Talk:Factions in the Democratic Party (United States)

message: Should there be a separate subsection for what is identified in the main Democratic Party article (under "ideology and voter base") as the "African American wing"? I realize that in fact there are certainly African Americans who participate in all of the other listed factions.  But there are also some uniquely African American institutions in the party such as the Congressional Black Caucus which I think could be addressed here. Robbie dee 18:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: African Americans as a "faction"

message: On the equivalent Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page, the conservative faction of the GOP and the explanations of it's subfactions are put first, with the "moderates and liberals" faction/subfactions explanation below. This is because the conservatives dominate the GOP in terms of numbers, influence and national agenda, while the moderates/liberals/libertarians/log cabins are clear minorities.
Therefore, shouldn't this page be grouped in a similar way? The listing of the factions on this page doesn't really reference to the relative influence of the factions within the party. The liberal wing should be at the top, with the subgroups (liberals, progressives and maybe unions) explained. Then the moderates and conservatives should be under another heading lower down (with the centrist, conservative and libertarian subgroups explained.) And then the overarching ethnic minority heading could be below that. It would just be clearer, and more in line with the other article. EJB341 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Most readers will want to see what is most significant at a glance. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

text: The order is fixed. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faction Order 

message: What is the supposed difference between "liberal" and "progressive" Democrats? Those two terms are basically synonymous and the faction descriptions don't outline a clear difference either. The only difference in practice tends to be that "liberal" is what Republicans call Dems to criticize them and "progressive" is the phrase Democrats now use to avoid being labelled "liberal." I would propose merging the two faction descriptions. 82.152.215.186 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal/Progressive 

message: Dixiecratism is left-wing populism.  Conservatism is anti-populist.  To confuse the terms simply because the South has trended Republican, which is absolutely not to be taken as evidence of conservatism, is an error due to lack of sufficient background in political thought.
:Dixiecrat left-wing?! That would need hard sources. As far as I know it was a far-right movement (even if poor people (white) also supported it). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 12:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dixiecrat" not equal to "conservative" 

message: To me, this article is just a list of groups which usually vote for the Democrats. I would expect an article about "factions" to be about groups within the party which are antagonistic to each other. However, most of the "factions" listed here have the same goals, or have goals which are more or less irrelavent to/not antagonistic with the goals of other groups. For example, is there ever a dispute between the "labor" faction and the "native american" faction? If there was, what would they argue about?
I think it would be more instructive to list controversies within the Democratic party and their opposing sides, rather than insist on the fiction that everyone in the party belongs to a homogenous "faction" (and then make it all wishy-washy by talking about "overlap"). 
Perhaps someone who knows more about the democrats than me will lend a hand? If not, then I'll have a crack at it myself, as long as I get some response/indictation that someone isn't going to revert all my hard  work. BillMasen (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Factions" of the party or "supporters of the party"?

message: Perhaps the Populist Caucus should be added to the list.  EPM (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Populist Caucus?

message: Is this right?
Their concerns regarding social justice, welfare, universal health care, education and foreign aid are more in line with the Democratic economic agenda than the laissez-faire economic approach of the Republicans. Their social views of capital punishment, defense and militarism, civil rights and equality are also left-wing. 
It would seem like the article is goung to say that they lean right on the remaining issues, but...
On moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality, the Christian left are often, although not always, more in line with Democrats.
 
So what's non mainstream Democratic about them? If I'm getting this right, they seem to be 100% normal Democrats that believe in the parts of religion that don't contradict their party.
I have the suspicion that the paragraph was ment to say:
Their concerns regarding social justice, welfare, universal health care, education and foreign aid are more in line with the Democratic economic agenda than the laissez-faire economic approach of the Republicans. Their social views of capital punishment, defense and militarism, civil rights and equality are also left-wing. On moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality, "they commonly lean towards right wing." 
or at least "[...] and homosexuality, they might lean either way."
--187.147.3.19 (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious left 

message: Some demographics that give an idea of the relative size/overlap of the various camps would be helpful. Also it would be nice if this was broken down by age and region. In addition what organizations within the party are most strongly affiliated with each of these groups. Pie-charts, bar-graphs, and maps would be the clearest way to present this information. 71.236.153.197 (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: This section of the article piped the term religious left to the article christian left.  It's disingenuous at best, as if the only religious liberals in America are christian.  Let's accurately represent the article to which we are linking, and not obfuscate it by trying to throw a veneer of inclusiveness which is not reflected in the target article.--Vidkun (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious left revisited 

message: I recently added the Secular section to the left-wing to show the Democratic Party's support from the atheist and secular community, but I was also considering adding a "By issue" section to mirror the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page. I was trying to be rather encompassing. I didn't want to list everything in the platform such as gay rights, this-or-that, but would it be fair to have subsections titled, "CIVIL RIGHTS," "ENVIRONMENTALISM," "ATTITUDES TOWARDS WAR," and "PUBLIC EDUCATION." I'm sure more could be added, but those are the ones that stick out to me as the most encompassing topics that align themselves with the Democratic platform. (Tigerghost (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  My additions 

message: Its been pretty obvious that environmentalists are a decent party of the Democratic Party, particularly the left wing of the party. If someone wanted to add this in similar to the "secular" section that would be good.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondeguynative (talk • contribs) 07:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmentalism? 

message: Hillary Clinton was a member of the Nee Democratic Coalition which is the DLC Wikg of the party.   And Obama said he was a New Democrat when he got elected.   Please take them off the Liberal part.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.173.61.63 (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Being a member of the New Democrat Coalition doesn't seem to imply that she isn't a liberal. It might mean she isn't a left-liberal, but that isn't the only kind of liberal (e.g. classical liberals and neoliberals). She isn't listed as a progressive. So could you elaborate some? Alexander Levian (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillary Clinton is not a Liberal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630063715/http://www4.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090416065234/http://www.newsweek.com:80/id/168062 to http://www.newsweek.com/id/168062
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.http://www.webcitation.org/690gHZnSX to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/07/11/dean/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/2003/07/11/dean_15/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723050203/http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-12850,00.html to http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-12850,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people-press.org/2005/05/10/beyond-red-vs-blue/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think Wikipedia should remain neutral concerning the Democratic Party and the Republican party.  In the past I have contributed financially to Wikipedia.  I will no longer do so until this issue is corrected.
The presentation between the two factions (Democrat and Republican) is unequal and the numbers are not balanced.  When looking at the Factions in the Democratic Party page, one gets the impression the Democratic Party could never lose.  The reality is that today the Republicans by the numbers lead the White House, Senate, House, Supreme Court, state governors and state houses.  The only significant leadership the Democrats hold is large inner city mayors.
Wikipedia is in use by large segments of the world community including many students and teachers in this country.  It behooves Wikipedia to provide a balanced view of the two parties despite the obvious left-wing exhibition of materials Wikipedia now seems to favor.
2601:CD:C000:36D6:ED52:ED99:4F25:80F2 (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A neutral author needed and mathematics needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512080213/http://libertariandemocraticcaucus.org/ to http://libertariandemocraticcaucus.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100702184835/http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/home/ to http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/home/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don´t think it is correct to state that Clinton gained all the minorities. Bernie got a great support of arabic americans due to his more balanced view on foreign policy. 
When I retract a link I might change the text. I am sure off this. I also think he got a good support off native americans due to his enviromental stand. He also carried Alaska and Hawaii.
Växelhäxan (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive democrats / primary 2016 

message: Why was my edit realigning the factions to better match the definitions of Center-left politics, Center-right politics, Right-wing politics, etc. removed? The current titles insinuate that the war hawk, capitalist, pro-NAFTA Hillary Clinton is "center left". This is a grave misrepresentation.GGLLFFP (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realignment 

message: Should Pelosi be considered a member of the progressive wing? She's had a fair few spats with progressives. It seems a bit off-kilter to put her next to someone like Warren, especially when Pelosi is less-than-enthused by such planks like the Green New Deal, and M4A which has generally been championed by the mainstream left wing of the party.
Diefreien (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Pelosi a progressive? Not a chance. GoodDay (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelosi in the Progressive Wing 

message: The exit polling isn't very informational because the changes over the years mostly reflect the strength of the candidates, not changes in their voting patterns as a demographic. Should we change it to how many points +/- they polled relative to the general population?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.152.85 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Faction exit polling relative to general population

message: Should they be the same as they aren't much different? Barnacles14 (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive vs Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Anyone who has been following this page over the last month or so probably knows that @MikeParten keeps adding an image of Pete Buttigieg to this section consistently without ever typing a word. Never any explanation, just constant edit-warring. There has been at least 3 or 4 editors that have disagreed with his adding of Buttigieg, and stated why, not one though has agreed or defended it; but obviously that does not stop him or invoke a single word of explanation. I'm starting this dialogue in hopes that other users can contribute (as well as MikeParten).
Onto the actual substance, I agree with @104dragon's assessment that Buttigieg is more a center-left liberal than a pure progressive. It's not to say that Pete is not a progressive in ways, or on certain issues, or that he shouldn't call himself a progressive (many politicians do who don't necessarily fall into that faction / ideological category). There's a difference though between being a progressive and a leading voice of the progressive wing. The 'progressive wing' section, or at least the images that represent it, should absolutely consist only of the leading Democratic voices whom guide (or guided) the movement (as should all other images in the separate sections). Simply put, the images make up the "purists" of the specific faction, and in many ways, Buttigieg is an anti-purist on much of the progressive agenda (which is part of his appeal with fans and aggravation with capital "P" Progressives), see the video here: Buttigieg to Warren on ‘Wine Cave’ Barb: ‘This Is the Problem with Issuing Purity Tests You Cannot Yourself Pass’. I do not believe Buttigieg symbolizes a leading voice within the progressive wing (for the Democratic Party and for democratic capitalism on the other hand, yes I believe he does). As a matter of fact, he has on multiple occasions clashed with progressives like Sanders and Warren on many issues, healthcare and campaign financing being a couple of them (see the first reference above, and this one: Buttigieg and Sanders Spar Over Donors, Leadership, Health Care). Additionally, read this source from Politico: How Harvard Made Pete Buttigieg the Moderate That Progressives Love to Hate, titled "How Harvard Made Pete Buttigieg the Moderate That Progressives Love to Hate". And this reference from The Atlantic: The Left-Right Divide Isn’t the One That Matters, with a url that reads "The Radical Centrism of Pete Buttigieg", and with a tagline reading "Buttigieg is ideologically moderate, but his lofty perch atop the meritocracy could prove deeply divisive." I don't believe that when most people think "Progressive wing of the Democratic Party", the first (or even top 10) politician that comes to their mind is Pete, so then why should he be the first photo (or even top 10) included in that section? Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Pete Buttigieg in Progressive wing 

message: The definition of Liberal obviously varies, but one thing remains consistent: It is based on the notion of individual rights- For instance, on Britannica 
  "liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism) 
John Dewey: "liberation from material insecurity and from the coercions and repressions that prevent multitudes from participation in the vast cultural resources that are at hand." (https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/excerpts-from-liberalism-and-social-action/) 
The progressives, who this article describes as more left-wing than liberals, have repeatedly made it clear that their desire is an government which protects the individual's right to healthcare, welfare, education, housing, and a job, such as in Bernie Sanders's economic bill of rights which states his goals as "the right to a decent job that pays a living wage , the right to quality health care, the right to a complete education, the right to affordable housing, the right to a clean environment and the right to a secure retirement." This is not more left wing than the dictionary definition of liberalism. Moreover, it is very similar to the second bill of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, according to this site, "defined modern liberalism in the United States". His bill of rights contains "The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation, the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation, the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living,the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad,the right of every family to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment, and the right to a good education." Is there any real difference-any- between these two plans. How can we justify saying Sanders is more leftwing than FDR? Finally, if someone were to say, colloquially, "liberal Democrat", would they think of Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden?
With that in mind, I think it is unfair to say that these people are further to the left than liberals- we should reserve this status for those who support things like defunding the police ( For instance Rashida Tlaib, a police abolitionist, does not belong in the liberal category) Furthermore, a highly biased op-ed provides most of  the basis for an entire section in a very important article. This article suggests wrongly that Bernie Sanders supports a planned economy. He does not. How can we trust a source which engages in such blatant misconstruing of the facts?  For these reasons, I think it would be best to get rid of the subcategory "center left" (which presently encompasses both the "liberal" and "progressive" sections), and  rename the liberal section "center-left". I think we should also deal with the fact that self described Democratic Socialists are really supporters of European social democracy, with no substantive differences on economic issues from the progressive wing, something that liberals ((https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-socialism.html), conservatives (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/thats-not-real-socialism/), actual socialists  (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9767096/bernie-sanders-socialism-jacobin), and the politicians themselves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZNmDulvgCE, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-the-rookie-congresswoman-challenging-the-democratic-establishment-60-minutes-interview-full-transcript-2019-01-06/), meaning that Sanders belongs in the progressive wing with Warren (There may be some differences between the two, but not enough to necessitate a different section for Sanders) However, I also agree that there is a substantial difference between "The Squad", and Sanders, Warren,et al; but it is not on economic policy(https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-six-wings-of-the-democratic-party/). Rather, it is on issues of race and  identity. For instance, the Squad supports defunding the police. The progressive wing does not.  However, I know that "defund the police faction" is a ridiculous name for a political bloc. Could we call the Squad the left wing faction (there is nothing besides them in the subcategory of left wing anyway) or something similar? 
Island Pelican (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal and Progressive 

message: There are some symbols in the center-left section, preceding the text. I do not know where these came from, and, even more bizarrely, they do not show up when I try to edit the page, and therefore cannot be deleted.Island Pelican (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols 

message: Readers don't care about sorting it from left to right, and this is often too simplistic to characterize politics on a global level. It would make more sense to organize for relevance; see also discussion above. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent section order changes 

message: Since  is edit-warring to keep this nonsensical inclusion: nobody in the United States calls them this. Using this wording is only confusing to readers, especially international ones. Per WP:ENGVAR, we need to respect what Americans and American sources refer to these movements as. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , I am going to ask you again to respond here - you are the one who wants to include these, and you've edited the page since I've posted. If you're not interested in discussing, the content should be removed. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

text: The problem is that there's no confusion. Liberal and progressive have clear, distinct, and unequivocal meanings in American English. Any historical versions can be denoted as "historical" on a case-by-case basis. Toa Nidhiki05 22:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Modern" 

message: I think this article actually needs a serious rework. Just from a brief glance, there's so much synthesis of sources, original research, and generally unreferenced claims that large chunks of the main sections need substantial fact checks and reworking. Moreover, the sheer amount of images on the page is too much - we have dozens of pictures of politicians, some of which are useful but others are fairly unimportant backbenchers or any random representative that falls in a demographic category. The demographic categories at the bottom are also too broad; for example, Hindu and Buddhist voters is both a questionable grouping (the two are not the same religion) and also a fairly small one, as maybe 1.5% of Americans identify as either religion combined compared to 2.4% for Jews (and even more as a demographic group). Moreover, the coverage of current vs. historical wings in the same section is problematic and confusing. What I'd recommend:
:1) Rework the section on factions into two separate sections - one on the current factions of the Democratic Party, and one on the historical wings of the Democratic Party (ie. copperheads, War Democrats segregationists, Bourbon Democrats, boll weevils, Jacksonians, historical progressives), and one on the present factions (ie. progressives, liberals, moderates, and conservatives).
:2) Trim the demographic section to focus more specifically on the key Democratic constituencies: low-income voters, college and postgrad-educated voters, union members, black voters, hispanic voters, asian voters, jewish voters (excluding Orthodox Jews), and more. 
This article could be drastically improved, in my opinion - it would just take some effort. Toa Nidhiki05 18:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't make much sense that Christians are removed but Blacks stay. I thought it was to only have "official" factions, and not just any "voting blocs". Altanner1991 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually not sure how the voting blocs fit here honestly. Could be its own article entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest a section move (including the portions on Christians, unmarried people, etc) to Votership of the Democratic Party (United States). Altanner1991 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer a name like Demographics of the Democratic Party (United States) but I like the idea in principle. Thoughts  ? Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Demographics of the Democratic Party (United States). Altanner1991 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I think that would work Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I support historical factions; they would certainly improve the article—the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) article has the same. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I object. Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article actually about? 

message: The main section for "moderates" in politics should be in the section "main article" template. Progressives, liberals, etc should have the same formatting. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderate politics 

message: This article does seem to have some issues with needing additional sources and possibly shouldn't be organized the way it is, there may have been original research going into writing the article. I think the general ideas behind the article are sound, but we need to make sure it's supported properly and referenced properly. Andre🚐 23:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics#Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Altanner1991 (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

text: I should say that the "conservative Democrat" section is dubious because no federal representatives qualify as conservative. Any interpretation of conservative Democrat as "relative/intraparty" would need to be backed by reliable sources. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are plenty of sources that describe conservative Democrats historically. Zell Miller comes to mind. In terms of current folks, Joe Manchin. Andre🚐 00:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I suppose there is enough weight for them to still be in the article. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, this article needs help 

message: The rewrite on this article is coming together really well. Would it benefit from a section that goes over the historical factions of the party? Jacksonians, Copperheads, War Democrats, Redeemers, Bourbon Democrats, Silverites, Southern Democrats, historical progressives, New Deal Democrats, and boll weevils were all significant factions in the Democratic Party at one point or another, but they receive little to no coverage in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical factions 

message: Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall of text photo captions? 

message: The entire citation depends on ONE opinion piece.  Biden was picked by Obama (who IS liberal) because he was NOT liberal.
Biden himself says he is a centrist, center left.  Cited in detail here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden 50.233.21.154 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Biden is NOT a liberal. 

message: Why was Conservative Democrats removed as a faction when there are still conservative democrats in congress such as Henry Cuellar, Joe Manchin and Vicente Gonzalez? and there are many more conservative Democrats in state legislatures and executive departments too. And if the article Conservative Democrat isn't going to be deleted, then I feel the section about conservative Democrats needs to be restored, because they're not just a historical faction, they still exist. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oogalee Boogalee, I removed the "conservative Democrats" section. The section was outdated and poorly sourced. I moved some of the content to the "historical factions" section. I tend to disagree with your analysis; however, if there is reliably-sourced information about a current faction of conservative Democrats (as distinct from a current faction of moderate Democrats or a few individual conservative Democrats here and there that do not make up a faction), I am open to the creation of a section on a current faction of conservative Democrats. MonMothma (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we should include Conservative Democrats in the factions section of the page as it is currently included as a faction of the party on the main Democratic Party page. It is inconsistent if one page on the Democratic Party states that conservatives are a "faction" yet the page on the factions of the Democratic Party says they are not. Possibly copying the conservative section on the main page and including it as a faction on this page could solve this issue. As other editors have stated conservative democrats are in decline, but are still present. This source sums it up pretty nicely. BootsED (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Following up on my previous post, if the consensus is to keep conservatives mentioned as a sub-faction of moderates, then removing the conservative section on the main page would bring our two pages into agreement. Conservative Democrats could then be simply listed as a "see also" under the Moderates section of this and the main page. BootsED (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: BootsED, I'd be fine with that. I agree that the two pages should be consistent with each other. In reviewing the "Conservative Democrats" section of the Democratic Party page, I don't see anything indicating that a conservative Democratic faction still exists. MonMothma (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative Democrats