Talk:Democratic Party (United States)/Archive 5

message: Sour grapes. This page has now become a target for vandalism (I've cleaned up quite a few), I respectfully request that this page be protected so that only members may edit it. Some examples:
"Defeatocrats"
"Hippies"
"Terrorists want the Democrats to win"
"Osama bin laden is a Democrat"
141.217.221.212 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for page protection

message: I've archived again.  Any more incomprehensible rants by wolfstar will be immediately archived. john k 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While sympathetic to what you're saying, I disagree that thewolfstar's rants should be immediately archived.  Let's not discourage discussion, but rather encourage everyone to post more coherently and less acerbicly. - Jersyko·talk 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I won't immediately archive.  But I am convinced that thewolfstar will not make any substantive additions to this conversation.  It'd be best to ignore him, and prompt archiving is usually the best way to achieve this. john k 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, let's not be Glum. There's no benefit in presuming that "we're doomed, we'll never make it". Merecat 14:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not presuming, I'm just pessimistic.  But if thewolfstar settles down and contributes productively, I'll be as glad as anyone. john k 18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: I agree with Wolfstar, Andrew Jackson was the 1st Democrat president. Merecat 22:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official Democratic party web page, however, asserts that Jefferson was the 1st Democratic president and that the party was organized by him in 1792.  I fully understand that the party was not CALLED the "Democratic" party, but barring some proof that the current Democratic party is not directly descended from Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party, I see no compelling reason to allow this nitpicking technicality to rule. Bjsiders 23:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Kevin Baas is:
dem	This user supports the U.S. Democratic Party.
I wonder if that may have something to do with his strange search phrases and conclusions.See a history of the presidents of the U.S. and cut the political nonsence.
I just want fact presented in the article. That's all. I see nothing wrong with the Republican Party article.
I am adding the url to my website to prove this
http://earthhopenetwork.net/If anyone doubts this is my website, request a change on it and I will do it. thewolfstar 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Democrat President 

message: Here's my attempt at it:
The modern Democratic Party traces it's roots back to Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican.  The Democratic-Republicans eventually became known as the Democrats. Andrew Jackson was the 1st president elected under the Democrat banner . Over time, the Democrats organized their party under the name of the Democratic National Committee, which is the current name. The modern Democratic party had two major presidential initiatives in the 20th century which helped define the principles for which it's become known; the New Deal under Franklin  D. Roosevelt and the War on Poverty under Lyndon B. Johnson.  It was also Johnson who championed and signed the 1965 voting rights bill, which directly advanced with voting rights in a profound way. 
Merecat 23:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we don't say that Jefferson was a Democrat. He was not one. Merecat 01:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Merecat. It might be helpful to Rjensen, John K., etc, to read this page: WP:NPA Also Rjensen, Griot, John K., and Jersyko, please don't call me a 'he' again. This is the third time I'm telling you this. I am not a man or a boy. I'm a woman. Please use the proper pronouns. thewolfstar 04:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  to the editors:
I'll try to keep this real simple, as I appear to be confusing you, the editors.
1. Please correct the dates. eg the party founding date is incorrect. It should be 1828 or 1829.
2. If you believe the correct date to be 1792, then please don't have Jackson as the first president in the history section. Whoever the first 'Democrat president was in 1792, please put him in, and then put each Democrat president in order since 1792.
I don't know how to phrase this in any simpler way. This can't possibly be confusing to anyone. thewolfstar 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merecat says 

message: To once again rehash the question of whether the Demo Party is the world's oldest, and to reiterate what was discussed at length in now-archived Discussion pages, the question of whether the Demo Party is the oldest in the world hinges on whether you believe that the Tory Party of England is related to the present-day Conservative Party of England. The Tory Party was founded in 1680. Around 1850, the party changed names and became the Conservative Party. Some scholars believe that the parties are one and the same; some think they're different parties. For the purposes of this article, the Democratic Party is the second oldest political party in the world if you believe that the present-day English Conservative Party and Tory Party are one and the same; the Demo Party is the oldest party in the world if you date the English Conservative Party's beginnings to the 1850s. In now-archived Discussion pages, the consensus was that a discussion of whether the Demo Party is the oldest or second-oldest political party in the world doesn't belong in the first paragraph of this article, so it was decided that the sentence should read "the Democratic Party is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, political party in the world." I people who come to this article now will respect the thought and contributions of previous editors. Griot 15:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the change on both grounds you have cited.  For one, there's no evidence that the claim is untrue, and adding a bunch of "claims" and "says" qualifiers will not improve prose grammatically.  What is the basis of your suggestion that the Democratic party is NOT one of the oldest active political parties?  Oh wait, it doesn't say active.  Ok, yeah I agree with you.  I suggest changing it to "and is one of the oldest active political parties in the world."  If anybody is dedicated to the "if not the..." I don't object but I think it's poorly written as-is. Bjsiders 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as the oldest "unactive" political party in the world. Either a party is alive and still going, or it's dead. I don't see the point of putting the word "active" in. Griot 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldest political party in the world

message: Hello all, instead of fruitlessly insulting thewolfstar, I decided to be bold and make some changes to the article.  I changed the intro around to indicate that while the Democrats claim descent from the 1790s Republican Party, the modern party originated with Jackson in the 1820s.  I also added considerably to the history section, most notably by adding a section on the Jeffersonian Party, and then on its collapse and the formation of the coalition that would become the Democrats.  I also clarified and added some stuff in the history of the party up to 1861.  Let me know what you think. john k 22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we can copy from this to that to improve that. Merecat 23:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Changes 

message: It's the exact date. ok? thewolfstar 08:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article on the Democratic-Republican party, the big schism happened in 1820, and the Democratic Party that we know today was born in that year.  I think 1820 is the specific date, not 1828.  1828 is when Jackson was elected. Bjsiders 16:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We seem to have arrived at a general consensus on this.  I think a range of dates is probably more accurate.  It's certainly not 1792, in any case, if we're going to maintain that Jackson was the first Democratic president.  8bitjake reverted the 1828 edit to 1792.  I submit (again) that the 1792 date is, at the least, inconsistant with the rest of the article.  Since we appear to have arrived at something of a consensus here, I would request that any more changes to the "founding" date be discussed here before being added to the article. Bjsiders 19:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  changing from 1820's to 1828 

message: There's a discussion of this at Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States), but Griot's edit summary here, "Jefferson's party is known in 90 percent of history books as the Democratic-Republican Party," was sufficiently full of shit that I feel compelled to respond.  Griot keeps on saying variations of this.  He's said it here.  He's said it at the Democratic-Republican talk page.  He's said it on my talk page.  It's quite possible he's said it other places, too.
He has yet to present any evidence of the truth of this claim, besides a few citations of other encyclopedias, which are not "history books".  Rjensen and I have presented a fair amount of evidence to show the contrary - that "Republican Party" is more frequently used.  At the very least, it is pretty clear that both "Republican Party" and "Democratic-Republican Party" are in common use.  In contexts where there is no reason for confusion, I see no reason not to use the more historically accurate "Republican Party" (the name "Democratic-Republican" was not in general usage at the time, as far as every historical source I've ever read states).  Republican is simpler, it's the name in use at the time, it's used by many historians, and there's no reason for confusion so long as we explain clearly (which we obviously should in this article which is supposed to discuss the development from Jefferson's Republicans to Jackson's Democrats.)  At the very least, "Republican" is a perfectly acceptable term, and there's no reason to go through another editor's contributions simply to replace it with a term that one prefers. john k 20:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pah. Enough of this. I just looked into four textbooks at my local library. Every one of them refers to the party as the Democratic-Republican Party. It's not a question of historical accuracy. It's a question of common usage. Why belabor this ponit when textbooks call it the Democratic-Republican Party. Griot 21:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support Griot on this one. Merecat 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: challenge on this one: Date those textbooks please. Students dod NOT use old pre 2000 textbooks, though libraries keep them. Rjensen 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Griot - cite your sources.  Seriously.  Rjensen has cited numerous sources on the Dem-Rep page, and I've cited a few more.  You've just asserted and made vague statements.  Repeatedly.  Beyond this, the two terms are synonymous, both are acceptable, and there's absolutely no reason to insist on one being used exclusively.  If one is to be used exclusively, it should be the party's correct name, not an anachronistic post hoc construction.  We are all republicans -- we are all federalists - Thomas Jefferson, 1801.  Note, not "We are all democratic-republicans." john k 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If the term "Democratic-Republicans" is omiited from this article, that is misleading. It must be fit in, in an understandable way. Merecat 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my most recent edits.  I am perfectly happy to mention the term "Democratic-Republicans."  I'd prefer to primarily use "Republican" to refer to that party, but "Democratic-Republican" is an alternative name which ought to be mentioned.  It is Griot who insists that only Democratic-Republican can be mentioned. john k 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In insist on no such thing. Before this got turned into a cause celebre, this article mentioned Republican Party as the original name of the party, and that's alright. What I object to is this continuous use of "Republican Party" throught with a wiki-link to "Democratic-Republican Party." Calm down everybody. Griot 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I see that.  But you are also insisting on claiming that "Today the party is called the Democratic-Republican Party," that's complete bullshit.  It's sometimes called that, and it's sometimes called the Republican Party, as I've shown in repeated links.  You also explicitly ignored the fact that only my last edit did what you claim you dislike and changed all references to Democratic-Republican to Republican, and just reverted all of my edits, and then immediately put a bunch of new edits up so I couldn't revert (again!).  Did you even read my edit summaries and looked at the individual diffs?  john k 01:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic-Republicans (how to call them) 

message: But Jefferson was a huge admirer of the French Republic.
:No, he was a huge admirer of the early stages of the French Revolution.  He was much more ambivalent about the Republic. The party was named after the American Republic, not the French one, which, even if Jefferson had admired it, would not have won many votes. john k 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a source which says that the Republican Party's name had anything to do with the French Republic? john k 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to revert. Take ten deep breaths and look up the source. I added it to the text. Griot 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is a lame one, and does not say what you say it does. john k 03:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is "lame." Under what grounds? Griot 03:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from a website about Ohio history.  We should be citing scholarly works, not random webpages of unknown provenance.  And, at any rate, it didn't say what you said it did. john k 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced?

message: I see a lot of back and forth on the date.  I don't see how 1792 is defensible.  If we had an infobox at the National Republican Party (United States) article, would we say that it was founded in 1792?  If not, how can we do the same for the Democrats, who had pretty much exactly the same origins as the National Republicans? john k 03:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin date 

message: Thank you all for your unending lunacy. The Democrat Party sure was not started in 1792.
How about let's look at some of the real problems in the article. Like it doesn't tell the truth. The ideological base is a blooming mess. It tells half truths. Which essentially means it lies.
This sentence specifically:The Party supports civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention -- a system known to economists and historians as the mixed economy.Maggiethewolfstar 03:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least you see that we're not a cabl out to get you.  Why don't you propose an alternative text that doesn't just add "allegedly" before each item and turn some of them inside out, and we can comment. john k 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey 

message: Hey Rjensen, thanks for the clarifications on the historical stuff that I wrote.  I was wondering, though, about the characterization that "Old Republicans" supported Crawford and Jackson in 1824.  While I think it can be said that Jackson's supporters in 1824 tended to be less supportive of a strong central government than supporters of Adams and Clay, I had thought that the principled "Old Republican" types were pretty strongly centered around Crawford, and that Jackson's support was largely regional and based on his status as a war hero, without much reference to the issues.  john k 03:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree--the Olds were strong for Crawford and feared AJ as a militarist --HOWEVER, with Crawford out of the picture they swung to AJ in 1826 or so. Risjord says "Macon and most of the other Old Republicans had concluded that Jackson was their man, if only "because he cannot do worse for us." The connection between Jackson and the Old Republicans, if never very close, was at least an old one." [Old Rep. p 262]. Let me suggest this kind of fine detail should be in the History of the United States Democratic party article rather than this one. Rjensen 03:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably true - but my version before said that the "Old Republicans" (although I'd forgotten the specific term) supported Crawford in '24, that Jackson was a mostly non-ideological candidate, and that Jackson allied with the Old Republicans after the "Corrupt Bargain" - were any of those details wrong? john k 03:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you had it right. But Jackson himself (as Remini shows) was pretty much Old Republican in his beliefs. :) Rjensen 05:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but that wasn't clear in 1824.  Some slight changes in the wording would probably be sufficient. john k 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard that Jackson was the only president to pay off the federal debt. Is this true? Viihde 13:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Old Republicans" and Jackson in 1824 

message: The Party supports civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.
This could be rewritten.
The Party claims to support civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.
OR
The Party supports some civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.
Then again, by the Affirmative Action legislation. equal rights is debatable. So it might read like this:
The Party supports some civil liberties, social freedoms, rights that are tipped in favor of some minority groups, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.
OR
The Party supports some civil liberties, is divided on certain social freedoms, rights that are tipped in favor of some minority groups in an attempt to offset former imbalances, an imbalanced system of opportunity, and asserts that it supports a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.
thewolfstar 04:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer "claims to support" them.  It may be true (imo) that they only support "some" civil rights, but that's not really something we can say at Wikipedia because it's very hard to back up.  We certainly can't say they support all civil rights, because they refused to take any particular stance on gay rights in their 2004 presidential platform (as far as I could tell).  "Supports most civil liberties" would also be POV and unacceptable.  So, I favor "claims to support", unless we want to go point-by-point and source, not just claims, but what actual support has been demonstrated.  That would be a nightmare to source, and also not really something we have to do.  All we really have to do to satisfy NPOV is to report on what the party claims to support.  Any further investigation into what they've actually supported is gravy.  Kasreyn 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input Kasreyn. I agree with you.claims to support is just a straightforward unbiased comment. Also, they most definitely don't support the 2nd amendment and that is stated real clearly in the article. see gun control thewolfstar 07:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Party has stated its commitment to the principles of civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system with government intervention known by economists and historians as Mixed economy.
? john k 16:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, actually. The idea of "claims to" is too POV. And while not supporting ALL civil liberties, this statement is fairly well written. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Claim" means to assert in the face of a contradiction. The problem with "claims to" is that it implies that the party is contradicting truth, and whether it is doing that is POV. I don't like "supports" either. This neutral word should be reserved for brassieres and jockstraps. How about "advocates," which means "to plead the cause of." Isn't that what political parties do? Griot 17:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how long will this one take 

message: I have to disagree with you this once.  I think it's important not to make erroneous claims, or claims that are highly prone to misinterpretation, on Wikipedia.  The distinction that the Democratic Party is among the oldest extant or surviving parties is a very important distinction.  Defunct political parties are still political parties, just as defunct species are still called species.  If there had never been any kinds of birds in the world but Dodo birds and Robins, we would not be justified in calling the Robin the oldest species of bird.  It would merely be the oldest surviving species of bird.  Respectfully, Kasreyn 05:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I told you that Bob Jones is the oldest man in the world, would you think twice whether he was "extant"? Would it be necessary to write, "Bob Jones is the oldest extant (or surviving) man in the world"? Strunk and White admonish us to remove extraneous words. "Extant" in this case is very extraneous. I'm removing it. Griot 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're comparing apples and oranges.  Bob Jones stops getting "older" when he dies.  A political party could be revived after "dying" if people return to it.  It's a useless comparison.  The sentence is confusing and could possibly be misread as fraudulent partisan boasting, since the Democratic Party was certainly not the first political party founded.  Kasreyn 11:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, yours is a useless comparison. Name me on political party that "revivied after dying." Griot 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is confusion between "oldest" and "longest continuous operation". The Dems are probably close to the top on both. However, certain Dems modern policies of high taxes, gay advocacy, pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-Americanism, pro-Statism, pro-world government etc., are relatively new. Some editors object to implications that these current Dem platform planks have long been party of the party, when in fact they have not. In fact, the idea of national platforms is a modern phenomenom. Also new, is the enormous $$ power of the parties. Merecat 11:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what would be an older non-extant party.  The Federalist Party?  That doesn't really make much sense.  The Federalist Party lasted for only about 30 years.  It was one of the earliest organized political parties in the world, but it is not one of the oldest.  In terms of the Democratic platform, I don't see how stating that the Democratic Party is old implies that the positions it currently favors are long-standing. john k 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Griot re: Extant 

message: The Progressive template dominates the article and is highly misleading since people will assume the ideas mentioned are all supported by the Dem party. The template is not needed here and should be removed. Rjensen 16:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressivism template 

message: I've brought these points up several times. I haven't gotten any response to it.
The following are statements of fact. The statements they replace are not.
* Democrats are largely against, with a few exceptions, the Patriot Act because of concerns over the "invasion of privacy" and other civil liberty restrictions of the act. Despite this, Democrat members of congress voted for the original Patriot Act legislation, which helped make it a reality in the lives of the every day American. Since that time, the Democratic Party has been successful in changing portions of the Patriot Act that threatened individual rights, including the library provisions, which were dropped in 2006.
::This seems perfectly fair to me. john k 07:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. thewolfstar 08:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No. No. No. No.  This is the most insanely POV thing we could possibly say. john k 07:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, this is fact. The other was stating as fact, the claims that the Democrats make. What the Democrats claim to do and what they actually do, is just not the same. These are factual statements, the others are myths, stated as if they were facts. I'm not saying that this is the only way that this can be written. All I ask is that it be factual thewolfstar 08:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disgusting? How so?  The article wasn't implying that it was for bad reasons. Also, on what basis can you claim that it is a fact that he was trying to do it for "good reasons"? john k 07:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It really doesn't matter if you don't think it's true.  That said, it shouldn't be stated as fact that this is what the Democratic Party does - it should be attributed.  It was a famous statement by Herbert Croly, a leading Progressive and the founder of The New Republic, in 1909.  It has since frequently been applied to the ideals of the Democratic Party, at least since the New Deal period. I've modified. john k 07:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more edits 

message: Griot, I really don't think we should just state outright that the Democrats use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends.  I believe that's a fair statement, but it's obviously POV to present it as fact.  We should note that this is a common form that American liberalism has used to describe its mission, or something like that, or cite Croly, or whatever.  But we can't just say "In historical terms."
In terms of "advocates" or whatever, I don't have a serious problem with advocates, but other people apparently don't like it, and I think that my version is better and will engender less opposition.  Also, please don't use misleading edit summaries like "editing for clarity" when you are making edits that are obviously controversial. john k 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, we should drop this whole Jefferson ends/Hamiltonian means business, but rjensen put it in, and we should respect that. I introduced the "in historical terms" so people can get a sense of what it's about. As for "advocates," I put that in becuase, honestly, what was there before was stilted and difficult to read ("The Party has stated its commitment to such principles as "). Kind of weasly, I think. Finally, I'm not misleading anyone. I made many edits. I had to describe them somehow. I'm not evil incarnate -- really. Griot 03:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the formula "the Democrats use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends" has been pretty common for 60 years (but I'm not the one who added it to the article.) I think it can stay without much problem. George Will used it recently: "By George F. Will Newsweek Feb. 14 issue - A century ago, American progressives said they aspired to use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. They meant they would wield a strong federal government to promote equality." (the term comes from Herbert Croly, who was a TR supporter.) It was often used for FDR. It has also been used for Reagan: "Yet both Nixon's and Carter's foreign policies were ultimately rejected by Americans who saw Nixon as excessively expedient and thus inconsistent with American principles and saw Carter as excessively moralistic and thus unable to defend the national interest. Reagan bridged this gap by combining Jeffersonian ends with Hamiltonian means."  Gary Hart actually has a whole book on ths matter. He rejects the formula: "It is rather that one might better use Jeffersonian means to achieve Hamiltonian ends. The strength of American political purpose in the current age is arguably to be achieved through the reengagement of ordinary citizens in public life and the common purpose rather than through continued reliance on a remote elite to manage national affairs for a society increasingly detached from national life and national purpose." [Restoration of the Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in 21st-Century America 2002 p 56]. Perhaps it merely refers to strong use of presidential power.  Rjensen 03:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I attributed it to Croly, and said it was a formula which has commonly been used to describe the style of liberalism associated with the Democratic Party since the New Deal (if not earlier).  I think it would be better to be more detailed about it than simply to throw it out there as though it's a widely accepted truth. In terms of "advocated" versus my version, I agree mine is a bit awkward, but, to be honest, I'd prefer just plain "supports" to "advocates," as I look at it.  "Advocates" seems nearly as stilted as my version, and I'm not sure how it's less POV than "supports". I think we should perhaps go back to the drawing board on that one. john k 04:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, Griot, I don't think you're evil.  But "edits for clarity" is not a good description for edits which might be controversial.  I'd say "various changes in wording" would be a better way to say it. john k 04:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd paragraph on ideological base 

message: Just as a note not to be considered a request for any particular change..
"A century ago, American progressives said they aspired to use Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. They meant they would wield a strong federal government to promote equality."This is known as socialism.
I'm a patriotic citizen, myself. I don't care much for left or right wing regimes. (The dictators, F.D.R. or George Dubya Bush)
If Jefferson or Tom Paine could see the insanity that goes on their names, by both the left and right wings of this country, they would be rolling in their graves. I read Thomas Jefferson's own writings and I read the writings of Thomas Paine. Can any of you say this?
Thomas Paine Collected WritingsISBN I-883011-03-5
Thomas Jefferson Writings (a 1548 page book). both from the Library of America
Maggiethewolfstar 05:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get off your soapbox and talk about things that are relevant to this article.--RWR8189 05:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a forum for your political beliefs, this is for discussion relevent to the direction of this article. And yes, I have read the works of both men. And the fact that you've read them as well doesn't make you any less of a fool. - Fearfulsymmetry 12:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exactly..hello? 

message: Somebody changed the foundation date to 1792 again, and now the page is locked.  When it's unlocked, it needs to be changed back, and we can revisit the debate on the matter here if there's new disagreement. Bjsiders 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1792 Date is Back 

message: There is a history run-down sort of thing that is not verified and frankly is full of false and ludicrous claims. Please verify the claims. Thanks thewolfstar 07:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones are false or wrong?  I'd suggest that you debunk the ones that you disagree with.  If they're false and ludicrous, this should be a trivial exercise. Bjsiders 12:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: fromthewolfstar

message: This comment is directed to Bjsiders and Rjensen.  You know, for two editors who've shown such attention to NPOV and encyclopedic quality in the past as you have, I'm surprised that you think it's encyclopedic to include terminology that you know are frame-words, ie propaganda, in this article.  Just including the spin from both sides doesn't somehow make it better, you know.  As for wording in use:  Wikipedia is supposed to use common terminology, but the NPOV policy has a higher priority.  Can anyone provide a good reason for continuing to use political propaganda in this article?  Kasreyn 20:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't tell me what I think is or is not encyclopedic.  I think the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are well enough understood by a typical reader to be fair terms to use, even if they are loaded guns.  I dislike terms like "anti-choice", "anti-life", and "pro/anti-abortion."  The first two are obvious political posturing, and the third is inaccurate.  Pro-life is what the pro-lifers call themselves.  Pro-choice is what the pro-choicers call themselves.  If the terms are ambiguous or unclear, we could link them, or preface the section with a very brief description of what each stands for (on balance).  If you want to frame the issue around what each side REALLY believes, those terms are acceptable.  The pro-choice crowd believes that the woman's reproductive freedom trumps any rights the unborn may have.  Thus, the woman's choice is more important than the unborn's life.  The pro-life crowd believes that the life of the unborn trumps the woman's reproductive freedom.  Thus the life is more important than the choice.  I think "pro-choice" very clearly articulates that priority, as does "pro-life."  The terms are a bit black and white (e.g., your average pro-lifer may have allowances for unusual circumstances; your average pro-choicer may not agree with specific abortion techniques), but I think they're fair and largely accurate.  I can't think of any non-clumsy terms that are much better. Bjsiders 01:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Kasreyn what terms would you prefer? Mathiastck 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Framing 

message: If you are going to mention Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth how about mentioning the IMPEACHMENT of Clinton, one of only 2 presidents impeached in the entire history of the United States?
206.208.110.32 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Clinton Impeachment should definitely be mentioned. It may have been a "farce" to some, but it is an important topic in American political history. Doesn't have to be much detail... just a sentence or two with a link to the main article on the topic. If I had time, I'd do it myself. Maybe later. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it: the Swift Boat issue dominated the Democratic presidential campaign for several critical weeks. It did not happen to some obscure senator--it perhaps ruined the best chance the party had of winning the White House. Rjensen 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, the Swift Boaters probably don't deserve mention here. They really were not against the Democratic Party as a whole, but rather against Kerry. In the history of the DP, the SBVFT barely register. But yes, the Clinton Impeachment and Acquittal deserve a sentence or two. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my 2 cents, but I'd say that failed candidates and "potential" candidates deserve less space in the article than Democrats who actually successfully became president.  Just as a matter of notability, failed candidates just don't seem as important as real presidents who actually changed the world.  Kasreyn 22:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The most recent failed candidate of the losing party is also the last person to put forward the party platform and actually reach an audience.  Until another Democrat grabs national attention and puts forward a party platform Kerry will be the most important voice describing the current state of the democratic party, and it's stances. Mathiastck 18:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the most part, maybe. But I'd posit Barry Goldwater changed the state of American politics (thus the world, really) than Chester A. Arthur (who became President). But oh well. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, now, don't knock my man Chester!  After all, where would we be without the Bureau of Labor Statistics?  ;)  Kasreyn 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoidance of primary controversies 

message: This was ignored entirely and was a critical element of the victories that Kennedy and Johnson had in leading the fight against communism during the cold war, and in the strategy pursued while opposing the Soviet Union.  You ignore it completely.206.208.110.32 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purge of communists by Truman and successors 

message: Editors of this page may be interested in checking out the peer review of Tom DeLay. Please leave your comments, criticism, and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom DeLay/archive1. Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tom DeLay]] peer review 

message: I was simply alphabetizing the order of the issues, in order to get them out of the (wrong) hot-button-issue order they were in. cecilgol 14:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  changed the order of "Democratic Party stances" 

message: I re-wrote the section a little. I removed the sentence predicting that 2008 may be the most crowded Dem field in history, as that's purely speculative and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I added a little at the front explaining that people are already running for 2008, so that the whole section doesn't look speculative. 
Lastly, I took out the bit about Feingold possibly being the first "Jewish-American" major party candidate, because it's not true. "Jewish-American" implies ethnicity, not religion, and Barry Goldwater was the first "Jewish-American" major-party presidential candidate. It's possibly true that if Feingold is nominated for President that he'd be the first Jewish presidential candidate, because Goldwater was raised Episcopalian by his father, who converted. I really should take out the bit about Obama being the first black candidate, too, as both those statements are more purely speculative than belongs in an encyclopedia.
Argyriou 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 outlook 

message: In an international context, the views of the Democratic party are often considered social democratic
Imho, this is very incorrect.  A quick look at Democratic policies and an understanding of what the social democratic position is will quickly show that this statement isn't true. Check out the discussion over at the social democracy article and you'll see there that they decided to not include the US Democratic party on their list of social democratic parties.
Delta Macht 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm with Delta Macht on this one.  Compared to most social democratic parties in Europe, for instance, the Dems are centrist at best, possibly even center-right.  Obviously, some widely held Dem policy goals are in line with the social democrat ideology, and if one of the US parties must be social democrats, well, this is the right one.  However, the center of political debate is, frankly, too right of center for one of our two major parties to be accurately characterized as socially democratic. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Democratic? 

message: Recently an addition was made to this article stating that had Vice President Gore won either New Hampshire or Florida in 2000, he would have won the Presidency, since he was short by only 4 electoral votes.  As I understand it, New Hampshire had only 4 votes, which would have most likely resulted in a tie when the electoral votes were counted.  In this case, the House must then elect the President under some special rules.  Given that the house had a Republican majority, it seems less than clearly certain to me that winning New Hampshire would have given Vice President Gore the Presidency.  Bjsiders 17:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article on the election claims Bush got 271 to Gore's 266, which puts Bush five ahead...  so NH couldn't have made any difference.  Note however that one Democratic Party elector was faithless and abstained, otherwise Gore would have had 267 without FL.  Kasreyn 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to both add the 4 to Gore's total and subtract it from Bush's if NH switches columns.  So, 266+4=270 and 271-4=267, and Gore wins. Sam 22:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GLA!!  I can't believe I missed that.  Someone shoot me.  -_-;  Kasreyn 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reverted my changes to the article to last by Griot.  I'm curious whether it would be notable to mention the faithless elector that had been expected to vote for Gore, or whether that's a bit too much info?  It's in the main article.  Kasreyn 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Statement about the 2000 Election 

message: But this time slightly different, so that's good. ;-) Ledzeppelin321295 has changed the article from the DP being "one of the two oldest" to "the oldest" on the claims that the Conservative Party is actually younger. According to History of the Conservative Party though, it states the Tories have their roots in the late 1600s, but not officially becoming the "Conservatives" until the 1830s. Thoughts? Comments? --LV (Dark Mark) 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age... again. 

message: For anyone with some spare time, I just created two new categories: :Category:Fictional Republicans and :Category:Fictional Democrats.  I just made them over the last four hours, and I was only able to find around 30-35 for each.  They're for fictional members of the two main political parties, so if any of you can contribute some more, it would be appreciated.  Thanks! Michael 06:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional political party members 

message: I really like the changes calling this the Jeffersonian Party; the more I've read, and the more I've looked at some of the original documentation, the more I think a solution like this works best.  One very important point that naming it in this way makes is that this was a more informal and flexible party than we are accustomed to, one which did not have all the established mechanisms of a modern party.  Good job! Sam 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeffersonian Party 

message: thanks to John Broughton for pointing out the New Yorker story. Actually President Hoover used the term in 1932, and Stassen in 1940, Taft in 1947, etc. Hertzberg does not seem to have added anything new to the literature on the topic. The term became common in GOP circles in the 1940s and has been used regularly in the GOP National platform.  Since 2001 "Democrat" is by far the White House adjective of choice referring to the opposition. (The White House uses "democratic" only in foreign policy matters. Rjensen 18:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrat Party as term 

message: There are some contradictions among Wikipedia entries.  Currently this article states that:
<I>In 1872 the Democrats did not nominate a candidate but supported the Liberal Republican ticket of Horace Greeley; it did poorly.</I>
And it also states that:
<I>The Greeley/Brown ticket was nominated by the Liberal Republican Party and endorsed by the Democrats.</i>
However, the entry on the Election of 1872 currently says that:
<I>Democratic Party nomination</I>
<I>As the Liberal Republicans did, the Democratic Party chose the Greeley/Brown ticket. Greeley received 686 of the 724 delegate votes cast, while Brown received 713. Accepting the Liberal platform meant the Democrats had accepted the New Departure, rejecting the anti-Reconstruction platform of 1868. They realized to win they had to look forward, and not try to refight the Civil War.</I>
This may be backed by a purported historical document:
<I>Horace Greeley, ALS, July 24, 1872, Letter dated July 24, 1872, on New-York Tribune letterhead., marked private. This letter was written right after Greeley was nominated as the Democratic candidate for President to run against Grant for his second term.. , "I hope you like my acceptance of the democratic nomination".</I>
An additional source in regards to this is John Adams Dix's letter on July 22, 1872, to Philip Clayton:
<I>It is a remarkable fact that in this State, so far as I have been able to examine, there has not appeared a single editorial in any Democratic paper recommending Mr. Greeley upon his merits to the high office to which they have nominated him.</I>
<I>If they turn to the past record of his life, it is made up of vindictive abuse of the Southern people and their institutions, and if they look to his promises for the future they find nothing but his assurance, in accepting the nomination, that "he was as much a Republican as he ever was."</I>
<I>The Democratic Convention at Baltimore indorsed and commended him to the support of their party--not as the exponent of any principles they have professed or any measures they have advocated, but as a known and bitter opponent of both--the man who, perhaps, of all others, has been the most malignant assailant of the Democracy, impeaching its integrity, traducing its motives, and vilifying its character.</I>
Anyone have evidence to the contrary? We should make these entries consistent as well as accurate. Settler 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let my challenge of sorts stand for at least the rest of the day before I make any edits.  Thanks for your input. Settler 17:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horace Greeley: Officially nominated or not 

message: I think it would be very relevant for an inclusion of what opponents have to say about the party (namely the Republican party).  It would have to be somewhat limited, otherwise the section could grow to excessive lengths.
I am adding a similar section to the Republican Party discussion.
--68.176.139.189 04:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition viewpoint 

message: "Liberalism generally has a different meaning outside the United States from its meaning in the U.S., but in an international context, the views of the Democratic party are often considered liberal, as well."
Well this is totally misleading.
From an economic POV in many countries the Republican Party is considered as more liberal than the Democratic Party in many countries. From a social/moral POV the Democratic Party is is more progressive while the Republican party is conservative.
Ericd 01:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The economic views of the Democratic Party could fit comfortably with those of many liberal parties in other parts of the world, and certainly with the Liberal Democrats in Britain, the Liberals in Canada, who are much more similar to the Democrats than they are to the Republicans in their economic views.  I'm not even all that sure that the comparison stands with the continental tradition of liberalism.  A liberal party on the continent, such as the Free Democrats, is working from a very different baseline, in that there's a much more well-developed welfare state in Germany, meaning that wanting to roll back the welfare state in Germany is quite different from wanting to do the same in the United States.  Beyond that, if the Democratic Party is not Liberal in an international context, what on earth is it?  You could hardly call it Social Democratic.  There have always been two strands of liberalism in the European tradition - business-oriented classical liberalism, and a more leftish reform liberalism, which has always been the dominant strain of liberalism in the Anglosphere.  This latter strain finds expression in the British and Canadian parties that have Liberal in their name, and also in the US Democratic party.  Social democratic parties throughout the developed world have also been coming closer and closer to the typical reform liberalism ideology, as seen by the moves to the right of, for instance, Blair's Labour and Schröder's SPD, making the distinction between social democracy and reform liberalism increasingly difficult to distinguish (leaving us in the awkward position that in some ways, the Liberal Democrats are now to the left of Labour).  But the Democratic Party certainly conforms to the fairly standard characteristics of a reform liberal party, and largely has as a national entity since the time of William Jennings Bryan or thereabouts.  The Republican Party is distinctly a conservative party in an international sense, and is seen as the analogue of conservative parties like the Tories in Britain and Canada, the CDU in Germany (although obviously there there are serious differences in terms of economic policy), the not terribly aptly named Liberal Democrats in Japan, Berlusconi's coalition in Italy, and the UMP in France (with, again, some significant differences).  All countries are different, and the precise political spectrum in different countries is different, but the Democrats most certainly fall without very much difficulty into the broad tradition of international liberalism.  What is odd about the Democrats is that the more typically "liberal" elements of the party tend to call themselves "moderates," while the moderately social democratic elements call themselves "liberal" (the real lefties call themselves "progressives" or just "leftists" and generally don't consider themselves Democrats).  john k 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal 

message: The link to the "Clayton Anti-Trust Law" doesn't point to anything.  The Wikipedia entry is the "Clayton Antitrust Act," so I've once again corrected it.  If anyone opposes this, please state your reasons. Settler 00:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clayton Anti-Trust Law = Clayton Antitrust Act 

message: The section on the 2000 presidential election (note that it is duplicative of material at United States presidential election, 2000) uses a selected quote from a Nader aid, "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."  The quote is contested by the source.  The source says the quote was, "The Democrats should not be allowed to take progressive voters for granted anymore, Democratic politicians should pay for their betrayals in votes."
I'm not sure what is POV about this quote.  Well, any quote is by-nature POV, but correcting it can't make the article any more POV then it was before with the original quote included.
I deleted, "Winning either Florida or New Hampshire would have given Gore enough electoral votes to win the presidency," since it duplicates, "Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the Electoral College by four votes. Many Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. They pointed to the states of New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) and Florida (25 electoral votes)".  I doubt avoiding that duplication is POV.
I'm not sure how to handle the issue of NPOV for the material on blaming Nader for Gore's loss.  Obviously, this article by nature is of Democratic Party POV, but other parts of Wikipedia on the elections provide the Nader response to the Bush victory in 2000.  I added at the end of the paragraph a response by Nader supporter's on Gore's loss, "Nader supporters raise Gore's failure to beat Bush by greater margins and in particular Gore's loss in his 'home state' of Tennessee."  Apparently adding that one sentence was also considered POV.
Was there really a POV problem with this material? --71.161.218.210 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nader in 2000 

message: I think the introduction as it stands is somewhat inaccurate.  The sentence I'm having trouble with is "Since 1896 the Democrats have been the more liberal major party (in the modern American sense of the word)."  This is true in some senses (certainly true with respect to unions, social security, and general "economic issues").  On the other hand, it is inaccurate vis-à-vis civil rights, under the assumption that the modern American sense of liberal is pro-civil-rights (as I think we'd all agree it is).  The Democratic Party was the party of segregation in the Southern United States at least until WWII and somewhat beyond, and was certainly true for a long time after 1896.  For example, the adminstration of Woodrow Wilson did immeasurable harm to the civil rights of African-Americans, and that this is true is an uncontroversial historical view.
In any case, I'm not calling for a big change here.  I think simply adding "economically" before liberal in that sentence would fix the inaccuracy. Thoughts? -- Deville (Talk) 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction reads, "The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the party despite opposition at the time from its conservative Southern wing, has continued to inspire the party's ideas and principles...." I think "1960s" sets the time frame correctly. In the modern era, the Democrats have been the party of civil rights. Griot 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, completely agreed.  The problem, though, is that the earlier statement explicitly uses the date of 1896.  Replacing "Since 1896" with "In the modern area" may also fix the problem, although I think this is less optimal since IMO precise dates are preferable to references to eras. -- Deville (Talk) 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small problem with the introduction 

message: The Democratic Leadership Council was created in 1985; therefore, not in response to three landslides including '88.  AlaButterfly 06:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.9  Transformation Years: 1969-1992 

message: Here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#The_Civil_Rights_Movement:_1963-1968  It says African-Americans, who had traditionally given strong support to the Republican Party since the American Civil War, shifted to the Democratic Party in the 1930s, largely due to New Deal relief programs 
Blacks were denied relief in the '30s so this is impossible -- doesn't make any sense. Damian Dangerfield 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blacks were not denied relief--they received about 10% of the WPA jobs for example. See articles on WPA and CCC and esp the book by Harvard Sitkoff, "New Deal for Blacks: The Emergence of Civil Rights as a National Issue: The Depression Decade"; also  Farewell to the Party of Lincoln (ISBN: 0691101515) by Nancy Joan Weiss. Sterner, The Negro's Share (1944) gives elaborate statistical detail.  Rjensen 03:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The story is a little more complex. Early in Roosevelt's administration, the recovery and relief programs disfavored blacks. However, black leaders decided they would support Roosevelt and the Democrats in exchange for a share of the relief and recovery programs. They delivered, and so did Roosevelt. Argyriou 04:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: some info: "the share of FERA and WPA benefits going to Negroes exceeded their proportion of the general population. The FERA's first relief census reported that more than two million Negroes were on relief in 1933, a percentage of the black population (17.8) that was nearly double the percentage of whites on relief (9.5).  By 1935, the number of Negroes on relief had risen to 3,500,000, almost 30 percent of the black population, and an additional 200,000 blacks were working on WPA projects. 62 Altogether, then, almost 40 percent of the nation's black people were either on relief or were receiving support from the WPA. Of course, even this was an unsatisfactory measure of participation because Negro needs were so much greater." quote from  The New Deal: The National Level ed John Braeman et al, 1975. pp 188-89 Rjensen 05:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This statement

message: This has been bugging me for a little while now. The captions under the photos of Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson (in the History section) state that each was the "only Democrat elected president" during the overlapping date ranges 1856-1912 and 1892-1932, respectively. Methinks this needs to be adjusted to clarify those captions. What does everyone else think? --Lukeonia1 07:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good point. both statements are technically accurate but together they are simply confusing to readers. Please fix it.Rjensen 07:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleveland or Wilson? 

message: "They saw the independent ("yeoman") farmer as the ideal exemplar of virtue, and distrusted cities, banks, and factories."  I don't see  evidence that the former were "distrusted", just potential means by the wealthy to indenture the common citizen.  Any cites for this? Skyemoor 17:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many historians have commented on Jefferson's distrust of cities: William Peden (ed of Notes on Virginia): "Jefferson was to modify but never abandon his distrust of large cities and their inhabitants of diverse nationalities"; Robert A McCaughey: "his lifelong distrust and disparagement of cities"; Mark A. Reid: "Jefferson had articulated most forcefully this deep distrust of cities, which he claimed to be “sores upon the body politic.”"; Clement Eaton: "Jefferson, who had seen the evils of Paris, compared the mobs of large cities to sores on the body politic, unsuitable raw material to make good citizens in a republic." and so on. Rjensen 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distrusted cities? 

message: Please, let's get our basic facts right.  Yes, one can expect the DNC to respect the desires of a Democratic President in the selection of a Chair, but it is an election and ballots are cast.  I'm changing the language back to this, and I'll kick in a sentance noting the deference to the President, and if anyone wants to add some (hopefully cited) analysis of the party's role) that's great, but let's get the basic facts right. Sam
::The election of chairmam has been controlled by the president for over 100 years (when there is a Dem president). Wiki has to report what really happens. The point is that the president controls the DNC--as the books cited demonstrate.  To see how it really works look at  the 2000 "election" that was imposed by Clinton. Rjensen 23:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful. Presidents on the way out have not been quite so successful at controlling DNC appointments - Carter, defeated after one term, was in niether a mood nor a position to play too great a role in Chuck Manatt's selection, for example.  But, certainly, sitting Presidents generally dominate their political party organization.  But it's not hard to say this in one sentence while describing the actual electoral process in another sentence.  It is useful for wiki to give people the ability to follow an event like an election at a more factually precise level than they will get by reading a newspaper. Indeed, before the primaries start up, I'd like to see wiki have enough information so people can understand things like how delegates to conventions are selected, who makes the rules that select the delegates, and the like, since all of that will play out with the usual shallow coverage by the press.  Sam 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is now much better. The rules are a pretty small part of the game of politics as [] proves. Rjensen 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - we can get both sets of perspectives in.  But I don't know about the "rules are a small part" statement - Nevada seems pretty happy when the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC proposed, and the DNC adopted, rules changes to allow the Nevada primary to be held before New Hampshire.  Nice thing about Wiki, is we could give the reader enough detail to answer either the question of "who the heck are the Rules and Bylaws Committee" or "what a DNC" if we keep drilling down.  Sam 00:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki should not emphasize that the president is elected by 538 members of the electoral college. That is true, but not the real story. As for the NH primary--the DNC pulled its punches. The only penalty is for the national convention to give out, and the national convention is controlled by the winner of the primaries. If that person won NH he/she won't take away his own votes. If he lost NH he won't humiliate one of the losers. So the rule (probably) will not matter.  :)  Rjensen 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNC Chair is Elected by the DNC 

message: I'm going to try to place them where they belong; I'll let someone else decide whether their existences are merited or not within the article. Settler 16:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was quite a bit of work.  At least it looks somewhat presentable now, though I'll be working on it some more in the future. Settler 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite a few broken or orphan footnotes 

message: What the hell?  That is POV.  The Democratic Party was founded by Conservatives and beaten down by Liberals, whether Whig or Republican and so much that perhaps the demographics of the party have recieved a (Marxist) Reconstruction itself.  Zell Miller, Robert Byrd and Jimmy Carter are reasonably traditional representatives of the Democratic Party.  In much the same tone, Lincoln Chafee and Mitt Romney are reasonably traditional representatives of the Republican Party.  Tell me the last "Southern" Republican President:  Eisenhower, descendent of Pennsylvania Dutch Carpetbaggers!  Before that, there was Lincoln (descendent of Massachusetts Puritans) and Fremont (son of a foreigner).  The GOP is a Marxist revolution-exporting institution that is waging war on Islamic theocracy, just as it waged socialist wars in Latin America.  Nobody thinks that the GOP was the Civil War's secular party either, just as the Whigs were before them.  In fact, the religiosity of the Islamic nations is what defines an "evil" aspect of the public mood in those countries.  I tell you, I come from a family of Copperheads, Doughfaces and regular Southron Dems.  The GOP is not what you think it is at all.  Refute the Hooverian German American refusal to fight the Nazis and their entry into America during '49!  Evangelicals are NOT Southern, but Lutherans and other Northern Baggers who have infiltrated this country by culture warfare and proclaimed themselves "Middle America" and the "Grand Old Party".  I switched parties to vote for "Dubya" in protest of Kerry, who is more a heir to both the Calvinist Whigs (Yankee Forbes of the Opium Wars) as well as the Central European (Austria-Hungary) geopolitical scene which was imported by the GOP in the first place.  I realize that there is nothing in the world to have me stay with a party that caught me like a fish to a lure.  I rescind that mistake and this is not meant to get any of you guys to join me.  In all likelihood, you might find what I say to be offensive.  Those who feel that way can kiss my ass, because I'm not being fooled again.  This war of perception is a Cold War phenomenon, sort of like those infowars.  Most Dems are afraid of losing the "tolerant vote" if they harken back to Jacksonian days and Jefferson Davis.  I don't give a damn!  The Bushes are Ohio-dynast Radical Republicans, of Puritan roots just like most traditional Liberals.  Hasbro 12:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't use talk pages for ranting. If you want to talk about political issues then join a discussion forum, this is an encyclopedia. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political ideology Liberalism1, Progressivism, Center-left 

message: I am considering dividing the links into "official" and "unofficial" categories (or something along those lines), however I would like the input of others in deciding whether to do this or not and which links should go where.  Some organizations listed under "official" in this article are currently defined as "unofficial" in another article. Settler 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. People keep on sneeking in unofficial organizations there. It has to stop.--Jersey Devil 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official vs. unofficial affiliation (External links section)

message: I know I wade into contentious waters here. The section in the article regarding the party today cites polls suggesting several issues are breaking in favor of Democrats. This is true but what is missing in this part of the article is acknowledgment that this opportunity is being met by a complete absence of a national message designed to leverage it in favor of the Democrats. It's difficult to discuss strategy where there is none. A lifelong Democrat here, it seems leadership has become paralyzed, so afraid of the GOP as to not dare to speak with any authority or righteous conviction on any subject: the war, national security, foreign policy, national debt, immigration, greenhouse emissions, whether to install TP to roll over or under, etc.  Perhaps their kick-ass donkey should be replaced with a scared little bunny rabbit wringing its paws. I sense an unarticulated strategy of hoping to win by default of just not being the president or his party. Ask Mike Dukakis or John Kerry how that worked out for them. The most recent official talking point message "culture of corruption" has next to zero traction with anyone outside the population they already depend upon. And it doesn't deserve to. It's as if someone has given Howard Dean the 1856 Whig Party play book. CApitol3 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'd need of course reliable sources presenting the opinion (because of course it can't be treated as a fact) that there is (a) a lack of a cohesive message, and (b) that this is somehow a problem. I've got my own opinions about the value of "cohesive messages", related to my general opinion of demagoguery, but that's a different issue. By the way -- one way to get better traction with your arguments here is to cultivate a habit of brevity. (Well, with me, anyway. All politics is personal, as is all editing.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary party section: scared little bunny rabbits

message: As I read, Republicans are against Work Unions. I couldn't find anything on Democratic views of Work Unions. If anyone can tell me anything about this, that would be great. I am new at this, if you didn't notice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr.Weirdo (talk • contribs) .
*Does this subsection of the article help at all? · j e r s y k o talk · 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Views on Work Unions 

message: The article needs to be edited as the Democrats took over the House, and probably as the Senate if VA has no recount. Not to mention the number of Democratic govenors has increaed, to 27. Zidel333 04:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Democrats are a minority party in both the House and Senate until the new Congress convenes in January.--Jersey Devil 05:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The 109th Congress is not officially over yet.  There may or may not be various issues addressed by the lame duck session before the Democrats (presumably) take over in January, 2007.  Settler 16:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minority Party No More