Talk:Democratic Party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democratic Party (United States) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic Party (United States) article.
Article policies
To-do list for Democratic Party (United States): edit · history · watch · refresh

Things to do:
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. Archive 4
  5. Archive 5
  6. Archive 6
  7. Archive 7


Contents

[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


[edit] Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: Settler Contributions

The information put forth by User:Settler is interesting and valuable to the article. It expounds on the history of the Dems and balances POV. Why is this content being reverted? IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Democratic Party (also known as The Democrat Party)

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

Wikipedia is not a political forum, there is already a page for the history of the political epithet at Democrat Party (phrase). Any such references in this article will be removed.--Jersey Devil (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Jersey Devil. The use of "Democrat Party" in a disparaging manner is well documented in reliable sources as demonstrated at the article linked by JD; there's no valid reason to use it in the first sentence of this article. Also, please note that in order to to link to user pages, one must include the word "user" in a wikilink. For example Jersyko is not my user page, User:Jersyko is. I moved the comment you posted at Talk:Jersyko to my user talk page at User talk:Jersyko. · jersyko talk 14:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. The word phrase is noted in the "Name and Symbols" section and that is more than accommodating for this. Popular disparaging word plays like "Micro$oft" for Microsoft by its critics don't show up in their article and with good reason. See Satiric misspelling. Settler (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy in Lead

One sentence in the lead states that the Democratic Party includes "42.6% of the electorate." I checked the article that this statement cites and it looks like this statement is misleading. Does this statement mean that 42.6% of registered voters are Democrats, or that 42.6% of U.S. citizens eligible to vote are Democrats. The article clearly indicates that it means registered voters, so I'm going to change the lead to reflect that fact. Huntthetroll (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, as far as I am aware the stat refers to the percentage of those registered voters. Signaturebrendel 08:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Another sentence in the lead states that the Democratic Party is the "the oldest political party in the United States and arguably the oldest party in the world." This is not necessarily true, as the Federalist Party was established simultaneously. I believe the lead should read "It is the oldest political party currently active in the United States and arguably the oldest continually active party in the world." I don't have an account or I would attempt to change it myself. --170.63.96.108 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current event polls

The Sentence, "Senator Clinton has a lead in recent national opinion polls for the 2008 Democratic nomination. Many recent polls have put Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards behind Clinton", is currently inaccurate. As these events are currently changing at a rapid pace, they should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.155.253 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved your sentences out of the midst of the preceding section and gave it a header. Feel free to rename it if you want. Anyway, I'll tweak that sentence you brought up. Settler (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest in the world?

The British Conservative Party is older, using just about any standard you like. The earliest ancestor of the modern Democratic Party first formed in 1792, while the earliest ancestor of the modern Conservatives was around in 1678. The more direct ancestor of the modern Conservatives, the Pittites, formed before 1783. The name "Democratic Party" emerged in the United States over the course of the 1830s, and the Democratic National Committee was only formed in 1848 while the name "Conservative Party" was first suggested in the 1820s and codified with the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834. I don't understand how the Democrats are even arguably the oldest in the world. -- The_socialist talk? 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence says, "it is arguably the oldest party in the world." Two references are provided; do you have a reference that says that there is not arguemnt of whether or not it is the oldest party? (That would be needed in order amend that sentence). I personally couldn't care less; seems like trivia indeed ;-) Signaturebrendel 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
'Arguably'? Weasel words - I'm correcting and here's potted history of the UK Tory party (also see comment above), and it is still known as the Tory party today. Your ref states: "The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the United States and among the oldest political parties in the world." - it doesn't say it's the oldest so your citation doesn't back up what is stated. I've removed unsubstantiated claim. Mimi (yack) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually the American constitution isn't the oldest in the world either, see here and then there's one older in India I think, there's certainly one older than 400 years, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man is 1776 I think, anyway that doesn't matter. You can't even say the American constitution is the oldest unchanged in the world so whether it's the oldest in use is a moot point. Mimi (yack) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There's plenty of books that state it is the oldest constitution. But in the case of conflicting reliable sources, Wiki NPOV means that the statement or article must be neutrally maintained: "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner," (emphasis mine). You removed Micklethwait, John; Wooldridge, Adrian (2004). The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, 15. "The country possesses the world's oldest written constitution (1787); the Democratic Party has a good claim to being the world's oldest political party." I could probably add some books with the claim but I'll await other people's thoughts first before bothering to do more work. Settler (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Your citation stated "among the oldest political parties in the world." - it doesn't say it's the oldest so your citation doesn't back up what is stated. My citation is factual and contradicts that the american party is the oldest. Before you knock both of us out arguing this further can you ask yourself how much this really matters; whether it is the oldest or not, does it make it any better? Mimi (yack) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A consensus was reached (not involving me) to leave "arguably the oldest political party in the world". It is not I that have chosen to disregard it. On the talk page, some obscure, anonymously written web page that is not reliable by itself. Settler (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Upon further digging, the web page may or may not be written by one John Simkin.Settler (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm always intrigued by the notion that factual truth can be decided by consensus; it can't, the only fact decided by the consensus was whether to display the truth, or not. The truth is that no American political party is the oldest in the world. Mimi (yack) 10:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It is intriguing. It's also one of the five cornerstones of modern scientific pursuit - Hypothesis, Experiment, Reproduction, Debate, Consensus. Also, it is the point of encyclopedia to produce the best referenced and reputable material available, not pursue its own research.--Primal Chaos (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely the question of the oldest written constitution has to do with it being the oldest written constitution currently in operation, not the oldest ever written. But even that's not true, since the Massachusetts state constitution is several years older. john k (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add section: super-delegate criticism

Should a super-delegate criticism section go up for the Democratic party's use of 'super-delegates' to select their presidential candidate? The criticism is this process is in itself - undemocratic, as the delegates collected via popular vote by registered democrat voters can be somewhat nullified by the super-delegates, which are selected party insiders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.220.93 (talk • contribs)

That sort of material, criticism by WP:RS would belong in an article about the nominating process of their party (such as Superdelegate). The section here is just a meager summary of other Wikipedia articles pertaining to the 2008 presidential contest. Settler (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have tried, but anything that is possibly critical is blocked by zealous admins. 70.223.149.24 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Under the heading presidential ticket

It seems that the subscript entry for President Kennedy is incorrect, he was assassinated, currently it states that he "Died in Office." Although that is a correct statement it would be more in keeping with the standard ( as done the republican party ) that he was assassinated.

Kind Regard, Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.123.134.20 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For constituional purposes there is no difference as to how a President dies in office. --8bitJake (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's history is contradictory

From Democrat party "Wikipedia" History (Incorrect)

"Main article: History of the United States Democratic Party

The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party.


From Republican party "Wikipedia" history (correct)

Main article: History of the United States Republican Party

The Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.203.92 (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no contradiction there. Am I missing something? · jersyko talk 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither do I. Perhaps the anonymous user is confused by the fact that the Democratic-Republican Party is not the current Republican Party? --Ali'i 12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the OP may be trolling (or something). He/she refers to the Democratic party as the "Democrat party". This deliberate mispronunciation has become popular among people who criticize the party. Alternatively, the OP may have just overlooked this while editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowmanjj (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic economists?

"American economists strongly support the Democratic Party, with their views on policy being largely in accordance with the Democratic platform."

This is the biggest load of crap I have heard in my life. When it comes to economic policy, economists almost always identify with Republicans. Examples? Higher taxes create a deadweight loss. This is economically inefficient. Price floors (e.g. the minimum wage) also restrict market efficiency, and should thus be eliminated (Democrats tend to prefer a higher minimum wage). Republicans (like economists) generally dislike welfare. Trade is also favored in economics; by a large majority, Republicans voted to pass the NAFTA and Democrats voted against it. I wonder what an economist would say about socialized health care!

I suggest the entire section about economists be removed, as it is misinforming and contains no information valuable to this article.SweetNightmares (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesing opinion you have there, but empirical studies unambigously suggest that economists tend to be a) modern liberals and b) democrats. Studies suggest that most economists oppose laissez-faire policy (less than 10% if AEA members were libertarians in a recent studies), over 80% support govt. redistribution and over 70% beleive that inequality has become too high; the Bush tax cuts are strongly opposed (Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts was singed by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates) and universal health care finds widespread support (in welfare economics, it is widely recognized that health care is something the market cannot efficiently provide w/o heavy intervention; I suggest reading Economics of the welfare state (OUP, 2004) by LSE's Nicholas Barr). In any case, the section will not be removed since it is based on empirical, reputable studies. Signaturebrendel 05:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"empirical studies unambigously suggest that economists tend to be a) modern liberals and b) democrats. " We need sources on that. The examples you cited (Bush tax cuts, universal health care...) as evidence that economists support democratic party principles is flawed as there were also economists who took the opposing position. In order for this section to stay in, we should have conclusive, and numerous, studies that support it. Otherwise, any evidence to the contrary could refute it. Say, for example, Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, both are economists who lean heavily conservative, to say nothing of multiple Nobel Laureates like Milton Friedman or Von Mises. If there is even a single counter example, the assertion that "American economists strongly support the Democratic Party" is a generalization and should be nixed. A better, more NPOV would be to say that the Democratic party enjoys the support of some notable economists, and then list them. Then, noting some notable economists who disagree. That is a solution that doesn't rely on apeals to broad nebulous assertions that it is based on "empirical reputable studies" while citing only one book... 141.214.17.17 (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.17 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If a significant portion of economists support the Democratic Party (which I highly doubt), it is due to social, rather than economic, policy. The section currently suggests that there is wide support among economists for left-wing economic policies. That is obviously inaccurate. Also, just because some economists "beleive that inequality has become too high" or oppose the Bush tax cuts does not mean they support the Democrats. Likely quite the opposite.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.246.23 (talk) 20:09, 20 April, 2008
Is there a consensus on this? I'd like to have an expert's opinion, if we could, so we can resolve this. Thanks. SweetNightmares (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Studies do unambigously suggest that economists lean left on fiscal policy issues and are heavily Democrat. The voting ratio is estimated by about 2.5 to 3 Democrats for each Republican. I cite multiple studies which explicitly state that most economists are Democrats. I am not basing the statement that most economists are liberal Democrats based on my interpretation of these studies; once again the studies explicitly state so. Here are two good online sources, included in the article:

This is really simple: sutides have been made on the partisan affliations and political attitudes of economists; these study show economists as idenitfying as modern liberals, being supportive of redistribution and voting Democrat. This is a factual issue: either reputable studies show most economists as liberal Democrats or they don't. As of now, they do and that's what will be featured in the article. Of course there are "there were also economists who took the opposing position" - did I say all economists are democrats? No. Most, by a considerable margin, are. So long as reputable academic surveys find most economists to be Democrats it will be included in this article. If you beleive these studies to be inaccurate, conduct your own study, get it published and then come back here. For now, this article will feature the conclusions reached by published studies on the subject. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Center-Left?

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

  • According to the "Center-Right" Republican Party, the Dems are "far left". It just all depends on who you ask: however, the consensus is that the Dems are "center left" and the GOP is "center right". --Midnite Critic (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In countries with a well established two party system "left" and "right" tend to be defined by the respective positions of those two parties far more than any abstract concept of some over arching "left" and "right" spectrum. Unless you're arguing the Democrats are to the right of the Republicans, it seems pretty clear that they're the centre left part of US politics. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln-Douglas debate

  • Why does this article skip all past the Lincoln-Douglas debate and the history of the Democratic Party before, during and after the Civil War? Telecine Guy 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That information can be found here. Since that topic has its own article, I would actually recommend that the history section in this article be abbreviated further.SweetNightmares (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning statistic sources and intent of "Working Class" section

I'm not a big face around here but I thought I'd call to question these sources pertaining to the "working class" democrats: 6 ^ a b c d CNN. (2000). Exit Poll.. Retrieved on 2007-07-11.

If you do the math (SUM(%all * %GORE)) for the pertinent tables (votes by income and class) you'll find that Bush won the popular vote in 2000 by 0.09% and 0.42%, respectively. When, you know, he actually lost. So, can I call shenanigans? Not to say that CNN or the original poster had any mal-intent, only that exit polls suck.

Furthermore the line: "...which show the Democratic Party garner the majority of votes from those with low incomes and little education" might make people believe that the majority of the democratic vote come from that subset, which is not the case. While it's still a bit inflammatory, this would be better: "...which show that the majority of those with low incomes and little education vote democrat."

Lastly, what the hell does 9 ^ a b c d e Pew Research Center. (10 May, 2005). Beyond Red vs. Blue.. Retrieved on 2007-07-12. really talk about? I tried to find the pertinent information that backs: "Together socially conservative and the financially disadvantaged comprised roughly 54% of the Democratic base" but I didn't have much luck. From what I read I don't think combining those two subsets serves any purpose, and I'm not sure that is even a valid combination. I'm really not taking my time on this one though, so feel free to blow me out of the water. 64.238.49.65 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)