For example, many economically left-wing Communist and Islamic world parties have been socially conservative on issues like LGBT rights, and many economically right-wing parties in very progressive nations (i.e. Scandinavia) are very left-wing on social issues.

I haven't fully looked into this, but college degrees appear to have displaced unionization economically. I would need sources to back this up, but it seems that many highly-educated people with high incomes don't unionize, despite commanding much higher salaries.

• I'm not aware of widespread unionization among say engineers at Silicon Valley companies, despite being so well-paid and the San Francisco Bay Area being a Democratic stronghold.

Those with more education tend to favor the Democratic Party, despite having higher incomes. And every bit of extra education leads to greater support for the Democratic Party: high school or less; some college or Associate's degree; Bachelor's degree; graduate degree.

• There is a strong correlation between increasing population density and higher educational attainment.

The Southern United States is simply more conservative both fiscally and socially, while the Northeastern United States is more liberal both fiscally and socially. This predates modern politics, as Southern Democrats comprised the conservative coalition during the time of the New Deal for example. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The info-box does not say that political position applies to the spectrum in the country, rather than the spectrum as commonly understood.

In Venezuela, Maduro faces opposition from his right and left , while in the U.S., the most left-wing legislators would be Sanders and the DSA members of the squad. Ideologically, these American legislators are closest to Maduro's social democratic opposition on his right. Are you saying then that people with the same ideology would be center right in one country and far left in another? TFD (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say yes, because the same argument can be applied within a single country in different time periods as well. The overton window and support for specific positions on issues in a country can change with time. Also our personal views on what a party's place on the spectrum are largely irrelevant, as we only use reliable sources and the standards of the country at the time.

• Issue: Same-sex marriage. In 1996, Democratic president Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited national recognition of same sex-marriage with near-universal support. In In 2022, the Respect for Marriage Act was passed with bipartisan support and signed by Democratic president Joe Biden. And in 2024, Trump appointed openly gay and married Scott Bessent as his Secretary of the Treasury. Until 2000 with the Netherlands, to the best of my knowledge, no country had same-sex marriage. Supporting same-sex marriage would have been considered far-left or absurd before the 21st century. Marx and Engels either ignored or condemned homosexuality, see Socialism and LGBTQ rights.
• Issue: Immigration. Long story short, public support for immigration can change wildly, often like a pendulum. Twenty years ago, Republican George W. Bush supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the United States. In 2024, Trump's promised mass deportation operation has very strong support among Republicans. Link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-immigration.aspx

Here are two examples. Twenty years ago, opposing same-sex marriage and mass deportation of illegal immigrants was part of Republican George W. Bush's platform. This year, Trump removed opposition to same-sex marriage in the 2024 RNC platform, while including his plan for mass deportation of illegal immigrants. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a distinction between ideology and policy. Ideology is a belief system with a set of values. Policy is what you woud do based on your ideology and current circumstances. So it is possible for example to say that the Labour Party UK, the French Socialist Party and the German Social Democrats all fall within the same ideological family, even if their policies differ.

What confuses some people, especially in the U.S., is that political differences often are not between competing ideologies, but how they should be applied. In that case, comparative politics becomes problematic.

TFD (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do comparative politics with other countries, as the United States is a massive country, with over 330 million people. My thoughts to conclude this thread, which is a good discussion but largely doesn't resolve any ongoing edit conflicts:

• The two parties are big tents, and there is ideological diversity among both voters and politicians within the parties. (The FPTP system and Duverger's law incentivize having just two parties.) Even considering the fact the Republican Party has been dominated by a single person for nearly a decade now, there is still ideological diversity within it too.
• The Democratic Party almost always takes positions that are to the left of the Republican Party, and vice versa. And both parties need to appeal to roughly a majority of the voters to win national elections.
• Regardless of what we think of their positions ourselves, the fact both parties have been able to consistently win over 45% of the vote in the 21st century indicates that their positions are broadly popular with slightly under half the country each. (Either that or voters just like really close elections.)

The two parties are asymmetric, in part because of the inherent underlying core demographics. The strongest demographics of the two parties are African Americans and White evangelicals, both of which are concentrated in the South, and vote at extremely high (over 80%) and opposite rates for opposing parties. And the political positions of both groups are inherently asymmetric as a result.

• African Americans have lower incomes and wealth, and are clearly extremely unreceptive to Trump's right-wing populism that potentially has some popularity among Hispanic and Asian voters. There may be some divergence with the Democratic Party on social issues, but neither the Republican Party's right-wing populism or fiscal conservatism appear to be appealing to any significant proportion of African Americans.
• On the flip side, many Whites with college degrees who are relatively affluent and have socially liberal values don't appear to mind the Democratic Party's economically redistributive policies. In fact, the inflation surge that has allowed asset prices (i.e. the stock market) to soar but increased the cost of living may have contributed to Harris' support among high-income Americans.
• Similarly, White evangelicals are very socially conservative, and it appears unlikely that left-wing economic appeals can win them over if the Democratic Party wishes to maintain social liberally positions. Keep in mind that White high school dropouts are still richer on average than Black college graduates. You can extend this to White voters in the rest of the country to a lesser extent, who are socially conservative and whose relatively higher incomes & wealth makes redistributive economic policies less appealing.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

So the two parties divide support roughly evenly among the vast majority of voters and the Democrats are mostly to the left of the Republicans? while that explains their relalative position om the spectrum, it does not explain their absolute position.

I appreciate that the both parties have changed policies over time, but that has no relevance. Despite the vastness of the country, ideology remains within a narrow band. That probably explains why there are only two parties. Even though there are voters who don't share their ideology, they are too small to form viable alternative parties. TFD (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The nature of voting in the US probably has more to do with the virtual duopoly of Reps and Dems. With few exceptions, elections in the US are for single seats using first past the post voting. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ideology and Voting--studies

I've been curious about this article title question--Why Democrats Can’t Win Over White (Non-College) Voters? Link: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/11/democrats-cant-win-white-working-class-voters-the-party-is-too-closely-identified-with-blacks-latinos-and-other-minorities.html

I'm analyzing election statistics and sources to understand whether it's ideology or candidate quality that has White voters w/ and w/o college degrees that vote Republican. And my conclusion is ideology, for the most part. The reality appears to be that even though White voters with college degrees have higher incomes, White voters without college degrees are simply much more ideologically conservative.

• It may seem obvious, but almost all voters vote based on their ideology. The main exception appears to be African Americans, who consistently vote more than 85% for the Democratic Party.

There is a good test case of how strong partisans are: the 2024 North Carolina gubernatorial election, when the controversial Republican candidate was Mark Robinson (American politician) and lost by 14.8%. Robinson won about 40% of the vote in a swing state that voted about 2 points to the right of the country in the presidential race.

Using the North Carolina election as a test case for voters who will vote Republican no matter what: 49% of White voters, 8% of Black voters, and 39% of Hispanic voters. Also 62% of White voters w/o college degrees, and 34% of White voters w/ college degrees, voted for Robinson.

• I know North Carolina is a Southern state, but it's not Mississippi/Alabama--it's fairly well-educated and urbanized. Robinson also being Black may actually have slightly increased Black male support (13%) for him.

Using Brownstein's source as further confirmation, White voters w/o college degrees are majority-inherently ideologically conservative and will thus vote Republican. That doesn't mean Democrats cannot win them, but in the past that only worked when they ran Joe Manchin-type candidates, per the source. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"White voters w/o college degrees are majority-inherently ideologically conservative" I am rather cynical about this assessment. Voters without college degrees 1) have probably never been exposed to certain cosmopolitan ideas circulating through tertiary education, and may have a tendency towards parochialism and reactionary ideas rather than the various brands of conservatism, 2) a large number of these voters are probably members of the working class in the United States and either find the economic policies of the Democratic Party to be hostile to their economic interests (they typically feel threatened by outsourcing and the rise of immigration) or have "little tolerance for deviance" in cultural values. Dimadick (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Unions are now correlated with education--Gallup data

The point: Democrats winning voters in labor unions may be more due to the fact that people in unions are, on-average, better-educated, higher-income, and in more Democratic-friendly regions of the country in the first place. For lack of a better explanation, it appears that the Democratic Party's non-Black base isn't low-income, because its policies--particularly promoting education--help people make high incomes.

• "So Martin’s right: the Blue Dog model is gone for good. But I would warn against the very popular assumption that Democrats can simply intone “economic populism” and regain traction among “the economically pressed white voter” of the Deep South. All the reasons Democrats are struggling with non-college-educated white voters nationally are especially strong in the South: racial and religious fears, anti-urbanism, militarism, and mistrust of unions as well as Wall Street. And for a whole host of reasons, including exceptionally weak union affiliation levels and a neo-colonial heritage as a region starved for capital, the Deep South is going to be more “pro-business” than most of the country, and you can see that in the behavior of minority as well as white, and Democratic as well as Republican, politicians."

Link: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2014/11/10/from-yellow-dogs-to-blue-dogs-to-new-dogs/

Labor unions are still more Democratic. But their members are actually now more highly educated and higher income.

• Data:

Education Postgraduate 15% College graduate only 8% Some college 9% High school or less 5% --- Household income $100,000 or more 11% $40,000 to $99,999 7% Less than $40,000 3% --- Region East 15% Midwest 9% South 3% West 12%

The statistics in bold are particularly insightful. Only 5% of those with high school or less are unionized, only 3% of those making less than $40,000 a year in household income, and just 3% of those in the Southern United States are unionized.

• The Southern United States is clearly the lowest-income, least educated, and least unionized region of the country. And it is also the most conservative, with Trump winning every Southern state apart from Virginia.

"I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." ~ Lyndon B. Johnson

The data was surprising to me. I thought that the highly-educated would actually be less likely to unionize, because they can command high salaries and may want to switch jobs. But it's actually the other way around. The highly educated appear to be able to command sufficient leverage to unionize.

We can now subsume unions into educational polarization, because most members of unions are highly-educated and high-income.

• This does explain why Harris did so well among high-income, highly-educated voters while still doing decently among those in labor unions.

The "Democratic Party of yore," for lack of better phrasing, is gone. If "working class" means voters without college degrees or lower incomes, it is ironic that it is those with college degrees and higher incomes are actually more likely to be unionized.

Conclusion

• The Democratic Party's agenda, as it relates to those with lower incomes, is likely to be able to help African Americans and other racial minorities. African Americans are the poorest racial minorities in the poorest region of the country. They are the party's most loyal voters because they need the economic help and clearly aren't receptive to right-wing populism.
• It appears best to look at the Democratic Party as really a coalition of two groups: African Americans in the South, and the well-educated outside the South. The only places where these two strongly intersect is Virginia and Maryland, because the Washington metropolitan area is both extremely well-educated and Virginia & Maryland have high proportions of African Americans. Georgia and North Carolina still lean Republican, because they aren't educated enough to overcome rural White Southerners.
• The Democratic party's other voters largely don't need economic help, because they are more highly-educated and higher income. As an analogy, the most strongly abolitionist region in the country before the Civil War was New England, which had the fewest African Americans.

Link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/265958/percentage-workers-union-members.aspx JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Preliminary plot of Liberalism vs. Education.

Correlation between Education and Liberalism

The R^2 value was 0.6, there is a clear uptrend, and while there are some outliers, this does confirm what I was looking for. Educational attainment is strongly correlated with liberal ideological identification. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)