Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 7

message: Also in the "Academia" section, the bar graph about liberal vs. conservative faculty members is confusing.  This article is explicitly about Democrats, some of whom are conservative (as mentioned in the article).  Furthermore, it's not clear what the graph is comparing (see  for more).  I propose that the image be removed from this article until it improves.  --75.15.152.46 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph talks about Academia's role within the Liberal base of the demographic party. Thus, its inclusion is justified. As for the question posed on the graph's talk page: the term "Elite" refers to professors at Ivy League colleges. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The academic faculty bar graph 

message: An ongoing dispute, resulting in extensive debate in both current and archived Talk Pages.
Thank you for the clear summary of the contested material and the pros and cons.  There are reputable references to groups identified by historians as political parties in England going back long before the anti-Federalism of the 1790's.  For example: "After the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Whig party adhered, at least in theory, to the following principles..." (http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/politics/whig.htm), written by history Ph.D. Marjie Bloy.  Here is an even earlier citation to the British Whig party: "It was applied (c.1679) to the English opponents of the succession of the Roman Catholic duke of York (later James II)..." (http://www.questia.com/library/politics-and-government/whig-party.jsp#) with the Columbia University Press Encyclopedia cited as the authority.
If this kind of reference is accurate in referring to groups a century before the earliest proto-Democrats as a party, then it would be quite inaccurate to claim that the Democrats are the oldest political party.  I have no personal interest in the outcome of whether or not Bloy's claim is historically accurate, but if it is accurate, then "arguably the oldest" would be inappropriate to refer the Democratic Party.  "Among the oldest" might, however, still be accurate, as might "oldest political party in the USA," or "oldest political party still an active force in national politics." VisitorTalk 23:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This debate is such a waste of time and should probably be listed at WP:LAME. Let's just leave it as "arguably the oldest..." and actually spend time improving articles instead of continuing to waste our time on trifles like this. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's nonsense to refer to this party as "the oldest in the world". However, there might be wriggle room, because different countries have different kinds of parties. eg in the UK the party itself puts forwards candidates standing in that parties name, and only puts forward as many candidates as there are seats. I understand that in the US, people put themselves forwards and the party (at least in theory) then decides whether or not to support them. So maybe this party is the oldest in any US-style democracy - even if there is only one of the latter! PalestineRemembered 12:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it regrettable that this has resulted in protection. The underlying distinction here is whether a parliamentary faction, like the Whigs who fit into a hansom cab, can be called a party. This is purely verbal; it may even be another Anglo-American difference, and so to be left alone. This is why weasel-words exist; say arguably, which is plainly true (it has been argued, in reliable sources), and put the arguments on both sides in a footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a second here. The whig party doesn't even exist anymore. So why is there any need to include the word arguably? The Evil Spartan 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Conservative Party is arguably older. That's what the whole dispute is about. The Whigs were just a red herring. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Tories were never quite that few; but the present Liberal Democrats have at least as good a claim to represent the Whigs as the Conservatives do to represent the Tories. The Tory connexion requires ignoring three or four episodes of coalition and breakup; to make it as old as Jefferson, probably a fifth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some would, and have, argued differently. Hence "arguably" and cites. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support "arguably". Do we have a working proposal here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most people (one of the better consensuses (sp?) I've seen), in this section and the one above it, approve of "It is the oldest political party in the United States and arugably the oldest party in the world." along with the cites showing the disagreement. --Ali'i 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment:Introduction to "Democratic Party (United States)" 

message: Kindly Add ml:ഡെമോക്രാറ്റിക് പാര്‍ട്ടി (അമേരിക്കന്‍ ഐക്യനാടുകള്‍) --Jacob.jose 14:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki Link 

message: a small typo:
While professionals, those who have a college education and whose work revolves around the conceptualization of ideas, have supported the Democratic Party since by a slight majority since 2000.
72.83.204.78 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tlx|edit protected}} 

message: The conclusion sentence of the opening paragraph states:
"Since the 1990s the party has pursued centrist economic policies[citation needed] combined with a liberal social agenda."  --- This is sheer opinion without citation and should be removed. The overwhelming majority of business leaders in the United States, including myself, would find fault with any claim of "centrism" in any part of the DNC agenda. The DNC agenda is controlled by MoveOn.org, DailyKOS, Planned Parenthood, NOW, ATLA, and other fringe left elements of the SECULAR LEFT. But no mention of "Secular Left" in the opening paragraph...... why not?
While this paragraph does it's best to demonstrate that the DNC is "centrist" and "populist", the same opening paragraph on the GOP page sums up the GOP as being "increasingly" driven by the Religious Right --- does it's best to put the GOP on the fringes of the political spectrum.  Why is the DNC opening paragraph not summed up the same way? 
Wikipedia is renown for it's level of leftist bias. And these 2 contrasting articles make that QUITE clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.41.34.50 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a suggestion to make, please do so. If not, please read the comment at the top of the page. This isn't the place for ranting. Either make a viable suggestion, or don't say anything at all. The Evil Spartan 00:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias Exposed 

message: Hello,
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
* n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks,
Nick  --  Zanimum 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions? Ask them through Wikinews 

message: 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)
thread_title:  User: Settler Contributions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "Republican Party" is the old name of the Democratic Party; it was generally overtaken by the present name in the 1830s.  The claim that is made is that it is the oldest (not defunct) political party or among the oldest world parties if not the oldest, not the first party to have ever existed. Settler (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy in Lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Current event polls 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: '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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oldest in the world? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Add section: super-delegate criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Under the heading presidential ticket 

message: 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)
replies: text: I see no contradiction there.  Am I missing something? · jersyko talk 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's history is contradictory 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lincoln-Douglas debate 

message: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to edit, be "Bold" they say. As for the part about ""...which show the Democratic Party garner the majority of votes from those with low incomes and little education" - That's obviously NPOV -IF- you read it incorrectly, as I just did. I think what the sentence is trying to say is that the Democrats gained most of the low-income and lower educated individuals than the GOP (Republicans) did. i don't think it is trying to say that most Democrats are that. It could be worded a bit better, but, I don't think it is too bad of an issue. Your edit is much better, so, I'll go ahead and edit that in. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning statistic sources and intent of "Working Class" section 

message: Do wealthy voters tend to vote for Democrats or Republicans? Our articles seem to contradict each other, both claiming that the wealthy support their party, and both are lacking citations about a general trend. The Republican article says The differences in voting among income groups are small, though poorer voters tend favor the Democratic Party while wealthier voters tend to support the Republican Party. This article states Once dominated by unionized labor and the working class, the Democratic base now consists of social liberals who tend to be well-educated with above-average incomes as well as the socially more conservative working class. Which of these is true? The Republican article follows its assertion with CNN exit poll statistics that seem to support its claim: Bush won 41% of the poorest 20% of voters in 2004, 55% of the richest twenty percent, and 53% of those in between. In the 2006 House races, the voters with incomes over $50,000 were 49% Republican, while those under were 38%. So which of these articles is correct? I elected to ask here, since this article seems to be more well-developed. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They vote for both, depending on region and education. In past there wasn't any correlation whatsoever, today there is: The rich are slightly more likely to vote GOP. But the issue isn't clear cut, rather it is a subject littered with ambiguities and paradoxes. If offer a simple, unconfusing description of who votes how, your probably on the wrong track :) Signaturebrendel 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wealthy voters 

message: From the party's inception in 1828 to about 1896, the Democrats were the more conservative party on most social and economic matters, except immigration policies, which they have been liberal on since the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The economic policies of Andrew Jackson seem surprisingly like modern-day fiscal conservatism. They didn't really become the liberal party they are today until Woodrow Wilson, a progressive, was elected in 1912, which only started their transformation that was completed in the 1930s with FDR's New Deal policies, and the start of the Civil Right's Movement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.244.199 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The changing party 

message: I'm posting a similar suggestion in the Republican version of this discussion thread, but instead of unilaterally editing the party infobox, I wanted to know what people would think about putting the most recent presidential nominee in the party infobox?  For example if we were to add that category, John Kerry would be placed in there, at least until after the convention, when Barack Obama's name would be there instead.  Tell me your suggestions.  --Shaunnol (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Presidential Nominees in Infobox? 

message: I just posted an edit to this (old) section (my first on Wikipedia!), and would appreciate any advice.  I believe that this section was, and remains, flawed.  The section basically makes 3 points (but not in a very logical order): 1. academia leans to the left, 2. the liberal orientation of professors does not affect student political orientation, and 3. the educated population, in general, leans to the left. Frankly, I am not sure that issue 2 even belongs in this piece; however, if it does, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that many conservatives/Republicans claim to be offended and even intimidated by liberal colleges. 
In addition, item 3 (regarding the educated population leaning to the left) is flatly contradicted by many findings from Gallup, GSS, and NES, and I would like to make another edit to present those findings.  Also, it is very illogical to simply point out that "Among those with graduate degrees, the majority voted Democratic..."  We would expect a majority to vote Democratic simply because there are usually far more Dems than Reps.  Following that same logic, it is likely that a majority of felons voted Democratic also.  Should be put that in here somewhere?
As a newbie to Wikipedia, I can't seem to upload charts and graphs.  Is there anyway I can get permission to do so?  I have access to some good copyrighted graphics, and can probably get publisher permission to use them.
Any feedback is greatly appreciated.
Nicholas007 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to upload images, you must be auto confirmed; your accout must be 4 days old and have made ten edits. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Educated voting left isn't wrong. Look at the polls again, at the question not of who is registered with a party, but who they actually voted for. College graduates overall were tied in 2004, Democratic in 2006. Those with graduate degrees have voted Democratic for more than the past 20% years. Those with just some college, on the other hand, are less still more likely to vote at GOP. Don't confuse Party registration w/ actual voting patterns, it's the latter that counts and there're an awful lot of independent liberals. As for the graduate degree holder/felon argument, think it about it again: following our logic of using Party registration as predictor of voting, the Dems would be winning every election, since they have about 20+ million more members. Yet, the public, among which Dems outnumder GOPs in terms of registration, voted GOP in 5 of 7 pres. elections. Clearly when a demographic consistently votes Democratic, even when the public does not - whether Dems outnumber GOP in terms of registration - that demographic deserves a mention in our base section. Signaturebrendel 04:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology and voter base - Academia 

message: I want to change "Liberalism" to "Cultural liberalism" in the infobox. I read through the archives, and it appears the main issue underlying the discussion of ideological labels has been how to deal with the difference in perspective and terminology between Americans and the most of the rest of the world. I am not sure whether "Liberalism" as used in the infobox is meant to refer to the American sense or the European one. If the former, I think it is confusing (or confused). The list in the infobox is meant to be accessible to an international audience, and the link is to the broad, international sense. If it is meant to be the latter, the combination of "American liberalism", "Social liberalism", and "Cultural liberalism" cover the extent to which "liberalism" applies to the Democratic Party. Could be falsely inferred to mean the party holds beliefs that are actually held by the Republican Party. I hope this will be non-controversial, but I rather think it will not be. -Rrius (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be controversial. Please look at the article Modern liberalism in the United States; it is clearly not an ideology limited to cultural issues, nor is it anti-freedom on economics. It simply defined liberty differently, in such a manner that it warrants a more interventionist economic policy, but like the classic liberalism of the GOP, also beleives in liberty - i.e. it is not any less liberal. Signaturebrendel 04:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism