Talk:New Democrats (United States)

message: Can we try and replace the word moderate with something else here? Left of the GOP, right of the liberal wing etc. Moderate has a slippery POV to it. Marskell 08:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands now, however, the article is POV -- "neoliberal" and "centre-right"? Come on! --Thorsen 05:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you on about??? Third way is being culturally far-left and economically neoliberal. 173.79.49.66 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Is there any real proof that the people on this list are actually "New Democrats"? My issue started with the fact that Christine Gregoire has advocated politically, in a social sense, very liberal politics. This goes against what being a "New Democrat" is all about. Has anyone actually looked into whether or not these people are what they are claimed to be in this list? Dante the Bard 16:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, then perhaps we should put that information into the article. I feel that to be objective, which would equal factual, we need to provide information that although these candidates are apart of a specific organization, the DLC, there are examples of members going against what the term "New Democrat" and the DLC believe. I won't be able to make any changes to the article right away, because I have real life obligations at the moment, but if you or someone else can make these changes sooner, that would be great. Otherwise, I will make the changes when I have the time. Dante the Bard 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: I have done an almost complete and bold rewrite of this article. For one I have removed all of the pov, the areas written like an advert and most of the unsubstantiated claims. I have added new information, all of which is well referenced and have written the article to make it understandable, adding subsections to make the article clearer. I have also expanded the lead to make it fit with the rest of the article. I have attempted to deal with all issues raised on the discussion and would like  to point out that new democrats listed can all be found via the DLC sites and the New Democrat associated movements. Best. LordHarris 00:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: What do you think about merging this article with New Democrat Coalition? --Checco 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support it. —Nightstallion 11:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose a merge. "New Democrat" is a label claimed by several different groups to describe their political platform. The New Democrat Coalitions in the House and Senate are just two of these groups. The Democratic Leadership Council and NDN (formerly known as the New Democrat Network) are two others. If any of these groups doesn't justify an article of their own, I could see them being merged as a section into the New Democrat article, but the New Democrat article itself should not be merged into the article for any of these groups. (Also posted on Talk:New Democrat Coalition.) -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: supposedly they are fiscal conservatives and social moderates but what actual policies reinforce this. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add actual examples of New Democrats polciies  

message: Substituted at 01:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: He is the most leftist US president in Economics since the 1930's. He supports Gay Marriage.
His policies toward Israel are the "coldest" ever.
He does not believe in American Exceptionalism.
The only reliable resource for being a 'new democrat' is that he said so (he also could have said 1+1 equals 3. so?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.244.21 (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama isn't a new democrat 

message: I realize the origin of political movements is open to debate and that sources can say varying things.  But, I think that the article has it a bit late when it defines the movement as starting after 1988 and Post-DLC.  In actuality, the movement probably began earlier--around the time of Gary Hart's "new ideas" presidential run against Walter Mondale in the 1984 primaries.  New Democrats, by proper definition, would be the generation of Democrats who grew up under the influence the pragmatic/technocratic (i.e. moderate) form of liberalism of John F. Kennedy, who entered politics after Watergate and started to become a recognizable political force in the 1980s.  Gary Hart, Timothy Worth, and Bruce Babbit would be the Western part of it.  Paul Tsongas (and possibly John Kerry) would be the Northern part.  Then, the DLC, Bill Clinton, and Sam Nunn would represent the southern part.  I saw one thread above where someone even went as far to advocate that RFK was the first New Democrat--that might be stretching things a bit.  JFK and RFK were of an older generation--but they clearly were the precursors.  However, I would say the movement began slightly before the DLC/1988--right around '84.  The DLC and Bill Clinton played critical roles in taking what had already become an insurgent movement in the party and propelling the it to the forefront.  We could see if there are sources to pull us a little closer to '84. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article defines New Democrats inception a bit late 

message: It seems I'm not alone in thinking this article is bogus; starting from the very first comment: "POV."  Etc, etc... Oversimplified; the article seemingly presumes all readers are also from Limbaughtomyville.  (A common small-town, or small-minded unexamined assumption where self and "my world" are unknowingly injected into the vast unknown vacuum.)
Here are just a few of the keystone terms and presumptions that need to be crisply difined within the article's context, especially as these presumptions and ideas continually drift further into the unknown past and more deeply into the realm of politial anachronism and passé fad:
Quoting Section: Origins
 "...a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was out of touch and in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas .... spurred "centrist"...."
radical shift??  "centrist"??  This is not a partisan radio talk show nor Fox News with consensus presumptions with assumed related lockstep cheerleading.  So,...such as? Definitions and examples? (Because these are such keystone and article-specific concepts, lazy-linking would not be appropriate.)
Likewise, "Third Way" and "New Democrat" (both obscure terms) seem to be blurred together.  Suggest explicitly differentiating them.  Cheers!   --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3D91:3408:6ECD:BF7A (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sillyness... 

message: The photo which includes Obama is not neutral depiction of the DLC.  Here is a better one that includes the DLC founder Mr. From along with Bill Clinton, the most notable New Democrat. It is more accurate than a photo of Obama who once said he was a New Democrat (but also said he was a progressive) and never joined the DLC was anti-Iraq War and who refused to drop out for HRC (the New Dem choice).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_From#/media/File:President_Clinton_meeting_with_advisers_on_Air_Force_One.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.203.197 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change photo 

message: I was, to put it mildly, surprised to see Barack Obama listed as a New Democrat here. The listing cites one source: An article on a speech that Obama gave to a group of New Democrats in which he self-identified as a New Democrat. I also see another source elsewhere in the article (https://www.salon.com/control/2012/10/30/obama_last_of_the_new_democrats/) in which the writer described Obama as a New Democrat. These are thin threads upon which to hang this categorization. I have to say, though, that thin sourcing isn't the only problem I have with the characterization. It seems to me that the characterization may be a misguided form of revisionist history in which a 2020 lens is being applied to an earlier time. Given that Republicans have become (on most issues) more conservative and Democrats more liberal over the past decade, Obama's positions may appear center-left now. When he ran in 2008, however, Hillary Clinton was the New Democratic candidate and Obama ran to her left. Also, I don't believe Obama's first two years in office fits the New Democrats' idea of a moderate, centrist, consensus-based approach to policy and governance. I have tagged this listing as dubious. SunCrow (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But perhaps his self-identification is enough?Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Obama a New Democrat??

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved to New Democrats (United States). Per consensus, and create dab at basename.  – robertsky (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: New Democrats →  – New Democrat is a 1990s term which is too limiting to describe the centrist Democrats before the 1990s. Plumber (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. Since multiple RSs describe a group of Democrats that emerged (in the 80/90's time frame) as "New Democrats"...it makes sense to have a article under that name. This was a significant movement that re-shaped the party.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose There are centrist democrats who don't identify as New Democrats and aren't in the New Democrat Coalition--i.e. Jared Golden, Mary Pelota, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez are the current 3 leaders of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, who are cultural liberals and fiscal conservatives. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I support renaming the article to "New Democrats (United States)," as suggested by Earl Andrew. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 January 2024 

message: My Revert  was itself reverted. The change had to do with Jimmy Carter being thrown in as a "New Democrat". That term almost exclusively describes the re-imagining of the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton and the DLC....years after Carter left office. The added source (i.e. 'Reaganland....') doesn't support this change (at least as far as I can tell). It does make Carter out to be a moderate....but at no point is he called a "New Democrat". I think the change I made should stand unless there is a RS saying otherwise. Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No sources exist to back up the claim Jimmy Carter is a New Democrat. Accordingly, this change should be reverted. Toa Nidhiki05 05:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Comment: Most Watergate Babies who backed Carter went on to become U.S. New Dems or otherwise supported them. There were continuities between Babies and the NDs, but also substantial changes after the tax revolts, in both monikers and platforms. Bustamove1 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carter a New Democrat?