Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates topost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
Q1: Why is the Democratic Party's ideology labelled on the political spectrum in the infobox?
A1: The consensus among editors is that the Democratic Party is abig tent party, encompassing ideologies including but not limited tocentrism,social liberalism,progressivism, andsocial democracy. A consensus was reached that the Democratic Party is mainlycenter tocenter-left. You are free to contribute to such discussions if you have sources for something different.
Other talk page banners
This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
Democratic Party (United States) is a formerfeatured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check thearchive.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating toelections,electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visitour project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why don't the American political parties have "political position" as a category in their info boxes? Like where it would say "center-left"? Almost all wiki pages about political parties in other countries have this category.150.108.240.134 (talk)22:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed before. Everyone has a different opinion on where various ideologies fit into the political spectrum. The articles already state party ideology in the info-box. There is no need to add where Wikipedia editors place these ideologies in the political spectrum.TFD (talk)23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to these discussions? I am having trouble finding them and I don't think this is a particularly strong argument. American political parties should not get special treatment simply because a lot of editors have opinions on it - but my mind is open.Carlp941 (talk)16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nevermind - found em. I still don't buy the arguments posed, I find them quite off base. Plenty of big tent parties that have a similar character to the Democrats and Republicans have their political positions labeled.
but I can accept that there is no consensus for change for now. I found the attempts at change to be poorly thought out as well. I think people can get "center left" from the ideologies for the democrats and can get "right wing" from the GOP ideologies.Carlp941 (talk)16:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name any other parties that have no control over membership or who their members nominate for office? In some states, such as Vermont, the party has no membership at all. Can you name any other parties that don't have members? Also, neither party has a statement of ideology. Also, primary elections run by government is fairly uncommon.TFD (talk)16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a non-sequitor. Unique party structures do not do away with a political position. Did the European Greens temporarily surrender their ideology by having open primaries for the 2013 European parliament elections? Did the French Socialists suddenly become non ideological because they started to hold open primaries in 2012? Of course not. Every political party has a unique context - they are still ideological and have a place on the political spectrum.Carlp941 (talk)17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone revert the edit saying that the Dems are Centre-left? They have so many diverse factions and their economic policy certainly isn't Centre-left so this is inaccurate101.119.138.41 (talk)07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely agree. There are a number of sources noting that the party has notable centrist[1][2][3] and conservative/right-leaning[4][5] factions. While I don't deny that there are certainly some "social justice warrior" progressives in the party, they've become a big tent (even "conservative") party of anyone supportive of the constitutional status quo as opposed to the radical right (saysThe Atlantic[6]). If we're going to put a political position in at all, it should be "big tent" or "center" (since that's where the party "establishment" mostly is) with a note that the party has also has a substantial left-leaning faction and a somewhat smaller right-leaning faction.PtolemyXV (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)PtolemyXV (talk)05:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the most accurate definition would be centre left to centre right. This would include members such as the squad, who fit the profile of centre-left social democrats in many countries, as well as moderate Democrats who are most akin to centre right politicians in peer countries.184.145.1.225 (talk)03:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a rightward drift in the ALP and UK Labour Party which might make them more acceptable to establishment Democrats. However, they could find Malcolm Turnbull's LIberals, Angela Merkel's CDU or One Nation Tories to be too far left. In France,they definitely would be with Macron, rather than the Socialists and in the past would have supported people like Sarkozy. Ideologically, they would have aligned more with the LIberal Democrats in the UK or the Free Democrats in Germany before they moved to the right. Even today, they are closer to the liberalFriedrich Naumann Foundation than the social democraticFriedrich Ebert Foundation. And in Canada, they would more likely be found in the Liberal Party than the New Democratic Party.
The two party system where it exists forces people like them to chose between a party organized to oppose capitalism and one organized to fight against equality.TFD (talk)15:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Granted the Australian Liberal party is often quite economically left, Obamacare might have even been too minimal if proposed in Australia. Biden especially is akin to Turnbull in their establishment politics, noting that it was under Turnbull that gay marriage legalised. The Australian Labor party on the other hand some may find unexpectedly socially conservative likewise, whilst economically slightly to the left of the Liberal party. My assessment is that Obama, Biden, perhaps less so Harris, would be solidly in the centre of the Liberal-Labor divide in Australia, although likely to join the Liberals (until 2022 and the Dutton leadership) following Turnbull's lead in that Labor leadership prefers experience in union politics and generally takes longer.LackingLaxitives (talk)05:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the existence of a left-wing caucus in the Democratic Socialists of America, if we are to include all elements of the Democratic party, it would likely be left-wing to centre-right, in effect, big tent.LackingLaxitives (talk)05:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Anyone claiming that the Democratic Party as a whole is centre-left fundamentally misunderstands politics. Centre-left would indicate something similar to social democracy, which isfar from the median Democratic politician.Otterballs3 (talk)19:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the Democratic Party is most definitely not “centre-left” based on the global values of that political alignment aka universal healthcare, some capitalist roles backs.Pedanticlyannoying (talk)08:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes they are so centre to centre-right, specifcially since the 1980s, before that they would have been centre-left to left-wing especially during new deal eraAzaad271011 (talk)21:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions aside, if there are relevant, credible, and sufficient sources, this can be considered. This discussion has evidently steered towards one of opinion, and not about whether there is sufficient evidence to justify this change. This thread should be discussing whether the references 1-6 are sufficient in justifying an edit on political position.LackingLaxitives (talk)07:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Changing Political Position to Simply Just “Left-Wing”
6 month old section without any sources. No reason to continue this. If anyone finds any source calling the Democratic Party "left-wing", you can start a new section. – Muboshgu (talk)00:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This has been done forRepublican Party, with its political position just being “right-wing,” so why can’t it be done here? Both parties are large enough to include those from a variety of places on their sides of the political spectrum.CavDan24 (talk)22:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This "talk" section is useless. Wiki which is a far left organization will not publish the truth that the Democrat Party is a left wing political party. Prove me wrong.Pamin21 (talk)22:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything here is based on consensus. If the consensus was that the democrats were a left wing party (read: some flavor of social democracy or even some marxist tendancies), and there were sources for that, it would say "left wing". There is no evidence for the fact the democrats are a left wing party, and their policies are not those of one that is left wing. Its neoliberalism, a very centre or even centre right political ideology.Wesser407 (talk)20:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to go to the root of the problem, ie, definition of "center-left". If "consensus" is used to define terms, then there is no ABSOLUTE and OBJECTIVE truth, which proves my point, WIKI is a consensus of left wing propagandists which will not publish the TRUTH24.153.241.110 (talk)22:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Change Political Position to state that the Democrats are "Centre-Right"
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Considering the stances of the Democratic Party, I suggest that we change the infobox to state that the Democratic Party is a Centre-Right party, or at the very least, change it to say "Centre to Centre-Right", the Democrats are not a centre-left party, they are a centre-right party.JohnInnvoation (talk)19:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable sources (RS) for this? Personally, I would remove any ideological position from the info-boxes of both parties, because I am tired of contentious discussions regarding them.JohnAdams1800 (talk)18:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think center to center left would make sense but the dems are only center right per european standards. Globally speaking, center to center left or maybe even just center makes more sense. We'd need rs for center right.EarthDude (talk)13:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can consider them centre-left, that's fine, but in no way are they left-wing. They are opposed to many basic left-wing policies, namely high taxes, living wages, and equal (and I do mean actually equal) rights.drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at meSpy on me)17:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Adjust political position To "center to center left"
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that at the very least, Centrism should be considered as an ideology of the democratic party alongside liberalism, rather then a faction.Seemeers (talk)01:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Democrats are objectively centre-left to centre, even in the context of American politics. It makes zero sense to keep the position as centre-left when only a minority of the party’s politicians are centre-left. The majority of the party are establishment centrists/neoliberals. Being objectively correct is more important than exaggerating the political position of one party relative to another.Otterballs3 (talk)19:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Czello, sorry if it pings you but I found a source and will drop it here in case of future RfCs/discussions:
Sinclair, Robert C.; Melton, R. Jeffrey. "Political Ideology and COVID-19 Infection and Death Rates in Canada and the United States: Conservatives Want More "Freedom" to Get Infected and Die".Political Ideology and COVID Infections and Deaths:13–14.doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.18259.66081.In addition to being even more individualistic than Canada (Hofstede Insights, 2021), the U.S. is also generally regarded as more conservative than Canada, with the U.S. Republican Party being slightly more conservative than the major conservative parties in Canada (the Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebeqois),the U.S. Democratic Party being slightly to the right of the largest Canadian party, the center-left Liberal Party, and more left-leaning Canadian parties such as the New Democratic Party receiving far more votes and legislative representation than any U.S. party on the left.
This kind of sanity check ("why is Democratic Party center-left even though sources consider it to the right of the Liberal Party of Canada, which is labelled center to center-left?") seems like a decent argument, especially if combined with sources that would describe the Democratic Party as centrist.Brat Forelli🦊09:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Political position - center-left vs center to center-left
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There have been multiple attempts today to insert "center" in addition to "center-left" as a descriptor of the party's political position. However, none of these appear to be based on sources. Meanwhile, the longstanding status quo of just "center-left" cites five sources with quotes, all using just center-left.
This last seems to have been discussed in-depth atTalk:Democratic_Party_(United_States)/Archive_20. If that's to be changed, then it should be through discussion and replacement of sources, not via edit warring.
Should be kept at center left. While there are some centrist members to add center would be inflating their influence. We don’t put “center to left wing” because of AOC or Bernie sandersNatalieeeeeee (talk)03:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Center-left" as the sole position was added by a user afterthis discussion, which had four editors supporting the position, two opposing it, and other being undecided or casting doubt. There are sources for "center" in that discussion as well; the reason why there are only sources for "center-left" now is because they were deleted later.
Consensus is weak, which is also evident by the fact that this is brought up here repeatedly. We have nine (!) discussion about it on the talk page right now.Cortador (talk)05:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this doesn't need further discussion. Not sure why yesterday was such a flurry but the status quo remains; we should just keep an eye out for future reverts. —Czello(music)06:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it’s hard to find quotes claiming the party is centrist, or centre to centre left, is because most articles talking about the Democratic Party are American, and thus use the American system of ideological classification. However, since most articles in Wikipedia use the European system(ideological classification according to European standards), it’s far more reasonable to use that in this article too for consistency.Abotekap (talk)13:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments ofconsensus.
The Democratic Party is more accurately described as 'Center to Center-left' rather than as Center-left, because the majority of the party's politicians are Centrist, and labelling the party as Center-left would indicate that the majority of the party is Center-left, which is simply inaccurate. It is also crucial to recognize how the Democratic Party is a big tent, because there are only two parties in the US.
Also, the label of 'Center-left' generally refers to the social-democratic economic policies. TheSocial Democratic Party of Germany's political position is listed as Center-left, and the ideology Social Democracy. The Democratic Party has not been aligned with Social Democracy sincemaybeLyndon Johnson, ormaybeFDR, even then this is a stretch as they're generally referred to as social liberals.
Sure, one could say the Democrats are left-wing on social issues. Okay, but you have to account for economics as well!On economics the Democrats are obviously to the left of the laissez-faire Republicans, but that doesn't make them "left-wing". The Democratic Party is still very corporate and that is evidenced by theAIPAC + other pro-Israel donations to Democratic congress members.
The DNC isheavily corporate, and they've centrist, as shown in what happened in the2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries where the members of the DNC overwhelming voted for Clinton over Sanders.
There are already a myriad of sources backing the party to have a major wing of it be centrist. The sources given in the ideology section can be used. Further, the article previously used to have the party be listed as a center to center left one, before it was removed followinga discussion in June 2024, with four in support of the removal, and three voicing their opposition towards it. So, consensus for center left is fairly weak. The following is one of the reliable sources the article previously gave for the center position: "According to theManifesto Project Database MARPORdataset for 2020, the Democratic Party has a RILE score of -24.662, putting it within the range of being acenter tocenter-left party. Historically, it has classified the party as centrist orcenter-right, but the database has noted a relatively recent shift to the left in the party's politics."
Also, I completely oppose the left wing proposal. The party is not at all that. For it to be added to the political position section, it would need to garner a sizeable portion of the party, whereas in reality, it is merely a minor faction.EarthDude (wannatalk?)17:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long standing consensus for years for the Congressional Progressive Caucus to be termed center left to left wing in the infobox. That was changed in early July by an editor without any new discussion, and without any new sources, removing the center left description. I have added it back considering we would need a consensus for such a change. Anyhow, the caucus has a significant center left base, which cannot be ignored. And all members of the caucus can't be called firmly left wing, as that would be very reductionist. For instance, Ritchie Torres was a member of the caucus, who blamed the "far-left" of the democratic party for trump's re-election and quit the caucus over the palestine issue, as he supported the cause of israel. He is by no means left-wing. We can't take the whole caucus to be left wing.EarthDude (wannatalk?)05:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither did I add that source nor did I add the specific information of the caucus being center left to left wing. The caucus being termed center left to left wing is the consensus from a discussion several years ago, and that consensus has held since. If you want to remove that specific terminology for calling the caucus center left, the acceptable procedure is to open a new discussion to challenge that consensus, not to make unilateral edits.EarthDude (wannatalk?)17:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with some of your sources - for example.
"It is clear that the Democratic Party—the center-left United States political party—does enact some forms of a redistributive economic policy agenda."
It is definitely a point that is contested by other sources, for example:
Palley, Thomas I. (19 February 2024). "The false promise and bitter fruit of neoliberalism: political economic disembedding, cultural transformation, and the rise of proto-fascist politics".El Trimestre Económico (in Spanish).90 (360). SciELO: 1120.doi:10.20430/ete.v90i360.2117.ISSN2448-718X.Al hacerlo, el Partido Demócrata abandonó su histórica postura socialdemócrata de la era moderna y pasó de ser de centro-izquierda a centro-derecha. [The contribution of the Democratic Party is slightly different. Confronted by neoliberalism’s attainment of hegemonic intellectual standing, it embraced a softer version of neoliberalism. In doing so, the Democratic Party abandoned its historic modern era social democratic stance and moved from being center-left to being center-right.]Brat Forelli🦊11:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial portions of the party supported white supremacy until the early 1970s. Democrats' attempts at expanding the welfare state were blocked by the Senate. On social issues, the party has clearly drifted the other way, to say the least. Few sitting Democrats supported same-sex marriage in tbe 1990s and abortion was a hotly contested issue. Almost all center-left parties accepted a form of substantially regulated capitalism by the late 20th century.SickNWristed (talk)03:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that previous discussion, I think the position should be removed for the time being until a proper RfC has determined what the position should be. Despite one editor having claimed in the previous discussion that there was a "overwhelming consensus" for just centre-left as the position, I don't see it. There was barely a majority, and RfCs aren’t decided by majority anyway. Taking the discussion above into account, the consensus is even weaker, as some editor supported centre-left while also supporting centre, or some other position. Lastly, the RfC wasn't even closed properly, and instead one editor just (wrongly) claimed there was high support for their preferred position.Cortador (talk)10:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree - looking at the previous discussion, there just does not seem to be a strong consensus. And with continuous objections to that already shaky ground, it does make sense to remove the position and have a proper RfC.Brat Forelli🦊10:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like for someone to open a proper RfC, as I also felt at the time that the original RfC closure wasn't handled properly and the consensus was less than crystal clear. Also,User:EarthDude's point that the June 2024 discussion was very divided is only strengthened by the fact that one of the users who supported the "Center-left" label has since been blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.
I'd prefer not to draft the RfC myself, but would be willing to if nobody else volunteers. Either way, we definitely need a stronger and broader consensus on the Dems' political positions than we currently do.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)11:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: as of the making of this comment there are no less than ten (!) discussions/edit proposals on this page regarding the political position, and searching the archive brings up a bunch more, ranging from left-wing to centre to centre-left. This is the most-discussed topic for this article by a large margin, and there clearly isn't silent approval for the current position either. The quality of all these discussions is debatable (some just make a demand for change with not sources to back it up), but that's one more reason to decide this via a (properly closed) RfC.Cortador (talk)10:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the salient point. There was no real consensus to amend party political position. Casual editors are objecting in droves. The cited RS are in some cases 15-20 years old. There was no urgency for the edit, and I think GlowstoneUnknown acted a bit rashly to make what is a significant change to the article (and its perceived quality). I suggest a revert and a proper, unrushed RfC with serious effort made to sift out bias and personal opinions.Dr Fell (talk)19:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the Democratic Party isn’t considered leftist unless it’s being described like that by groups to the right of it. The vast majority of Democrats do not refer to themselves as leftist either. Maybe the Congressional Progressive Caucus could be categorised as “centre left” (even that is a stretch given it’s pro-Israel position), but the CPC does not represent a majority of the party, as another comment pointed out.PlebeianTribune (talk)18:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maybe needs a section about why the party is unpopular?i
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It’s not necessarily a bad idea, it might be useful to have a section on why so many of the uneducated people or those with lower intelligence don’t like the party? They really aren’t good at reaching out to that demographic.MilesVorkosigan (talk)05:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"why so many of the uneducated people or those with lower intelligence don’t like the party?" We already have articles onanti-intellectualism and on thelimousine liberal stereotype aboutupper class liberals who are supposedly discriminating againstworking-classwhite ethnics. We could also mentionBill Clinton's welfare reform which made much of the impoverished American population ineligible for welfare andfood stamps. As intended, these increased the number of American children living inextreme poverty and severely hurt theAfrican-American families. Mission accomplished for Clinton:
"the number of welfare recipients declined much more sharply than the poverty rate, with a national average of 56% reduction in welfare caseloads and 1% reduction in poverty.[1] The number of children living in extreme poverty, defined as a household income below 50% of the poverty line,[2] increased, with a sharper increase among African-American families.[1]
"PRWORA has been accused of attempting to fight poverty by "controlling the reproductive capacity of women, compelling unmarried mothers to work outside the home, and coercing women into relations with men."[3]Barbara Ehrenreich, a feminist political activist, has said that the bill was motivated by racism and misogyny, using stereotypes of lazy, overweight, slovenly, sexually indulgent and "endlessly fecund" African-American welfare recipients, and assumed that out-of-wedlock births were "illegitimate" and that only a male could confer respectability on a child. PRWORA dismissed the value of the unpaid work of raising a family, and insisted that mothers get paid work, "no matter how dangerous, abusive, or poorly paid".[4][5]"
"According to Edelman, the 1996 welfare reform law destroyed the safety net. It increased poverty, lowered income for single mothers, put people from welfare into homeless shelters, and left states free to eliminate welfare entirely. It moved mothers and children from welfare to work, but many of them are not making enough to survive. Many of them were pushed off welfare rolls because they didn't show up for an appointment, because they could not get to an appointment for lack of child care, said Edelman, or because they were not notified of the appointment.[6][7]"Dimadick (talk)14:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing is that since the economic crises of the 1970s, real incomes for most Americans have not increased and they have faced greater economic uncertainty. While both parties were blamed, Republicans have persuaded voters that they have changed. So now Democrats are the party of Nafta and the War in Iraq.TFD (talk)02:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Iraq? The Bush administration deliberately lied the US into that war and they did it on purpose. Are people really falling for it being the Dem’s fault?MilesVorkosigan (talk)02:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think we really need to put conspiracy theory nonsense in the article. If you want to pretend that Clinton was in office in 2003, write alternate history fiction.MilesVorkosigan (talk)14:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The war may have started in 2003 (though I doubt that date), but the authorization for attacking Iraq was decided in October 10-October 11, 2002.Dimadick (talk)21:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
March 20, 2003 and is there some conspiracy theory about that date?
Remarkably, Clinton wasalso not President on October 10 or 11 of 2002. I note that you conspicuously did not include the numbers and percentages for Republicans involved in the votes in 2002, why do you think you made that decision?MilesVorkosigan (talk)21:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the Democratic support forGeorge W. Bush's war policy is notable, the Republican support for Bush is hardly remarkable. See the article onman bites dog: "an unusual, infrequent event ... is more likely to be reported as news than an ordinary, everyday occurrence with similar consequences".Dimadick (talk)10:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of somewhat recent conflicts e.g. the Iraq War, the war in Afghanistan, Syrian Civil War, the war in Yemen, the war in Ukraine, the Libyan Civil War, or Operation Prosperity Guardian all had bipartisan support. Major US historical wars, like WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War also all had bipartisan support, even if some were pushed by Democrats (WWI) or Republicans (Iraq).
There's nothing special about either party (or a significant number of representatives thereof) supporting a war while the respective other party is in power. If anything, a waronly pushed by one party would be notable, because that has rarely, if at all, happened in the last century.Cortador (talk)15:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That answer would make sense, except for the fact that you’ve been trying to pretend that the Democrats were in power and were the ones responsible for the war. Remember you kept claiming that Clinton was still in office in 2002 and 2003?MilesVorkosigan (talk)16:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where in my text do you see that? I specifically mention that Clinton'sIraq Liberation Act (1998) was still in effect in 2002 and 2003. In the United States, presidents come and go but military policies continue with minimal changes. Per the main article: "It was signed into law by PresidentBill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for theauthorization of military force against Iraq." ... "PresidentGeorge W. Bush, who followed Clinton, often referred to the Iraq Liberation Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton administration supported regime change in Iraq – and, further, that it believed Iraq was developingweapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the CongressionalAuthorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002.[8]"Dimadick (talk)17:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you kept claiming that the Democrats were responsible for the war and ignored who and which party led the push for it, who was in office at the time, who lied about WMD, and, whose lies you are now quoting with Bush claiming that Clinton supported using our military for regime change?
"who lied about WMD" The Bush administration did not lie about weapons of mass destruction. We have an article onIraq and weapons of mass destruction. Bush'shenchmen were citing an entirely unreliablenewspaper, the infamousNew York Times, and its sensational articles as "evidence" for the weapons.: "In the buildup to the 2003 war,The New York Times published a number of stories claiming to prove that Iraq possessed WMD. One story in particular, written byJudith Miller, helped persuade the American public that Iraq had WMD: in September 2002 she wrote about an intercepted shipment ofaluminum tubes which the NYT said were to be used to develop nuclear material.[9] It is now generally understood that they were not intended (or well suited) for that purpose but rather for artillery rockets.[10] The story was followed up with television appearances byColin Powell,Donald Rumsfeld andCondoleezza Rice all pointing to the story as part of the basis for taking military action against Iraq. Miller's sources were introduced to her byAhmed Chalabi, an Iraqi exile favorable to a U.S. invasion of Iraq.[11] Miller is also listed as a speaker forThe Middle East Forum, an organization which openly declared support for an invasion.[12] In May 2004 the New York Times published an editorial which stated that its journalism in the buildup to war had sometimes been lax. It appears that in the cases where Iraqi exiles were used for the stories about WMD were either ignorant as to the real status of Iraq's WMD or lied to journalists to achieve their own ends.[13] Trust apropaganda outlet to provide evidence, you will get all sorts of fabricated evidence.Dimadick (talk)01:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was a lot of words for you to say, “I want to lie and pretend that the Iraqis really did have WMD!”
But just like when you lied and tried to pretend that Clinton was President in 2003… wouldn’t it be easier to write your alternate-history stuff somewhere else? Why try to do it on an encyclopedia about the real world?MilesVorkosigan (talk)02:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean… yes, since I’m not lying or trying to spread conspiracy theory nonsense, I do apparently have a higher moral standard? If you want to ignore real history and try to spread this story, again, why not go write alternate history?
Remember, I’m not the one who just said that Bush was *totally* telling the truth about those WMD that nobody ever found. Why do you hate real sources so much?MilesVorkosigan (talk)05:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
References
^abLindhorst, Taryn; Mancoske, Ron (Apr 2003). "Race, Gender and Class Inequities in Welfare Reform".Race, Gender & Class.10.
^What is "deep poverty"?UC Davis Center for Poverty Research, 16 Jan. 2018. Accessed 18 Apr. 2019.
^abThomas, Susan L. "'Ending Welfare as We Know It,'" or Farewell to the Rights of Women on Welfare? A Constitutional and Human Rights Analysis of the Personal Responsibility Act." University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 78.2 2001: pp. 179–202. Hollins Digital Commons. Web.Cite error:The named reference ":0" was defined multiple times with different content (see thehelp page).
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article is currently in this category. However, looking at the other parties in it, I don't think this fits, since as per the article, feminism isn't a defining feature of the party. Feminist/feminism only appears twice in the article, once unsourced, and once apparently sourced, though I haven't been able to verify that since the sources aren't fully accessible to me. However, even if there are feminist elements in the party as per those sources, I doubt the Democrats being a feminist party has scholarly consensus.Cortador (talk)07:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this seems to be an oddly placed category. As you say it seems to be aimed at explicitily feminist parties that have it as a core/central ideology. —Czello(music)07:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s justified, with the party’s strongest voters being Black women and White women with college degrees (among White voters). The two groups’ male counterparts are strongly Democratic and evenly split, respectively. Both groups are the Democratic Party’s backbone in the South and outside the South, respectively.2600:1008:B226:6533:A479:E85A:1CAE:4F1E (talk)20:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: Should "center" be added to the political position?
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Yes. It is supported by reliable sources and a supermajority of editors. Removing the political position attribute from the infobox was also suggested, but that did not gain traction. --Beland (talk)01:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox of the article previously stated the political position to be "center to center-left". The word "center" was removed followinga discussion in June 2024, with four in support and three in opposition. However, as it stands, there are currently eight separate discussions in the talk page seeking a change to the political position section of the infobox. I am creating this RfC to consolidate the discussions.
I disagree. The Democratic Party is indisputably center-left. It supports abortion, LGBT rights, racial diversity and inclusion policies, environmental protection policies, etc. On economic issues, the Democratic Party support and defend welfare programs, making college tuition more affordable, oppose tax cuts for the wealthy and have even supported raising taxes for the wealthy, etc. All of these policies fit very clearly into the center-left.Esterau16 (talk)15:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is not to remove the center-left tag, but to instead change it so that it says "center to center-left". I personally support the addition of center to the infobox, considering its economically right-wing stance, and its general opposition to policies such as universal healthcare (though much of the party's support base likes these policies, most of the party's politicians don't aside from its progressive and social democratic factions, which do not constitute the party's mainstream). For instance, in Europe, the party would be considered center-right. Although, I dont support the addition of center-right either as, taking a much more global perspective, center-right wouldn't be accurate and if added, would be quite eurocentric.EarthDude (wannatalk?)15:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, in Europe, the party would be considered center-right.
"Center-left" is not going to be removed, the RfC is about adding "center". However, I will take note of some issues.
It supports abortion, LGBT rights, racial diversity and inclusion policies, environmental protection policies
None of this makes a party center-left, it merely puts it on the GAL side of the GAL-TAN political dimension (socially liberal vs. socially conservative). Socially conservative left-wing parties exist, such asWorkers Party of Britain,Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance orSMER-SD. Conversely, you had socially liberal right-wing politicians, such asDavid Cameron:
Fleck, Micah J. (2022).Privileged Populists: Populism in the Conservative and Libertarian Working Class.London:I.B. Tauris. p. 28.ISBN978-0-7556-2739-4.Contemporary politics is full of political movements or currents which are socially conservative while economically liberal (Thatcherism and Reaganism), or socially liberal while economically "right-wing" (David Cameron), or socially "right-wing" while economically "left-wing." (Blue Labour, the revived SDP, Steve Bannon, Neil Clarke).
On economic issues, the Democratic Party support and defend welfare programs, making college tuition more affordable, oppose tax cuts for the wealthy and have even supported raising taxes for the wealthy, etc.
Eh, Democratic Party's record on economic issues has always been criticized by the left, and it is indeed hardly left-leaning. This even leads to some sources arguing that it is center-right instead:
Palley, Thomas I. (19 February 2024). "The false promise and bitter fruit of neoliberalism: political economic disembedding, cultural transformation, and the rise of proto-fascist politics".El Trimestre Económico (in Spanish).90 (360). SciELO: 1120.doi:10.20430/ete.v90i360.2117.ISSN2448-718X.Al hacerlo, el Partido Demócrata abandonó su histórica postura socialdemócrata de la era moderna y pasó de ser de centro-izquierda a centro-derecha. [The contribution of the Democratic Party is slightly different. Confronted by neoliberalism’s attainment of hegemonic intellectual standing, it embraced a softer version of neoliberalism. In doing so, the Democratic Party abandoned its historic modern era social democratic stance and moved from being center-left to being center-right.]
And indeed, sources discuss the party moving away from the predistributive economic policies:
(Summoned by bot) -The Democratic Party is indisputably center-left. It supports abortion, LGBT rights, racial diversity and inclusion policies, environmental protection policies
Those are not inherently things that are supported by those on the left and not by those on the right. Those are mostly individualist issues, which are not inherently either. Those on the left are socialists or anarchists, with the term centre-left typically being used to refer to those who are Social Democrats, i.e., in favour of a mixed economy. Both the Republicans and teh Democrats are a unity ticket in their support for capitalism, with the Democrats being more neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism is most definitely not a centre or centre-left ideology, it is a centre-right ideology.TarnishedPathtalk00:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main faction of the Democratic party supports Modern Liberalism, which is very close to Social Liberalism, which is mostly interpreted as a Centre-to-Centre-left ideology. Furthermore, there exist centre-left to left-wing factions(the CPC), and Centrist(Clintonites), or even Centre-to-centre-right factions(the Blue Dogs). As a result, I agree with the suggestion to have the Democratic party as a Centre to Centre-left party.Abotekap (talk)12:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, add "center" - Iadded that at some point, but this gotWP:DRNC'd. This is a good question, why do we want to add centrism to it? Well, it should be added for three reasons:
1. There are sources for it, to show a few examples:
Merrin, William; Hoskins, Andrew (2025). "Conclusion: Zombie Capitalism and the Rage of the Undead".Sharded Media: Trump’s Rage Against the Mainstream. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 114.doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84786-8.ISBN978-3-031-84786-8.In power, the options taken by the centrist Democratic Party in the US and Labour Party in the UK have been insufficient, seeking only the better management of neo-liberalism, remaining bound to its infinite concept of 'growth' and to the markets, trying to reinject the social in homeopathic amounts, whilst apologising for the economic realities of the system and managing financial expectations.
Martone, Vittorio; Piccio, Daniela R. (2023). "Political institutions, governments, and parties". In Carlo Trigilia (ed.).Capitalisms and Democracies: Can Growth and Equality be Reconciled?. Routledge Advances in Sociology. Routledge. p. 167.doi:10.4324/9781003297130.ISBN978-1-003-29713-0.The American Democratic Party, typically labelled as a centre party (Armingeon et al., 2018), contributes to the incidence of this group of parties.
Means, Alexander J.; Ida, Yuko (2020). "Education after empire: A biopolitical analytics of capital, nation, and identity".Educational Philosophy and Theory. Routledge: 7.doi:10.1080/00131857.2020.1803836.Centrist parties such as the Democratic Party in the USA, have mirrored this limited horizon, offering little more than symbolic gestures of liberal inclusion, while openly serving oligarchic power.
van der Velden, John; White, Rob (2021).The Extinction Curve: Growth and Globalisation in the Climate Endgame. Emerald Publishing Limited. p. 10, 104.ISBN978-1-80043-824-8.We only have to briefly reflect upon the de-mobilisation and effective demise of the GFC-generated Occupy Movement under eight years of Obama and Democratic Party centrism to see the political warnings. [...] That has been sidelined by the pro-capitalist centrist core of the Democratic Party, as it was in the nomination battle against Clinton in 2016.
2. This is what I call a "sanity check":
Sinclair, Robert C.; Melton, R. Jeffrey. "Political Ideology and COVID-19 Infection and Death Rates in Canada and the United States: Conservatives Want More "Freedom" to Get Infected and Die".Political Ideology and COVID Infections and Deaths:13–14.doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.18259.66081.In addition to being even more individualistic than Canada (Hofstede Insights, 2021), the U.S. is also generally regarded as more conservative than Canada, with the U.S. Republican Party being slightly more conservative than the major conservative parties in Canada (the Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebeqois),the U.S. Democratic Party being slightly to the right of the largest Canadian party, the center-left Liberal Party, and more left-leaning Canadian parties such as the New Democratic Party receiving far more votes and legislative representation than any U.S. party on the left.
Democratic Party is considered to be slightly to the right of theLiberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Party of Canada is, indeed, classified as "centre to centre-left" on its page. Why would Democratic Party that is to the right of it be classified to the left of it? Exactly.
3. There is an asymmetry between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party:
Cowburn, Mike; Sältzer, Marius (2025)."Partisan Communication in Two-Stage Elections: The Effect of Primaries on Intra-Campaign Positional Shifts in Congressional Elections".Political Science Research and Methods.13 (2): 393.doi:10.1017/psrm.2023.62.Among Democratic candidates, losing a primary was clearly associated with moderation following a defeat, suggesting the adoption of artificial or strategic positions during the nomination. This finding aligns with other scholarship about candidate behavior in two-stage elections (Burden, 2001; Brady et al., 2007) and similar research on rhetorical position-shifting by presidential primary winners (Acree et al., 2020). We find no equivalent shift in the position of losing Republican candidates, indicating limited strategic position-taking and continued support for "conservative" sentiment even when electoral incentives were absent. The party-level differences are likely explained by the asymmetric nature of the Republican and Democratic parties (Hacker and Pierson, 2006; Theriault, 2013; Grossmann and Hopkins, 2016).
This is just one of examples of how the Republican Party trends further right while the Democrats have a tendency towards the political center. This is already reflected in the article of theRepublican Party by making it "Right-wing". Adding "center" to the Democrats would be the minimum to acknowledge this asymmetry.Brat Forelli🦊16:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(invited by the bot) My thought on characterizations in infoboxes is "when in doubt, leave it out". So, leave out the entire characterization. The (overly brief) characterizations in infoboxes should only be from slam dunk factual matters. And trying to characterize such a immensely broad subject is going to inevitably be subjective/ biased political opinion rather than fact. If forced to choose between "center left" and center center left" I think that both are OK, but I'd pick "center left" because of how unusual and awkward the term "center center left" is. Sincerely,North8000 (talk)17:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave it out. The term center-left was coined to group the U.S. Democratic Party with social democratic parties in Europe. This recognizes that, although their histories and ideology differ, they have similar functions in their respective two party systems. Also, placing the Democratic Party in the political spectrum provides no information to readers other than where Wikipedia editors think their underlying ideology belongs.TFD (talk)23:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case it wasn't clear, the proposal isn't to change the label to"center center-left" verbatim, as you suggested, but"Center to center-left", phrasing it in the form of arange (i.e. showing the party's diversity of views having some factions/members in the center and some on the center-left).
I just wanted to clarify the actual proposal in case you misunderstood or misinterpreted it, since the phrasing you used is indeed more unusual and awkward than the RfC's actual proposal.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)04:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this, because we use the standards of the country and RS, not a universal standard. The party’s base are Black voters, Whites with college degrees, and other minorities. It’s a strange combination, but a Black women with a graduate degree was their party’s nominee in 2024.
Kamala Harris actually won voters making over $100,000 a year. She lost because she couldn’t win Whites without college degrees and inflation wrecked support among Hispanic/Asian voters. She won college graduates as a whole 56-42%.
The Democratic Party’s main problem is it can’t appeal to White people without college degrees or White Southerners, no matter what policies it tries. It will never win Whites in Alabama/Mississippi or many Whites without college degrees.
By contrast, Black voters will always give Democrats extremely high support, and Black women Assad-level (92-7%) support. White voters will never vote for Democrats as a whole.
I oppose this, because we use the standards of the country and RS, not a universal standard.
Reliable sourceshave been cited for the "center" position, a couple of which were published by academics in the USA, a "universal standard" isn't being invoked.
The party’s base are Black voters, Whites with college degrees, and other minorities.
The voterbase doesn't determine the party's position or policy, and the demographics you described aren't universally left-of-center.
I don’t judge the party as “center” when its electoral base is heavily racially and educationally polarized.
No, Wikipedia articles are not and should not sway to a particular country's viewpoint; there's a reason there's a maintenance tag for that. Also, personal analyses is worthless perWP:OR. You can't cite your own opinions.Yue🌙18:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact is that there is no such thing as a fixed "center", particularly when considering the variety of issues, and comparing the US political spectrum to European ones is not particularly helpful in this case. Even if some of its positions – or those of some of its officeholders – may be considered less far-left as other left parties, that does not mean the party as a whole is a centrist party. Keep it simple, "center-left" is accurate and adequate here.Reywas92Talk16:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal isn't toremove "center-left", but to add "center"alongside it. I think it's impossible to deny that significant portions of the party are centrist, and there is plenty of sourcing supporting it as well.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)16:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant because we have academic sources which call the part's position "centre", and not a single one that calls it "far-left" .Cortador (talk)06:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The sourcing situation is clear: there is a high number of quality sources describing the party as such, which is what ultimately matters.Cortador (talk)06:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I think that characterizing the political position as "center to center-left" could be acceptable, I have concerns about the argumentation by several users here, and about the quality/relevance of several sources cited byUser:Brat Forelli above and in arecent edit that was reverted. Those sources include a student honors paper, anSSRN upload (can't see any journal it's published in), brief passing mentions in women's studies and educational philosophy papers (taking the Democratic party's centrism as a given without demonstrating it through analysis), a seemingly personally opinionated section of a climate advocacy book, and so on. Some of the other citations—e.g., Merrin and Hoskins (2025); Phillips Sawyer (2024)—could arguably be kept, but I think more fitting sources can be found. Instead of listing any remotely academic source one can find that mentions "centrism" in connection with "the Democratic Party" (or simply going by what some users commenting here take to be obvious about the Democrats' positions or the meaning of "left"), I say it's worth looking at what the most widely cited comparative political science studies have actually shown in trying to situate the Democrats' position in global and historical contexts.
Of the previously provided sources, one of the more suitable ones (in my view) is Martone and Piccio (2023)—but really the reference to Armingeon et al. (2018) cited therein. See the Comparative Political Data Set website here:[5]. Similarly, one could look around at the V-Party Dataset ([6]) and the Manifesto Project ([7], with some helpful visualizations by theNew York Times:[8]), or find recent high-quality publications that cite/summarize them in characterizing the placement of the Democrats. In addition, we should refer to the actual paper by Struthers et al. (2020)[9] (which was cited by Kang, 2021)—here are some quotes from the original:
"On the issue of health care, the Democratic Party is closest to the UK Conservative Party, while Senator Sanders is closest to the French Socialists. On environment regulation, the Democratic Party is most in line with the German FDP and the UK Liberal Democrats, with Senators Sanders located somewhat further left than the Labour Party. [...] on social/cultural issues such as immigration, multiculturalism, and positive discrimination (often referred to as affirmative action in the US) [...] the Democratic Party and Senator Sanders are clustered among the most left-wing parties in Europe."
It also mentions the asymmetry between the Democrats and Republicans, a related aspect of which is mentioned by Cowburn and Sältzer (2025), cited by User:Brat Forelli above (another citation that I would keep). I believe that these examples represent the kind of high-quality political science research that would be most suitable to cite regarding the Democratic Party's placement. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk)21:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The party’s appeal among White voters is by educational attainment, not income. It does best among White voters with graduate degrees and worst among White voters who never attended college. I can assure you graduate degree holders are far richer than people who never went to college.
For a good example, compare West Virginia (deep red) and Virginia. (blue and 20% Black). Virginia is way richer than West Virginia, but also far bluer.
The Democratic Party simply will not win Whites in states like West Virginia, or even college-educated Whites in states like Alabama/Mississippi. That doesn’t make it centrist, even though it does have to moderate its message to win in states like Georgia.2600:1008:B23C:E869:D4FC:7BDD:18C2:B9DA (talk)01:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support : However, I would like to strongly agree withUser:Avial Cloffprunker that the sources provided in the discussion above appear lacking and many of them do not reflect the scholarly consensus. Nor, as some users have said, would I consider some of them even quality sources. However, the scholarly consensus reflected through major comparative politics projects, such as the aforementioned V-Party Dataset, the Manifesto Project, the Comparative Political Data Set, and other projects such as the Parties, Institutions and Preferences dataset from Jahn et al. (2022)[10], does reflect the reality that the Democratic Party has shifted back and forth between Center and Center-Left over the course of many elections, and so including both would best reflect the findings of the most comprehensive comparative politics datasets we have available. While a strong argument could be made for solely Center-Left using, for example, the V-Party Dataset and the Manifesto Project's RILE metric, the CPDS places the Democratic Party as a "center" party when analyzing cabinet composition, and the PIP even places the Democratic Party on the "right" side of the centrist block in some years. It would be inaccurate to reflect the scholarly consensus as defining the Democrats as solely center-left or center.JustAnotherEditHere (talk)06:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(continuing from my comment above and frommy talk page...)Support adding "center to center-left", but strongly oppose "center" only: the article currently cites several reliable sources, and more can be provided, showing that "center-left" is indeed how many political scientists define the Democrats' position (regardless of the opinions of some users here).
Sourcing for "center": the following are the best sources to use, in my view.
Comparative Political Data Set[11] (see "Government Composition"[12], p.18, placing Democrats as a "center" party), as also summarized by Martone and Piccio (2023)[13]: "The American Democratic Party, typically labelled as a centre party"
The Manifesto Project[14], with a write-up and visuals in the New York Times[15]:
[T]he United States’ political center of gravity is to the right of other countries’, partly because of the lack of a serious left-wing party. Between 2000 and 2012, the Democratic manifestos were to the right of the median party platform. The party has moved left but is still much closer to the center than the Republicans.
Parties, Institutions and Preferences (see "Descriptive Analysis"[16], p.171):
The Democrats are steadily drifting from a left-center position in the first post-war elections to very constant center positions until 1996. [...] Afterwards, the party swung back to more left-centered positions in the unsuccessful candidacies of Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Turning to the right again, Obama successfully managed the 2008 campaign and closed the gap to the Republicans.
Struthers, Hare, and Bakker (2020), "Bridging the pond: measuring policy positions in the United States and Europe"[17]:
American left-wing stimuli are closer to the economic center [...] relative to the European stimuli. [...] On the issue of health care, the Democratic Party is closest to the UK Conservative Party [...] On environment regulation, the Democratic Party is most in line with the German FDP and the UK Liberal Democrats [...] on social/cultural issues such as immigration, multiculturalism, and positive discrimination (often referred to as affirmative action in the US) [...] the Democratic Party [...] clustered among the most left-wing parties in Europe.
However, on the other hand, note that theV-Dem Institute "places the Democratic Party to the left of typical parties in democracies in terms of economic issues":[18].
Also, see the 2019 Global Party Survey ([19]), which quantifies Dems around 3.5–4 on an economic left (0)–right (10) scale, and around 2–2.5 on a social liberal–conservative scale:[20] (slides 23-24).
Firmly agree with you on changing the leadś opening sentence to describe the party as "liberal" instead of "center-left". I'm going toWP:BOLDly change that lead sentence now, as it's technically outside of the scope of the RfC and still well-sourced on the current revision of the article.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)04:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted. It would always be silly to change the lead to the much more vague "liberal" when we have extensive academic sourcing for the more precise center-left, but it'sparticularly silly to do so in the midst of a discussion leaning overwhelmingly towards adding "center" to the current "center-left" infobox. Also, when you make an edit to the lead of a major article that you describeyourself asWP:BOLD, and its gets reverted, please don't just instantly re-instate it again;WP:DRNC only applies to situations where youdon't have a reason to think it would be controversial. It's obvious that this would be an extremely controversial change and that people will object given the lengthy history of discussions over how to classify the article's subject. --Aquillion (talk)14:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I didn't wait for this discussion to end is because it's outside the scope of the RfC, and I consider it to be a more accurate and more useful term to use to primarily describe the party, that was theWP:BOLD aspect of it. I saw no reason to consider it a controversial edit, since in mainstream parlance, the party is more often referred to as "liberal" than "center-left", and the term "liberal" is well-sourced in the article. I also citedWP:DRNC because the other user provided no reasoning beyond "no consensus" and theWP:OTHERSTUFF argument of making it match theGOP article. I won't reinstate my edit again, I just felt it was worth explaining here why I reinstated my revision after that first reversion by the other editor. Your edit summary was much more well-reasoned and in line with the relevant policies and guidelines.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)14:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aquillion, can you provide a definition of center-left without mentioning ideology or where it its into the political spectrum? There are reliable sources that describe the Democrats as left-wing, center-left or centrist. How do we determine which is correct?TFD (talk)20:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, is there a reason we need a definition that doesn't relate to ideology or where it fits into the political spectrum? If the sources feel that "they're to the left of parties that are considered center, but closer to the center than much of the left" is a useful way to define them, then it's reasonable for us to reflect that even if we personally find the terms imprecise and frustrating. I think we have to go over the sources and figure out what the bulk of them say, yeah, but ultimatelycenter-left doesn'tcontradictcentrist orleft-wing, since it is a subset of both of those, so if it's roughly equal then I'd lean towards it on the basis that the sources saying that are just being more precise, especially if it's a reasonable paraphrasing of how sources that go into more depth situate them (and I think it is.) Yes, obviously, we can't completely boil down a party's political position into one word, but I think that it's the most accurate reflection of the sources available and summarizes them better than saying nothing or trying to cram an entire broader summary into the template or first sentence, which isn't workable. And certainly I feel thatliberal is even less precise and more fuzzy than any of those terms. --Aquillion (talk)20:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the main faction of the Democratic party adheres to Modern Liberalism, which is extremely close to Social Liberalism, which is a centre-to-centre-left ideology. Furthermore, while the CPC is centre-left to left-wing, the Clintonites are Centrist and the Blue Dogs are Centre-to-centre-right. Therefore, I believe that the best description is Centre to Centre-left.Abotekap (talk)21:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we shouldn’t focus as much on sources, since nearly all of them are American, and thus position the party in the American context. However, since nearly all other articles position parties in the European context, I believe that it’s best to do that with the American parties as well for consistency. And in the European context, the party would be Centre to Centre-left, just like the Liberal Democrats, the Danish Radical Party, or the Democrats 66, and not centre-left like the SPD.Abotekap (talk)21:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last Paragraph Introductory (Contemporary Segment)
How come this last paragraph (referring to the 21st century), does not mention what the political party is against socially/economically?
The exact opposite, the Republican Party's wiki-page vividly describes what their party is against socially and economically.
Slightly biased, if viewers can read that information later in the article for the Democrats, why can't it be replicated with Republicans? Seems slightly biased based off an editor's way of revealing information in a controlled method.76.124.215.18 (talk)00:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! I’d like to propose a small but meaningful change to the infobox and lead of this article. Currently the infobox lists the Democratic Party’s political position as “center-left.” However, several high-quality sources (for exampleBrookings 2019 andBrookings 2021) describe the party as centrist or “center to center left”, reflecting its broad coalition from centrist New Democrats and Blue Dogs to progressive factions. Given that Wikipedia already lists “centrism” as one of the party’s main ideological tendencies in the infobox (under “Ideology”), it may be more accurate and balanced to present the political position as“Center to center-left” rather than just “Center-left”. This wording reflects both the scholarly consensus and the diversity of factions within the party. I’m suggesting this change in good faith and would appreciate feedback before making the edit. Thank you!Abotekap (talk)18:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia (last edit over a decade ago, and a few thousand miles away) so feel free to tell me if I've looked in the wrong places or if I've made this addition to the talk page wrong. I wasn't sure what to do, because the file itself had no talk page either on Wikipedia or Wikimedia. File:Democratic_Disc.svg which is described as the 'Election Symbol' on this page appears to source "https://democrats.org/" with no further direction as the origin of the symbol, but I noticed it is very obviously the exact same image as File:DemocraticLogo.svg on this page, which is explicitly described as unofficial. When I looked around democrats.org, I could not find this 'Election Symbol' in either the 2020 archive.org versions or the modern version. Searching Google with an explicit search for site:democrats.org with "election symbol" came up with no hits as well. What would the procedure be for verifying if this can be sourced, and if so, supplying a more precise sourcing?Sweetlimette (talk)04:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is a few county-level parties making use of the symbol in some posts enough to justify it in the main Wikibox for the national party, or to describe it as an ‘election symbol’ though? In particular the description of an ‘election symbol’ is confusing me.Sweetlimette (talk)04:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Change "The Democratic Party is a center to center-left political party in the United States" to " The Democratic Party is a left to far left political party in the United StatesHardjunk (talk)03:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They don't, and the reason is because the Democratic party is a center-left party byinternational standard. The Democrats aren't advocating for Marxism or any other ideology on the left side of the political spectrum. The Democratic Socialists of America is the most extreme faction of the party, and they aren't even officially part of the party.2600:6C54:5D00:199F:413B:6BBC:96DC:DB32 (talk)23:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone add content to the “Demographics” section explaining that unmarried men are a centrist demographic that swing between the two parties.
They are the main hidden pro-abortion/pro-Republican voters, and don’t really care about the issue. (Most abortions are for unmarried women, and their unmarried male counterparts have no problems with abortion.)
They tied 48-48% for Trump-Harris and 52-45% for Biden-Trump, about the same or a bit to the left of the country. They are much more socially liberal and lower-income than married men.
I agree that the mainstream of the Democratic Party consists of centrist or center-left. However, left-wing politicians affiliated with the DSA clearly exist within the party, and they should be mentioned as factions within the political position.[21] Otherwise, it will be impossible to persuade editors who disagree with the "Center" designation within the political position.ProgramT (talk)10:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The beginning of the article is also rather defensively worded, arguing that academic analysis places the party nearer to the center by international standards.
In my view, this is not particularly relevant. Labels like left/right are always going to be relative, and must be placed within a national context. Many "moderate" parties in Eastern Europe would have right wing social views by American/western european standards. Center-left seems to be a better descriptor overall.Alpha King 3306 (talk)13:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's my view that we've just had an RfC on this issue that was closed not even a week ago. Nobody who participated in the RfC even suggested this solution, so it should be left as is.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)00:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the socially center-right conservative is no longer prominent in the Democratic Party. For example, the Blue Dog, which used to be socially center-right in the past, is now fiscally center-right, but culturally liberal. On the other hand, the DSA is a far-left organization by American standards; by European/international standards, the DSA is not far-left, but at least left-leaning rather than the German center-left SPD or the British center-left Labour Party. So the Dems "left-wing" faction needs to write in the infobox.ProgramT (talk)10:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Democrats' established position is "center to center-left," but while the "center-right" faction within the Democrats is virtually defunct, the "left-wing" faction is far more prominent. This difference is very important: There are no politicians like AOC or Zohran Mamdani in the British "center to center-left" Lib Dems.ProgramT (talk)10:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In international standards, simply "center to center-left" is very fragmentary, and ignores the diversity of US Dems.Jeremy Corbyn, who was called Britain's Bernie Sanders, was effectively forced out of the center-leftLabour Party (UK). The BritishLiberal Democrats (UK) don't have left-wing democratic socialists comparable toSquad (U.S. Congress). Labour Party (UK) is not 'woke'; major Labour politicians in transgender issues are often socially conservative.ProgramT (talk)10:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Squad are just seven people. Unless you can provide reliable sources that state that their influence is so significant that they shifted the whole party's political position, they don't matter.Cortador (talk)12:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on what left or right mean, or where the center is. And is based on the party leader, the manifesto/platform, parliamentary groups, the voters? RS (such as they are) aren’t consistent with respect to each other, either. Are “international standards” the best rubric or should left, right and center only be defined with respect to national politics? RS don’t agree about that either. There is no consensus – editorial or RS – for the current political position labels. The Democrat and Republican articles both read like they were written by the DNC press office.Dr Fell (talk)23:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was about adding "center"; it did not address "left-wing". This argument will never end unless everyone recognizes that the Democratic party is a big tent and has a much broader range of views than other political parties. "Center to left-wing" is the only solution!Philosopher Spock (talk)18:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there are many centrist democrats but what makes them strong enough to be a full political position? There are a large number of progressives in the democratic party. Why is that not considered in the political position? The standard average democrat position on any specific issue is the promotion of culturally liberal ideals, the expansion of welfare, and promotion of civil rights. All of these, from the standpoint of U.S. politics, are Center-left so why not use political position relative to American politics rather than global politics?Farkas09 (talk)07:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Must have missed that. If you could link it to me I'd appreciate it. If so, I'm fine leaving the position as is, but with the paragraph either removed or edited to remove specific references to EU parliamentary groups.Alpha King 3306 (talk)15:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As already discussed above, the consensus for centre-left was flimsy. It was added by a now-topic banned editor who claimed there was "overwhelming consensus" for its inclusion when there wasn't even a numerical majority.Cortador (talk)21:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the topic question, because of the plethora of sourcing supporting its inclusion alongside the consensus that was reached in an rfc. Why to not exclusively use US standards? Because excluding sources from the rest of the world purely on that basis violatesWP:WEIGHT.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)15:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a single paragraph mentioning how international standards (in general, sourci, current g focuses more on Europe than elsewhere) would place the party closer to the political centre is "primarily granting weight to European sources". Also, all four of the citations in that paragraph belong to American sources.
To solve this though, would removing the explicit mention of Europe (i.e. "[...] centrist by international standards,in particular those of Europe [...]) whilst keeping the mention of one or both of the European parallels be an acceptable solution to you?– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)15:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with those sources is they primarily make comparison to Western/Central Europe, not that the are European per-say. As much as I don't prefer it for some of the reasons I have above articulated, I am willing to give way to consensus on the political position.
However, it is not standard practice on Wikipedia pages about political parties to frame their positions by reference to the political spectra of other regions or countries, and doing so risks giving undue weight or suggesting a universal standard where none exists. For me, I think what would be acceptable would be to both exclude that specific mention of Europe and example in parenthesis, or otherwise to clarify that this is not representative of the whole world, but rather only a small part of the world's standards. E.g. I would not make reference to the political standard's of East-Asian political standards in an article on a left-wing party in Ghana.Alpha King 3306 (talk)16:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it's an issue that they primarily draw comparisons to Western and Central Europe, especially since that's attributed in the paragraph. I also don't see how this could be undue weight, since, again, it's attributed and not in wikivoice. I can think of some examples of political parties where attention is drawn to the difference between a party's perceived ideology/political position within and outside of its country of origin, however, perWP:OCON, arguments based solely on precedent are generally unconvincing.
I'm of the opinion that explicitly mentioning the fact that public/non-academic perception of the party within the US differs from academic and international analyses is a good inclusion, as it gives a nice balance of sources that avoidWP:WEIGHT issues of arbitrarily excluding sources that don't base their conclusions on a purely American standard. As I said in one of my edit summaries,Template:Globalise exists for the purpose of ensuring that articles don't exclude international perspectives when they're reasonably believed to exist.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)01:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point about Template:Globalise and the value of including international perspectives where relevant. However, my concern is that presenting European or “international” comparisons on a U.S. party article risks overstating THAT specific region's weight. Especially as the first paragraph in the ideology section.
If international perspectives are included, they should be framed as one regional comparison among many, not as a defining standard. Otherwise we risk falling into WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE problems even if it’s attributed. Again, the issue is the very obvious Eurocentrism here. If you went to the Middle East, for the most part on social/cultural issues, the Democrats would be considered radically left wing by those standards/conservative Islamic academics.Alpha King 3306 (talk)13:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind moving it lower down in the section, I just placed it at the top of the section because it's a simple description of the left-right position on the spectrum which was previously absent. I think it would also be suitable as the last paragraph before the "Economic issues" subsection, as long as it doesn't break up the flow of the 5 paragraphs already there.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)13:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to put it lower down, I still have some issue with it specifically mentioning EU parliamentary groupings, but I'm willing to meet in the middle there if it's moved further down, and that minor alteration is made.Alpha King 3306 (talk)13:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would removing the mention of the Lib Dems but keeping the ALDE/RE mention (or vice versa) be a suitable compromise to you? I'm still of the opinion that listing a parallel is useful contextualisation.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)13:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Again, that is so specifically European (EU) that it does cross into WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE issues. If you want to include it, I would want several from all parts of the world, not just Europe. But that might become too unwieldly, so I'd prefer just removing it.192.68.112.171 (talk)15:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like many of the sources don’t really reference international standards or political positions and just broadly talk about factions within the Democratic Party, or personal opinions.Farkas09 (talk)17:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we just exclude a political position, and stick to ideology, if necessary? It’s really hard to describe a party whose support among White voters just goes continuously upward the more education White voters have.
How else can one explain why White voters without college voted for Trump 66-32%, while White voters with graduate degrees voted for Harris 58-40? We know Whites with graduate degrees are far richer than Whites without college degrees.
Also it’s hard to clearly label a party whose support among Black voters is extremely high, with Assad-level (92-7%) margins among Black women. Meanwhile, Whites in the Deep South are nearly as Republican. This is just racial polarization, not specific political positions.
This is a party best exemplified by its 2024 presidential nominee being a Black woman with a graduate degree (law degree). Statistically, that is the most likely voter for the party. The two may seem to have nothing in common, but being Black or having a graduate degree makes one very likely to support the party.2600:1008:B222:685B:383A:3055:DAE6:4A82 (talk)01:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The party does best among some of the poorest and richest voters of the country. Kamala Harris won voters making over $200,000 a year (52-46%), probably with graduate degrees, and also won the poorest majority-Black counties in the country.
Is it a centrist position to support late-term abortion? What about open borders? What about sex change operations on children? None of those have mainstream supportExzachary (talk)14:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that Obama was involved in deporting many illegal immigrants. Democrats do not support open borders, they support allowing refugees to run from war-torn countries, and oppose wasting billions of taxpayer dollars building a border wall. Besides, the children are statistically the ones who request sex reassignment surgery, not the parents.drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at meSpy on me)15:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The process here is not (and should not be) for editor's to independently determine a party's ideology and position by reviewing where they stand on each issue, but to rely on high-quality, ideologically-diverse reliable sources. That has not happened. The Democrat article has effectively been vandalized with false information, less savvy users are being subject to misinformation and Wikipedia continues to lose public trust. You can review the last Requests for Consensus that resulted in the decisions to label the Democrats "center to center-left" and the Republicans "right-wing." Most editors contributing to that process were expressing their personal politics. That these changes are mounting increased resistance yet still have not been reverted reveals just how broken the process is. New RfCs are needed now. You are correct that late-term abortion, open borders and sex-change operations for minors are opposed by ~80% of voters, and have found some support within some Democrat factions. But it's not within our remit to determine ourselves how far to the left that positions the Democrats.Dr Fell (talk)22:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To solve all of the controversy, why can’t the party be categorized as a “big tent” primarily center-left party, with centrist and left wing factions? The argument that democrats are economically right wing is mostly based on comparison to other countries—which is not valid in my opinion. The AOC/Sanders wing is likely left enough to warrant being called “left-wing”, considering the reforms they want would amount to a significant enough change to the status quo47.14.12.92 (talk)21:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To solve the controversy, we need a revert followed by a proper RfC. Both for this article and for theRepublicans. Obviously, you are correct: In a two-party system, both parties will be big tents, spanning many constituencies, interest groups and ideologies. These articles are doing a grave disservice to Wikipedia'susers (ie, the people we should be aiming to serve) by collapsing the ideological breadth of these two parties into compact labels unsupported by real consensus or broad, objective RS.Dr Fell (talk)22:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by a "proper RfC"? The most recent one follows all the RfC guidelines and was closed by an uninvolved third party after discussion had stabilised. I don't see any way that could be construed as "not proper".– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)23:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the current consensus isn't supported by RS, bring up RS that demonstrate that and convince your fellow editors. So far, you haven't done that.Cortador (talk)12:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't "what feels balanced to editors", it's "how do the sources describe them" (especially the highest-quality sources, like academic ones discussing where parties fall politically.) Even if your opinion is that comparison to other countries is not valid, if that's how the best available sources analyze them, then that's what we have to use. And I would argue that itdoes make sense to follow that standard - Wikipedia is written for an international audience. --Aquillion (talk)16:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Democratic Party’s base is probably the most highly-educated of any political party in the world. Voters with graduate degrees are an underrated core constituency of the party, despite also being a very wealthy demographic.98.228.56.157 (talk)19:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how this is at all relevant to the talk page for this article. The discussion here isn't an opportunity to share unsourced claims and unsubstantiated theories, nor to make value judgements on the value of any particular segment within the party. In fact, it's not an opportunity to do any original research at all. Voters with a postgraduate degree heavily favored Harris over Trump; voters with a college degree narrowly favored Harris. For both cohorts, Trump reduced her margin relative to 2020 (-3 among postgrads and -9 among college grads). And not sure why you added a "despite" – Trump won the working class and middle income voters; Harris won high income voters. But there's a lot of nuance and confounding factors involved, so compressing it as such wouldn't tell the real story. But I should stress – while documenting the key constituencies within each party is helpful, there is no consensus on how center-left/left (or center-right/right) is defined or should be applied.Dr Fell (talk)20:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was the more education White voters have, particularly for White women, the more likely they are to vote Democratic. It’s the education itself that makes White voters more likely to vote for Democrats.
I could personally just remove a political position, and stick to ideology. Education isn’t everything—White Southerners with college degrees are still Republican, and Black voters aren’t affected by education (but Hispanic/Asian voters probably are). White Southerners with graduate degrees are probably the most cross-pressured group.
Yes, white women – orsingle women – are largely keeping the Democrats afloat the moment. Every other demographic is shifting away from them, some cohorts quite sharply. (This typically devolves into an argument as to if the left is or right is the one actually changing. The FT had some data ~1 year ago suggesting that the marked shift is really just among women, isn't limited to the US and isn't tied to Dobbs.) And I also agree that educational level makes one more likely to vote Democrat – at least in recent elections. But it wasn't that long ago that blue collar votes were their most loyal voters. Tempora mutantur.
I'd be with you on supporting political position. Both parties are quite big tents and have a number of ideological cohorts within them, sometimes competing ideologies.
As it stands, I don't think either this article or the Republican one are doing a decent job of documenting the political positions and ideologies of each party.Dr Fell (talk)00:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t predict the future, but two states in particular are diverging: Georgia and Florida. Georgia was decided by 2.2%, and Florida by 13.1%.
They’re neighbors, both Southern states, and 50-60% White. But Black voters haven’t changed, while Hispanic voters are shifting rightward, particularly Hispanic men.
There may come a day when white women are evenly split, with a college/non-college divide. (Half of younger white women have college degrees.) Meanwhile Hispanic men may also be evenly split or even lean Republican.
It would be a tectonic realignment, one that would give Republicans long-term gains among Hispanics, while Democrats can compete in places with lots of college-educated White women.
Since 1990, GA’s black population has increased, more than elsewhere in the South. I think outside of the other demographic shifts you mentioned, that’s the cause behind GA’s narrower elections. It doesn’t really kick in until 2020, though. 2008, 2012 and 2016 see the D vote at 1.8-1.9 million. That pops to 2.5 million in 2020.
Polarization by educational attainment is a proxy for class and seems an unavoidable feature of democracies. But I would worry if polarization sharpens along lines of race and sex. Lee Kuan Yew’s warning “in multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion” would be the practical end of American democracy if it came to pass.
For now, we still have the problem of this article not accurately documenting the ideology, political positions and factions of the party.Dr Fell (talk)21:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't predict the future, but theDemocrats 66 (D66) party in theNetherlands is an interesting party that may hold clues for the future of the American Democratic Party.
"D66 is especially popular amongpeople who hold a university degree, and its voters are mostly concentrated in larger cities and in municipalities with an above-average number of wealthy residents."
It would make sense to keep "liberal" in the introduction.@Esterau16 may have been confused because the two largestcaucuses of the Democratic Party in Congress are progressivism (socially democratic policies) and Third Way (which combines social democracy w/ elements of center-right fiscal conservatism). I suggest adding Third Way in the infobox under "factions".Altanner1991 (talk)08:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Long into the future, the Democrats will become the party of White women with college degrees (WWCD) and non-White voters. It was no accident that Kamala Harris won WWCD 58-41%, and 8% leftward swing despite the popular vote swinging by 6%. The Democratic base among White voters is WWCD.
I was looking at the exit polls in Virginia and New Jersey. Even in 15% landslides, White men with college degrees, White women without college degrees, and White men without college degrees all stayed Republican. But WWCD and non-White voters aligned.
I don’t know how to characterize WWCD, but they are the core Democratic constituency among White voters. They were the only demographic group except for Black women to swing leftward in 2024.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My edit correcting the link in the infobox from[[Liberalism]] to[[Social liberalism|Liberalism]], which I expected to be a uncontroversial change, was reverted a second time, and by the same editor,@GlowstoneUnknown. Both times, I provided a detailed explanation of why the current link is incorrect, and both times, GlowstoneUnknown manually reverted my edit with a vague explanation:
A manual revert, as I am sure GlowstoneUnknown is aware, suppresses the revert notification. I am not sure why they chose to do this both times, but I willassume good faith. The first edit summary was half-incorrect and half-vague: first, the article "linked in the piped link" isModern liberalism in the United States, notSocial liberalism (the two are synonyms, with "modern liberalism" being the preferred term in American English and "social liberalism" commonly used elsewhere); second, it is unclear what they meant by"'liberalism' is fine to link on its own" — I've clearly explained why it is not "fine", because it's erroneous. The second and most recent edit summary was a bulk revert of my edit andanother editor's unrelated edit, so it is unclear which portion was referring to whose edit. It's also equally vague as the first summary: how does the incorrect link "best correspond to [sic] sources and ENGVAR"? Since I have already explained the reason for my change in detail, I will simply copy-and-paste the explanation below:
Now that I've repeated the explanation for my edit, which aimed to correct a simple but commonly made error, I would like to hear a proper explanation for why my edit is incorrect. I invite other editors to weigh in and read the linked articles (particularly the hatnotes and lead sections) above to understand the distinction. For starters,"liberalism" includesclassical liberalism andconservative liberalism, which are totally inconsistent with the positions of the Democratic Party!
The explanation for both of them being manual reverts is simple. As I'm sure you are aware, the undo button does not function in such a way that it allows a user to revert multiple edits at once, as was the case both times. As for whyliberalism shouldn't be a piped link, as explained in the first edit summary, the US's own brand of liberalism is already present in the (US) piped link, and given the prominence of sources that simply describe the party using the term "liberal" as well as the convention across political party pages such asLiberal Party of Australia,Liberal Democrats (UK),Conservative Party (UK),Venstre (Denmark), among others, to leave a broad term unpiped with a more specific page piped in the (Nationality) parenthetical.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)07:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can bulk-revert multiple edits with the undo button using thecur orcompare selected revisions button from the edit-history page, or by using Twinkle or other rollback tools. But I accept that you may not have been aware of this functionality and won't dwell on it. It seems you are continuing to conflateliberalism andsocial ormodern liberalism — which, again, describe two different concepts. Your assertion that social/modern liberalism isthe US's own brand of liberalism is incorrect: the U.S.'s version ofliberalism is covered at the articleLiberalism in the United States and embodied by the U.S.'s form of government; the U.S.'s version ofmodern liberalism, itself a version of liberalism, is covered at the articleModern liberalism in the United States, and this is the ideology embodied by the Democratic Party. In an academic sense,liberalism is the driving political philosophy behind the U.S. and otherliberal democracies; by extension, this means all major parties in the U.S. — including the Republican Party — are "liberal", but they differ in the form of liberalism adopted. For example, the Republican and Libertarian Parties espouse the right-wing ideologies ofclassical liberalism,economic liberalism, andneoliberalism, none of which align with the principles of the Democratic Party. While you are correct that aprominence of sources [...] simply describe the party using the term 'liberal', this is a misinterpretation: as I have noted, "liberalism" is commonly used in contemporary U.S. sources as a shorthand for social/modern liberalism, not in reference toliberalism in an academic sense as our own article does.
In case the distinction remains unclear, I've quote relevant portions from several of our articles below (key terms in bold):
This article is about the origin, history, and development of liberalism and its various forms in the United States. For the ideology normally identified in the United States asliberalism, seeModern liberalism in the United States. [...] Since the 1930s,liberalism is usually used without a qualifier in the United States to refer tomodern liberalism [...] This variety of liberalism is also known asmodern liberalism to distinguish it fromclassical liberalism, from which it sprang out along with modern American conservatism.
Modern liberalism, often referred to simply asliberalism, is the dominant version of liberalism in the United States. [...] According to American philosopher Ian Adams, all major American parties are "liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratized Whig constitutionalism plus the free market. The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism." [...] Modern liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party while modern conservatism is typically associated with the Republican Party. [...] Colloquially,liberalism is used differently, in its primary use in different countries. In the United States the general termliberalism almost always refers to modern liberalism.
In Europe and Latin America,liberalism means a moderate form of classical liberalism and includes both conservative liberalism (centre-right liberalism) and social liberalism (centre-left liberalism). In North America,liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism. [...] the Democratic Party is usually considered liberal in the United States. In the United States, conservative liberals are usually calledconservatives in a broad sense [...] Over time, the meaning ofliberalism began to diverge in different parts of the world. Since the 1930s,liberalism is usually used without a qualifier in the United States, to refer to social liberalism ...
Ideologies considered to beleft-wing vary greatly depending on the placement along the political spectrum in a given time and place. At the end of the 18th century, upon the founding of the first liberal democracies, the termLeft was used to describe liberalism in the United States [...] In modern politics, the termLeft typically applies to ideologies and movements to the left of classical liberalism [...] Today, ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy are considered to be centre-left ...
Conservatism in the United States is one of two major political ideologies in the United States, with the other being modern liberalism. [...] They tend to favor economic liberalism [...] Conservative philosophy also derives in part from the classical liberal tradition of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries [...] Both major U.S. political parties support republicanism and the classical liberal ideals on which the country was founded in 1776 ...
In the United States,liberal usually refers to a social liberal form. As such, those referred to asconservative liberals in Europe are often simply referred to asconservatives in the United States. [...] Political scientists evaluate all politicians in the United States as liberals in the academic sense. In general, rather than the Democratic Party, which is close to social liberalism, the Republican Party is evaluated as a conservative-liberal party.
By modern standards, in the United States, the bare termliberalism often means social or progressive liberalism, but in Europe and Australia, the bare termliberalism often means classical liberalism.
The meaning ofliberal varies around the world, ranging from liberal conservatism on the right to social liberalism on the left.
The overwhelming evidence confirms that (1) the U.S., and all of its major parties, are fundamentally liberal, because that is the bedrock of democracy that the nation was founded upon, but (2) the dominant ideology of the Democratic Party is not liberalism butsocial ormodern liberalism. Linking to theliberalism article is therefore incorrect. Compare the sidebar templates{{Liberalism US}} vs.{{Modern liberalism US}} — notice the choice of image in each. I hope this comprehensive explanation clears things up.InfiniteNexus (talk)21:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Want to preface this reply by saying I haven't read your reply in full and don't have time to as it's nearly 09:00 where I am and I'll be too busy to properly read it until my lunch break, but, skimming your message, it makes a lot of sense. So in the hopes of ending this content dispute quickly, I'd like to suggest excluding the (US) piped link/label and instead having both the "liberal" in the opening sentence and the "Liberalism" in the infobox be piped links toModern liberalism in the United States. I think this solution would be sufficient to avoid linking to an inaccurate page given the lead paragraph of the article.
I am not sure why you are opposed to linking to the broad-concept social/modern liberalism article, but that's fine by me if no editors object. My only concern was the incorrect link to theliberalism article, which does not identify the ideology of the Democratic Party.InfiniteNexus (talk)23:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now thatyou edited it, we could do the same for progressivism and addleft-wing as a faction?
I don't necessarily object to doing the same for progressivism (although I don't consider it to be as necessary as the correction of Liberalism), but including "left-wing" has been brought up multiple times on this page and has been consistently rejected by editors. There have been numerous RfCs, the most recent of which (less than two months ago) determined that "Center tocenter-left" is the most appropriate way to describe the party.– GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)05:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the exit polls for the Virginia, New Jersey, and even the New York City mayoral elections, Democrats only do well among White women with college degrees (WWCD) among White voters.
Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill, who are White women with graduate degrees, won over 60% of WWCD. But they both lost White men with college degrees, who still lean Republican.
It would require more sourcing, but WWCD can be centrist, liberal, and progressive. There’s just something about educational attainment and college degrees that makes White women into loyal supporters of Democrats.
The gap between White women with and without college degrees is about as wide as the gap as graduate degrees and those who never attended college.
Look, I know this idea has been floated so much times in the talk page and yes in global standards: The Democratic Party is centre to centre-right but in U.S standards, sure there is a centrist position and I agree but there is a growing progressive/left-wing base growing in the party and it’s outpacing the centrist wing. The Blue Dog Coalition has 10 seats in the House Democratic Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus has 1 seat in the Senate Democratic Caucus and 94 in the House Democratic Caucus + the growing progressive moment in the United States and the recent election of Zohran Mamdani in NYC suggests more and more left-wing Democrats. So yes I feel there is a centrist wing but I feel like behind the center-left wing is the progressive wing of the party, with the centrist falling behind them.Newyorker86 (talk)21:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Pasokification applies to the US. The Democratic Party has not become a minor party and remains part of the two party system for the foreseeable future. When PASOK last won in 2009, they got 44% of the vote, while Syriza got 5%. In 2015, Syriza won with 36% of the vote, while PASOK got 5%.TFD (talk)05:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Cite error:The named referenceLavelle 2005 was invoked but never defined (see thehelp page).
^Cite error:The named referenceHumphrys 2018 was invoked but never defined (see thehelp page).
^Guinan 2013, pp. 44–60 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGuinan2013 (help);Karnitschnig 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKarnitschnig2018 (help);Buck 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBuck2018 (help);Lawson 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLawson2018 (help)
Not done: See FAQ at the top of this talk page.LizardJr8 (talk)00:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Acsenray saidon this talk page in 2004 ".jpg)
