Talk:Factions in the Democratic Party (United States)

African Americans as a "faction"

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

Faction Order

On the equivalent Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page, the conservative faction of the GOP and the explanations of it's subfactions are put first, with the "moderates and liberals" faction/subfactions explanation below. This is because the conservatives dominate the GOP in terms of numbers, influence and national agenda, while the moderates/liberals/libertarians/log cabins are clear minorities.

Therefore, shouldn't this page be grouped in a similar way? The listing of the factions on this page doesn't really reference to the relative influence of the factions within the party. The liberal wing should be at the top, with the subgroups (liberals, progressives and maybe unions) explained. Then the moderates and conservatives should be under another heading lower down (with the centrist, conservative and libertarian subgroups explained.) And then the overarching ethnic minority heading could be below that. It would just be clearer, and more in line with the other article. EJB341 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Most readers will want to see what is most significant at a glance. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The order is fixed. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)r

I'm of the opinion we need to stop putting progressive and liberal in the same category, because they are clearly different. We should also put neoliberal as a sub-category, and make it part of the liberal category. Drrichardpaul (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Liberal/Progressive

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

"Dixiecrat" not equal to "conservative"

Dixiecratism is left-wing populism. Conservatism is anti-populist. To confuse the terms simply because the South has trended Republican, which is absolutely not to be taken as evidence of conservatism, is an error due to lack of sufficient background in political thought.

Dixiecrat left-wing?! That would need hard sources. As far as I know it was a far-right movement (even if poor people (white) also supported it). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dixiecrat is right-wing populism not left wing, it was mad up of southern democrats who had been in the conservative coalition and later joined the GOP, opposed Trumans proposal of universal healthcare, and supported Taft-Hartley which restricted union activity. Strom Thurmond who was the Dixiecrats 1948 Presidential nominee would go onto become a republican and a close ally of Reagan. Also let's not say people who are correct have an insufficient background in political thought, especially when you are incorrect and have not cited evidence.

References

"Factions" of the party or "supporters of the party"?

To me, this article is just a list of groups which usually vote for the Democrats. I would expect an article about "factions" to be about groups within the party which are antagonistic to each other. However, most of the "factions" listed here have the same goals, or have goals which are more or less irrelavent to/not antagonistic with the goals of other groups. For example, is there ever a dispute between the "labor" faction and the "native american" faction? If there was, what would they argue about?

I think it would be more instructive to list controversies within the Democratic party and their opposing sides, rather than insist on the fiction that everyone in the party belongs to a homogenous "faction" (and then make it all wishy-washy by talking about "overlap").

Perhaps someone who knows more about the democrats than me will lend a hand? If not, then I'll have a crack at it myself, as long as I get some response/indictation that someone isn't going to revert all my hard work. BillMasen (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Populist Caucus?

Perhaps the Populist Caucus should be added to the list. [1] EPM (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious left

Is this right?

Their concerns regarding social justice, welfare, universal health care, education and foreign aid are more in line with the Democratic economic agenda than the laissez-faire economic approach of the Republicans. Their social views of capital punishment, defense and militarism, civil rights and equality are also left-wing.

It would seem like the article is goung to say that they lean right on the remaining issues, but...

On moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality, the Christian left are often, although not always, more in line with Democrats.

So what's non mainstream Democratic about them? If I'm getting this right, they seem to be 100% normal Democrats that believe in the parts of religion that don't contradict their party.

I have the suspicion that the paragraph was ment to say:

Their concerns regarding social justice, welfare, universal health care, education and foreign aid are more in line with the Democratic economic agenda than the laissez-faire economic approach of the Republicans. Their social views of capital punishment, defense and militarism, civil rights and equality are also left-wing. On moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality, "they commonly lean towards right wing."

or at least "[...] and homosexuality, they might lean either way."

--187.147.3.19 (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

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

Religious left revisited

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

My additions

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

Environmentalism?

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

Hillary Clinton is not a Liberal

Hillary Clinton was a member of the Nee Democratic Coalition which is the DLC Wikg of the party. And Obama said he was a New Democrat when he got elected. Please take them off the Liberal part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.173.61.63 (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? Being a member of the New Democrat Coalition doesn't seem to imply that she isn't a liberal. It might mean she isn't a left-liberal, but that isn't the only kind of liberal (e.g. classical liberals and neoliberals). She isn't listed as a progressive. So could you elaborate some? Alexander Levian (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A neoliberal is a Liberal on economic policies, with libertarian leaning mantra on social issues. However, when one thinks of the term "liberal", they often conflate progressive with it. Maybe use the term "neoliberal" when referring to her, instead of liberal, so as to not cause confusion. Drrichardpaul (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630063715/http://www4.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090416065234/http://www.newsweek.com:80/id/168062 to http://www.newsweek.com/id/168062

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.http://www.webcitation.org/690gHZnSX to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/07/11/dean/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/2003/07/11/dean_15/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723050203/http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-12850,00.html to http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-12850,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people-press.org/2005/05/10/beyond-red-vs-blue/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A neutral author needed and mathematics needed

I think Wikipedia should remain neutral concerning the Democratic Party and the Republican party. In the past I have contributed financially to Wikipedia. I will no longer do so until this issue is corrected.

The presentation between the two factions (Democrat and Republican) is unequal and the numbers are not balanced. When looking at the Factions in the Democratic Party page, one gets the impression the Democratic Party could never lose. The reality is that today the Republicans by the numbers lead the White House, Senate, House, Supreme Court, state governors and state houses. The only significant leadership the Democrats hold is large inner city mayors.

Wikipedia is in use by large segments of the world community including many students and teachers in this country. It behooves Wikipedia to provide a balanced view of the two parties despite the obvious left-wing exhibition of materials Wikipedia now seems to favor.

2601:CD:C000:36D6:ED52:ED99:4F25:80F2 (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the bias you mentioned exists, but it is not the fault of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is an artifact of who chooses to write the articles. Please continue your donations (I have). (I am not affiliated with the WF.) 2603:300A:1400:D200:B9DC:6301:9B04:4122 (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Larry Siegel

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150512080213/http://libertariandemocraticcaucus.org/ to http://libertariandemocraticcaucus.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100702184835/http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/home/ to http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/home/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Progressive democrats / primary 2016

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

Define your terms

You use the terms progressive, liberal and moderate but, do nto explain/define your terms. What do you mean by each of these? Thx

Realignment

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

Pelosi in the Progressive Wing

Should Pelosi be considered a member of the progressive wing? She's had a fair few spats with progressives. It seems a bit off-kilter to put her next to someone like Warren, especially when Pelosi is less-than-enthused by such planks like the Green New Deal, and M4A which has generally been championed by the mainstream left wing of the party.

Diefreien (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Pelosi a progressive? Not a chance. GoodDay (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Faction exit polling relative to general population

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

Progressive vs Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists

Should they be the same as they aren't much different? Barnacles14 (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Michael Dukakis color photograph.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Picture of Pete Buttigieg in Progressive wing

Anyone who has been following this page over the last month or so probably knows that @MikeParten keeps adding an image of Pete Buttigieg to this section consistently without ever typing a word. Never any explanation, just constant edit-warring. There has been at least 3 or 4 editors that have disagreed with his adding of Buttigieg, and stated why, not one though has agreed or defended it; but obviously that does not stop him or invoke a single word of explanation. I'm starting this dialogue in hopes that other users can contribute (as well as MikeParten).

Onto the actual substance, I agree with @104dragon's assessment that Buttigieg is more a center-left liberal than a pure progressive. It's not to say that Pete is not a progressive in ways, or on certain issues, or that he shouldn't call himself a progressive (many politicians do who don't necessarily fall into that faction / ideological category). There's a difference though between being a progressive and a leading voice of the progressive wing. The 'progressive wing' section, or at least the images that represent it, should absolutely consist only of the leading Democratic voices whom guide (or guided) the movement (as should all other images in the separate sections). Simply put, the images make up the "purists" of the specific faction, and in many ways, Buttigieg is an anti-purist on much of the progressive agenda (which is part of his appeal with fans and aggravation with capital "P" Progressives), see the video here: . I do not believe Buttigieg symbolizes a leading voice within the progressive wing (for the Democratic Party and for democratic capitalism on the other hand, yes I believe he does). As a matter of fact, he has on multiple occasions clashed with progressives like Sanders and Warren on many issues, healthcare and campaign financing being a couple of them (see the first reference above, and this one: ). Additionally, read this source from Politico: , titled "How Harvard Made Pete Buttigieg the Moderate That Progressives Love to Hate". And this reference from The Atlantic: , with a url that reads "The Radical Centrism of Pete Buttigieg", and with a tagline reading "Buttigieg is ideologically moderate, but his lofty perch atop the meritocracy could prove deeply divisive." I don't believe that when most people think "Progressive wing of the Democratic Party", the first (or even top 10) politician that comes to their mind is Pete, so then why should he be the first photo (or even top 10) included in that section? Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Liberal and Progressive

The definition of Liberal obviously varies, but one thing remains consistent: It is based on the notion of individual rights- For instance, on Britannica

 "liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics." (https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism) 

John Dewey: "liberation from material insecurity and from the coercions and repressions that prevent multitudes from participation in the vast cultural resources that are at hand." (https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/excerpts-from-liberalism-and-social-action/)

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

References

Symbols

There are some symbols in the center-left section, preceding the text. I do not know where these came from, and, even more bizarrely, they do not show up when I try to edit the page, and therefore cannot be deleted.Island Pelican (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Update: I have disposed of them.Island Pelican (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent section order changes

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.

---

Readers don't care about sorting it from left to right, and this is often too simplistic to characterize politics on a global level. It would make more sense to organize for relevance; see also discussion above. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Factions in the Republican Party (United States) orders based on relevance, I think this article should have the same presentation. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC) The recent changes were acceptable so this is no longer an issue. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

"Modern"

Since Flyedit32 is edit-warring to keep this nonsensical inclusion: nobody in the United States calls them this. Using this wording is only confusing to readers, especially international ones. Per WP:ENGVAR, we need to respect what Americans and American sources refer to these movements as. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Flyedit32, I am going to ask you again to respond here - you are the one who wants to include these, and you've edited the page since I've posted. If you're not interested in discussing, the content should be removed. Toa Nidhiki05 17:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, you misinterpret what this section of the article is all about. It's titled "Contemporary Democratic Party factions and movements". Although it gives historical context on how the movements (and thus the terms themselves) have changed over time--it's not meant to focus on or be about Woodrow Wilson's racist progressive movement or the segregationists in his cabinet, nor is it about Adam Smith's classical free-market liberalism and the capitalist, individualist philosophers he inspired--it's about the factions of the modern figures whose pictures lie on top. It spells this out multiple times throughout each of those respective subsections. So although you're right that in colloquial terms, people don't walk around calling themselves "modern progressives" or "modern liberals", chances are when they call themselves just plain "progressive" or "liberal" - they mean Sanders-AOC type progressive, and Biden-Obama type liberal. There's a huge difference from the historical factions that came before those four figures named above though... To give examples from this very article, here are a few quotes:

"The modern progressive movement in the U.S. draws deeply from the left-wing populist economic and political philosophies of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom... Modern progressives [however] are much more culturally liberal on social issues like race and identity..."

"While there are differences between them, both historical progressivism and the modern movement have the most crossover in the belief that free markets lead to economic inequalities and therefore..."

"Modern progressives seriously emphasize the threat of climate change and to a greater or lesser extent rally around the..."

Instead of offering more quotes on the point of "liberal" v. "modern liberal", just read the tag already included, Modern liberalism in the United States, then read Classical liberalism; or for that matter, read Liberalism itself and notice how Obama, Biden, H. Clinton, Pelosi, etc., are not liberals in the way that Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard (etc.) are all considered "liberal" as well. Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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

"Center-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.

---

This has a very specific meaning in American politics. Conservative Democrats are not regarded as part of the American right and haven't been in decades. The Blue Dog Caucus as it exists now is actually regarded as being liberal on cultural issues and more moderate on social ones - there's only one pro-life Dem left in Congress (Henry Cuellar), and Manchin and Sinema aren't regarded as being on the right in any real sense. It's frankly ridiculous and misleading to make such an absurd claim as fact here. Any historical Democratic conservative factions can be covered in a historical section, similar to on Factions in the Republican Party (United States); the fact we're actually conflating modern and historical factions here is a significant problem as well, for that matter. Toa Nidhiki05 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide sources that substantiate your claims? Thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Provide sources that say otherwise, since you want to include this. Shouldn't be too hard, no? Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Well it has always been conservative in other words on the right, not sure how that has changed. The name is still "conservative Democrat", so that would imply right politics in some manner. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Conservative relative to the party, not conservative as part of the conservative movement. Joe Manchin is no more a conservative than Scott Brown was a liberal. Toa Nidhiki05 18:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

When they speak of Joe Manchin they'll say conservative in a general context; that's just the way it is. They don't mean "relative in the Democratic Party". Altanner1991 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Joe Manchin votes with Joe Biden 91% of the time. Sinema votes with Biden 94% of the time. For comparison, a moderate R (Susan Collins) votes with him 71% of the time, and the average R caucus member is closer to 30-40%. Conservative is relative. Toa Nidhiki05 17:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You can't refute encyclopedic sources with your own innovations. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong because the Conservative Democrat page has for some time had center-right with a highly reliable source, and all of the other factions have their "left-wing"/"center-left" links in their section's See also except for conservative Democrat which only has Blue Dog Coalition. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Conservative Democrats barely exist at this point, yes. They have the Blue Dog Coalition, which has been described it recent years as shifting to the left. They have no think tanks, no advocacy wings, and very few actual members of Congress left, many of which will be gone after this session (Crist, Murphy, Bordeaux, Schrader, and Cooper at minimum). Like "liberal Republican", "conservative Democrat" is primarily a legacy term used to either describe a type of Democrat that used to exist or any Democrat perceived to be on the outside of their party on the right. It isn't a claim that they are affiliated with the mainstream American right, and isn't a claim they are on the right period - it's relative to the party. "Center-right" is simply not an accurate term here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You'll need sources to refute other sources, sorry but that's just the way that it works here. Please see Conservative Democrat which does mention center-right using reliable sourcing. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

An extremely old source referring to the old nature of the Blue Dogs. Not useful here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Provide sources. Then I'll be happy. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, this is not about historical vs. modern factions, although the liberal Republicans of historical times were also called center-left and mostly replaced by part of this very coalition, The Blue Dogs, as well as the New Dems. See Michael Lind's Up From Conservatives, page 263. What we and other editors, since this faction has been described as center-right in the article dating back to July 2019, are referring to is the modern faction. All the figures mentioned or shown in this faction are in some way center-right on some issues, not all issues though. But that's not how these see-also tags work. Sinema, Manchin, and Gabbard are "center-right" in the same way that Coons, Cantwell, and Demings are "centrist". Notice that there is a Left-wing see-also for the Progressives, Center-left for the Liberals, Centrist for the Moderates, and, for several years, Center-right for the Conservatives. It naturally covers the wide scale of the party's idealogical spectrum. Whether its Manchin on the environment, Sinema on taxes, or Gabbard on social issues, this tag fits with both accuracy and constancy. Again, not every person on every issue, but neither are all of the above-figures in each respective section ideological monoliths either. You've been challenged now by multiple editors and this tag should remain until others (not just yourself) contribute and state otherwise. Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"Multiple editors" my ass. You refused to discuss for weeks and now want to waltz in? The article was stable for a week; the new stable version is the one that removes the incorrect claims. The absolute gall to just continue to refuse to provide any backing whatsoever besides "I demand it stays". I'm actually going to have a take a more comprehensive look at all of the claims this article makes, because I have a sneaking suspicion what you've added follows the same WP:SYNTH logic you're using here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that talk page consensus should ever overtake reliable sources, and that is what center-right and Reagan Democrat currently have: published sources. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

No, they don't. Toa Nidhiki05 02:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Reagan Democrats were influential in the 2016 elections and the conservative Democrats are center-right. If you can't provide reliable sources to refute my claims, then your claims are unfounded original research. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Once again - that book is heavily outdated and refers to pre-2010 Blue Dog Democrats, which proceeded to be decimated in 2012. Since then, Blue Dogs have reinvented themselves as "younger, more diverse, socially liberal". Christian Science Monitor said "these are not your father’s Blue Dogs" and " Today’s coalition, however, looks a lot like the rest of the Democratic caucus: less white, less male, and less conservative... most members align with their party on issues like reproductive health, gun laws, and immigration. Many push back against being labeled conservative, or even moderate. Representative Murphy would rather they’re called 'pragmatic Democrats,' willing to work with Republicans and progressives alike to move practical legislation forward." Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Murphy and others want them called "pragmatic Democrats" or other, but that doesn't mean the change is official. It remains to be seen when sources can fully substantiate this change. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, the article still clearly establishes that there was a shift in the Blue Dogs in recent years. I'd like to see more sources but that article is much more updated than the John Bolton one. Watercheetah99 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I still don't feel right about using Blue Dogs. There are many state and local Democrats who would need to be monitored, plus the entire voter-base. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, and now the window shifts. You have no evidence - just give it up. There's no credible claim to using "center-right" here beyond misleading readers. Toa Nidhiki05 16:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry bud you'll need better sources for that one. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:SYNTH to point to Blue Dog sources and say that the entire conservative democrat faction is no longer conservative. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Find sources to back up your claims. You are the one demanding this be included. Toa Nidhiki05 16:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I have three. Conservative Democrats are center-right and fiscally conservative, with so-called "Reagan Democrats" having been influential throughout the 2016 presidential elections. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2022

Your first source is outdated and inaccessible. Your second says nothing about them being “center-right”. Your third is an opinion piece from John Bolton about Reagan Democrats leaving the party for good. Are you even reading what you write? Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like those statements to be in the article. The sources are more reliable than we are.

We can include your sources too, saying there was a shift. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Your sources are pretty questionable at best, certainly worst than the recent article from CSM. Even putting aside the label "Blue Dogs," other articles like this 538 article also don't note conservative Dems as center-right. If you can find better sources go ahead but right now, why should "center-right" remain? Watercheetah99 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing questionable about my sources. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The issues with the sources have been noted several times, scroll up. Watercheetah99 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I am changing my proposal to include your sources. Here is the proposal:

Conservative Democrats are center-right and fiscally conservative, with so-called "Reagan Democrats" having been influential throughout the 2016 presidential elections. However, in recent years, the U.S. House of Representatives "Blue Dog Coalition" has become more liberal, siding more with the party on major issues. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

My brother in Christ, can you even read what people are telling you? Toa Nidhiki05 17:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is you who cannot stay coherent! Altanner1991 (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple people have expressed issues with your sources. Do you have a response to this? Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The first source is a very professional encyclopedia on elections from 2012, the second source not mentioning center-right is irrelevant because it is for a different part of the sentence, and the third source is a reliable opinion piece from John Bolton about Reagan Democrats who are voting for a Republican candidate whilst still being "Democrat". It goes on to say that after Reagan, many of them "came back" to Democrat. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Again - the SAGE source is old. It's also worth noting the "center-right" stuff is in past-tense, referring to pre-2006 recruitment efforts, and it cuts off any discussion of the group after the 2010 election defeat. It's abundantly clear that this outdated, decade-old source is talking about historical stuff at this point. The second is absolutely irrelevant. The third is, again, literally an opinion piece from John Bolton about how Reagan Democrats (ie. voters) are voting for Republicans now. Even if we accept your premise that it's reliable, it is not talking about elected officials. I'd really encourage you to find better sources because this doesn't cut it Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You might say the first source is "old" but we can't take your word for that. We don't know who you are or what sources you're going by to make these original research conclusions of your own invention. The way I worded the sentences was good, it included your sources too.

The second source is "irrelevant"? I don't know how that is a good explanation.

The third source on Reagan Democrats is recent and has been important in politics, it should be included even if it is written by John Bolton. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the source is old does matter because, as newer sources have established, the Blue Dogs are not the same caucus they were in 2010. They have become more liberal, especially on social issues, and are typically regarded as centrists. The fact you can't find anything newer than a source that ends its story in the 2010 decimation tells me all I need to know here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's some more sources that refer to the Blue Dogs as center-left:

• Morning Consult - Still, Democratic strategists and some members of center-left organizations, such as the Blue Dog Coalition
• POLITICO - The push by the Blue Dog Coalition — a group of 18 center-left House Democrats

Toa Nidhiki05 18:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Well again the conservative Democrats as a whole are not being demonstrated in your sources. That's for the House caucus; we can't make the assumption that it represents the overall conservative Democrats. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep shifting those goalposts. Toa Nidhiki05 19:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, your claim involves too much WP:SYNTHESIS. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

So the SAGE source - which calls early Blue Dogs "center-right" - is fine to you, but the other, newer sources are not? Come on. Toa Nidhiki05 19:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, my proposed paragraph fully integrated your sources and claims. Here it is again:

Conservative Democrats are center-right and fiscally conservative, with so-called "Reagan Democrats" having been influential throughout the 2016 presidential elections. However, in recent years, the U.S. House of Representatives "Blue Dog Coalition" has become more liberal, siding more with the party on major issues. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that others in favor of the "center-right" tag need to join this discussion for it to go anywhere. I'm sorry Altanner1991 (talk · contribs) but you continue going in circles and using the same poor sources. To go anywhere this must change Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It is apparent that you didn't even read the discussion. All of the arguments against my sources were refuted without further rebuttal. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's some additional information from OnTheIssues, which is part of the Snopes media group. They analyze political views and here is what they found about some conservative Democrats:

• Joe Manchin - Moderate
• Kyrsten Sinema - Libertarian-leaning progressive
• Henry Cuellar - Moderate liberal populist
• Ed Case - Liberal-leaning progressive

None of them fall on the right side of the political spectrum here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research Altanner1991 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Read my last post too. I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself. Toa Nidhiki05 still has no support on here. On the other hand, there are numerous sources supporting our side, and you're refusing to consider them. First, to say that Reagan Democrats no longer exist is ridiculous. It has been reported that they had an impact on multiple recent elections - in the 2000 and 2004 elections and as recently as the 2016 election. Read this ref: as well as this one: . And once more, Conservative Dems have been described as center-right several times in multiple sources. First, Rolling Stone straight up calls Gabbard a right-winger in this ref: ; here Politico describes how Sinema started out as left-wing but then began a shift towards the center-right: ; and FiveThirtyEight describes here how Sinema "took a hard turn to the right" and how often both Sinema and Manchin voted with Trump: . Here, MSNBC reports on Manchin explaining why he believes the US is a "center-right country", his own words: . ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay then I am supporting them because these arguments are nonsense. Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) has brought forward several sources without response not to mention the previously refuted sources from Altanner1991 (talk · contribs) (1: from years ago, 2: irrelevant, 3: opinion piece from someone with an obvious vested interest in calling them center-right).

Your points also are questionable at best and misleading at worst: Reagan Democrats aren't a majorly talked about category anymore, the page itself notes the questions over their influence in 2016 and 2004 was eons ago politically - Reagan was last on a ballot almost 40 years ago and the ones that are still alive are mainly Republicans now as evidenced by those flipped counties remaining Republican in recent elections - even the sources have the same issues with one sources being the Bolton one again (lol) and the other source not even calling them "center-right"; yeah Rolling Stone derisively called Gabbard a "right-winger" mocking the similarities in her talking points, not analyzing her views at-large; the Politico article just doesn’t say "center-right" for Sinema - the quote is "she shifted toward the center" not center-right; the 538 article says she "took a hard turn to the right" compared to her old days as a Green Party member, also not once labeling her as "center-right," and Manchin never said he was "center-right," he said the nation is. The reason I originally did not pick a side was because I wrongly assumed that the other pro-"center-right" editors would have some great sources and data but what even is this, your own articles don't say what you said they do. Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that WP:RSP indicates Rolling Stone is unreliable for political coverage, so even if it said what Flyedit32 claims - and it doesn't - it doesn't matter. Toa Nidhiki05 12:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Your refutations against my sources make no sense.

My first source: This is the only source anyone has given that is for conservative Democrats as a whole, rather than extrapolating from Blue Dogs.

My second source: This source was being used for its own statement about fiscal conservatism; not implying it means anything beyond that.

My third source: Bolton didn't call them "center-right" because this source is about the Reagan Democrats. To this I would also add the National Review source given by Flyedit32. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

1: Still woefully outdated

2: Still not relevant,

3: Again, An opinion piece from someone with an obvious vested interest, it's literally John Bolton./The National Review piece is not only another source with an obvious vested interest, it simply does not say that those voters are "center-right." Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

1. Not outdated until something it places its place [typo fix], and an article on Blue Dogs doesn't count.

2. Not trying to be: it's for another argument.

3. Not trying to say center-right, again it's just about Reagan Democrats. Not sure why we can't include it; you need to be more descriptive. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted Flyedit32's Reagan Democrats addition. I have several reasons for this: 1) As Watercheetah99 and I have both noted, the John Bolton source is laughable and has a vested interest. 2) The National Review source is better but it's still talking about a small subset of voters in Macomb County, Michigan, not a faction. The word "faction" or "wing" is not used once in the article. Politicians were not elected to office as "Reagan Democrats". There was no internal faction of "Reagan Democrats" in Congress. To call this a faction would be like saying Obama Republicans or Trump Democrats are factions; they aren't. They are voters. From a political science perspective they are useful for identifying voting trends but practically useless for identifying factionalism. Because Reagan Democrats aren't a faction, they shouldn't be listed as a "see also" or mentioned as one. Toa Nidhiki05 17:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I have to say that if Clintonism is allowable then Reagan Democrats should be too. No reason a President's tendencies are any better than those of voters. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to removing Clintonism, I didn't add it. However, Clintonist Dems were and are absolutely a faction - Third Way. Toa Nidhiki05 18:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You raise a good argument, so I will agree with keeping Clintonism in the See also and I will agree with removing Reagan Democrats in the See also. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important to discuss actual legislation that conservative Dems have supported that puts them on the center-right: Joe Manchin (Manchin: Energy and environment)'s support of the Energy Tax Prevention Act and opposition to the Stream Protection Rule, his "war on coal" comments regarding Obama, his support of Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, his introduction of the Electricity Reliability and Fuel Security Act, his cosponsor of the Enhancing Fossil Fuel Energy Carbon Technology, his blocking of a ban on hydraulic fracturing, and his opposition of the "Clean Electricity Performance Program". Secondly, Tulsi Gabbard (Gabbard: LGBT issues)'s introduction of Protect Women's Sports Act and her endorsement of the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, and this ref, , with the tagline "As the former lawmaker and darling of the Bernie Sanders-supporting left has shifted right, she’s brought her supporters along.", as well as this ref, , which explains her pro-life stances. Thirdly, Kyrsten Sinema (Sinema: Economics & taxes and Minimum wage)'s support of repealing the estate tax, her cosponsoring of the Working Parents Flexibility Act, her vote to make individual tax cuts passed by the GOP [in 2017] permanent, her opposition to including a $15/hour minimum wage as part of a COVID-19 relief bill (with Manchin), and her vote against an increase of the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Lastly, if there are no refs that support the current/recent existence of Regan Democrat voters, then mention them as a historical voting faction that absolutely, obviously, had an impact in the 80s. That paragraph outlines the history of Conservative Dems anyway. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 23:04, 01 August 2022 (UTC)

This is literally all original research. Toa Nidhiki05 23:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Original research? Not at all. Flyedit just demonstrated why sources have said that the conservative Democrats do indeed have right-wing tendencies. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

What is original research is to say that Blue Dogs demonstrate conservative Democrats. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Conservative rewrite

I have to say that the rewrite is not serious and should be reverted. It is, though I WP:AGF, completely biased in tone and flow, and has removed critical items of information without explanation. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This was the very longstanding content which I would like restored as no consensus had been reached:

Today's conservative Democrats vary greatly in ideology. Some are fiscally conservative yet socially liberal, somewhat akin to the now rare Moderate Republicans, whereas others have a more communitarian ideology – that is, socially moderate but in favor of qualified economic intervention – reminiscent of Christian democrats in Europe and Latin America. Others such as former U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard have embraced more right-wing social issues, such as endorsing Florida House Bill 1557, colloquially known as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, as well as having supported legislation that would have banned transgender women from cisgender female sports.[47] [48] On foreign policy, conservative Democrats are generally liberal internationalists. Conservative Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are usually members of the Blue Dog Coalition, although there is some overlap with the New Democrats. The Blue Dog Coalition prioritizes pragmatic solutions to critical issues, "pursuing fiscal responsibility, ensuring a strong national defense, and transcending party lines to get things done for the American people."[49] It is co-chaired by Representatives Ed Case, Stephanie Murphy, and Tom O'Halleran. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you start a new discussion in a new section since this one is old and stale. I think this text has a few problems. I think it will make more sense if you treat Tulsi as a social conservative. The Blue Dogs and New Democrats are more economic conservatives but socially they're in-step - your Gottheimer, Stephanie Murphy, Spanberger. There are also war hawk neoconservative Democrats like fmr Sen Joe Lieberman. Andre🚐 03:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

This is already the new section because the previous one was for the same issues/edit wars. I think three sections might be too much, but I am open to other opinions if it should be yet another section. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It's typical etiquette to keep starting new sections when the old ones have gotten too long and old. Andre🚐 03:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. This section was last edited a fewcouple weeks ago and I have seen much larger discussion sections. If there are policies or guidelines about this, I would like to know, though. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC); edited 03:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines on sectioning. I'm not accusing you of violating the policy or doing something wrong. It's a judgment call, and new sections are often arbitrary. How about a subsection inside the end of this section. I'll meet you down there. Andre🚐 03:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for adding some content to the section: Conservative Democrats arehave been described as center-right and fiscally conservative, with so-called Reagan Democrats having been influential throughout the 2016 presidential elections. However, in recent years, the U.S. House of Representatives Blue Dog Coalition has become more liberal, siding more with the party on major issues. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC); edited 02:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No. Toa Nidhiki05 17:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well that's not a good argument. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That sentence and its sources have all of the same issues as the previous versions. Watercheetah99 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll copy over the last arguments that had been given:

"1: Still woefully outdated

2: Still not relevant,

3: Again, An opinion piece from someone with an obvious vested interest, it's literally John Bolton./The National Review piece is not only another source with an obvious vested interest, it simply does not say that those voters are "center-right." Watercheetah99 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)"

And my response:

"1. Not outdated until something takes it places its place [typo fix], and an article on Blue Dogs doesn't count.

2. Not trying to be: it's for another argument.

3. Not trying to say center-right, again it's just about Reagan Democrats. Not sure why we can't include it; you need to be more descriptive. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)"

Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC); edited 21:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's best we stop arguing with a brick wall here. Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well you're the brick wall because I have given arguments thoughtful rebuttals and you just shun them. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC); edited 19:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to reemphasize the fact that "conservative" Democrat is not just relative to the party. It is *illogical* to have the group without its core implication: conservatism. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 10:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see that the proposal is redacted. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits at Democratic Party (United States) show yet another editor is endorsing center-right for the *entire* Democratic Party and as recently as 2008. Toa: the editor even started a separate discussion on your talk page and yet you ignore that discussion as well; you need to be more open with other editors, especially to the fact that the Democratic Party was, in fact, conservative. In total, there are now three editors against you: myself, Flyedit32, and BootsED. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

We're not relitigating this again. Toa Nidhiki05 15:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The conservative sources are piling up. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I will not pursue putting the 2008 Democratic Party as center-right entire Democratic Party as center-right in 2008, but it does show weight for the conservative Democrats having been center-right. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC); edited 00:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I am also returning to my position that Reagan Democrat and Democrats for Life of America be in the section's See also template because in that way do the other factions have their equivalent "organizations" in that way. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 22:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, we're not relitigating this. Reagan Democrats aren't a thing anymore, and there's exactly one remaining pro-life Democrat in Congress; Democrats for Life isn't remotely notable. Toa Nidhiki05 21:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

If the section should be present, then the relevant See also (section template) items should likewise be present as well, even in their humble measures. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC); edited 22:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between "humble" and "nonexistent". Toa Nidhiki05 22:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Those terms are not at all "nonexistent". Reagan Democrats were mentioned at *mainstream* levels these past few years. Democrats for Life might be small, but it's big enough to have its own article on Wikipedia and it is just "proportionate" to the section at hand. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

We've been over this: Reagan Democrats are not relevant anymore. It has been decades. Democrats for Life are minuscule. Watercheetah99 (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Not a novel argument because it's exactly what Toa said: I usually do not see harsh interpretations of a See also section template, and it lacks tact to chip away at topics that have enough notability to still have articles. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Let's talk about the main point we want to add to the article. The conservative Democratic faction has certainly gotten smaller and more socially liberal since the early 2000s, 1990s or 80s. However we do have a few folks in there for sure. Gabbard, Manchin, I mentioned the late Zell Miller as the archetypical one, Joe Lieberman left the party to run I and he stopped the public option + was a Bush enabler, I think he spoke at the RNC. You might call Mike Bloomberg a conservative Democrat. Also that one guy from the primary with the bowtie. Andre🚐 03:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think an essential question would be, whether or not this article will include only sources about federal representatives as the basis for a "faction", or, if state and local would also help determine what is or is not a faction of the Democratic Party. It makes no sense to show only the federal House of Representative and Senate as the Democratic Party. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That's true, the factions of the Democratic Party, like most political parties, are mostly ideological. So when you read about say a local representative like Jeffrey D. Klein, there was actually a New York Independent Democratic Conference which was a breakaway faction of conservative Democrats. They were then primaried and defeated by Alessandra Biaggi, a progressive who just lost to a different moderate Dem, Sean Patrick Maloney. All politics is local. Andre🚐 04:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

With Pew in 2019 reporting most democrats either moderate or conservative, the "federal perspective" might not be the best one, as it seems within the party (state or local) there are many more conservatives. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't give too much weight to a self-reported result from a Pew survey. It's more about what the sources as a whole say about things. Manchin is a conservative Dem, and self-described as such[2]. Not too many other Senators would be described similarly. The next most conservative current Senators tend to be considered moderates. There might be some other examples of conservative Dems that we could find. In the house, the most conservative Dem seems to be Jared Golden[3] and I think Henry Cuellar attracted attention for his view on abortion. Andre🚐 04:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Still just federal, which I disagree. State and local should be considered. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No I agree, it's all of the above. Jeff Klein was a state guy that I mentioned. Each state undoubtedly has more examples. I don't know many other states' politics other than NY. Andre🚐 05:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Another weight-y example: the latest governor of Louisiana John Bel Edwards is very pro-life, pro-gun and is deemed to be a conservative Democrat.

At this point it's about Wikipedia:BALANCE: how much do conservative Democrats deserve to be mentioned? Altanner1991 (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

All of this is original research. Toa Nidhiki05 04:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Then every sentence on Wikipedia is original research. What is further basis for your argument? Unfortunately, they too often shirk rationale in favor of blanket statements. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not original research because we're just spitballing here. I haven't proposed or carried out an edit. I can source every fact that I just relied on, but we're just talking right now. So hold your horses. We're trying to orient ourselves and agree on the background. I'm not proposing what I just said off the cuff is an article text proposal. Andre🚐 04:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: @Toa Nidhiki05: @Flyedit32: @BootsED: I have decided that conservative Democrat is, perhaps tour de force, stronger than center-right. The other content disputes were mostly about conduct, so there's no need to push this any further. I would still be open to other opinions, otherwise this section can be closed. Altanner1991 (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

References

What is this article actually about?

I think this article actually needs a serious rework. Just from a brief glance, there's so much synthesis of sources, original research, and generally unreferenced claims that large chunks of the main sections need substantial fact checks and reworking. Moreover, the sheer amount of images on the page is too much - we have dozens of pictures of politicians, some of which are useful but others are fairly unimportant backbenchers or any random representative that falls in a demographic category. The demographic categories at the bottom are also too broad; for example, Hindu and Buddhist voters is both a questionable grouping (the two are not the same religion) and also a fairly small one, as maybe 1.5% of Americans identify as either religion combined compared to 2.4% for Jews (and even more as a demographic group). Moreover, the coverage of current vs. historical wings in the same section is problematic and confusing. What I'd recommend:

1) Rework the section on factions into two separate sections - one on the current factions of the Democratic Party, and one on the historical wings of the Democratic Party (ie. copperheads, War Democrats segregationists, Bourbon Democrats, boll weevils, Jacksonians, historical progressives), and one on the present factions (ie. progressives, liberals, moderates, and conservatives).

2) Trim the demographic section to focus more specifically on the key Democratic constituencies: low-income voters, college and postgrad-educated voters, union members, black voters, hispanic voters, asian voters, jewish voters (excluding Orthodox Jews), and more.

This article could be drastically improved, in my opinion - it would just take some effort. Toa Nidhiki05 18:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense that Christians are removed but Blacks stay. I thought it was to only have "official" factions, and not just any "voting blocs". Altanner1991 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure how the voting blocs fit here honestly. Could be its own article entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 19:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest a section move (including the portions on Christians, unmarried people, etc) to Votership of the Democratic Party (United States). Altanner1991 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer a name like Demographics of the Democratic Party (United States) but I like the idea in principle. Thoughts Watercheetah99 Flyedit32? Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I support Demographics of the Democratic Party (United States). Altanner1991 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

I would like to restore the relevant deleted portions until the section move/established consensus for this discussion. This is to ensure a stable transition. Please raise any objections if that is a problem. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I object. Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I can perform the section to article move over the next couple days, unless someone else wants to do it. Altanner1991 (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Done. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Moderate politics

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

This concern is considered closed as the element in question has remained stable in the article. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

Yes, this article needs help

This article does seem to have some issues with needing additional sources and possibly shouldn't be organized the way it is, there may have been original research going into writing the article. I think the general ideas behind the article are sound, but we need to make sure it's supported properly and referenced properly. Andre🚐 23:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There is also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics#Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). Altanner1991 (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I should say that the "conservative Democrat" section is dubious because no federal representatives qualify as conservative. Any interpretation of conservative Democrat as "relative/intraparty" would need to be backed by reliable sources. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of sources that describe conservative Democrats historically. Zell Miller comes to mind. In terms of current folks, Joe Manchin. Andre🚐 00:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I suppose there is enough weight for them to still be in the article. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Historical factions

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

Wall of text photo captions?

Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden is NOT a liberal.

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

Conservative Democrats

Why was Conservative Democrats removed as a faction when there are still conservative democrats in congress such as Henry Cuellar, Joe Manchin and Vicente Gonzalez? and there are many more conservative Democrats in state legislatures and executive departments too. And if the article Conservative Democrat isn't going to be deleted, then I feel the section about conservative Democrats needs to be restored, because they're not just a historical faction, they still exist. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Oogalee Boogalee, I removed the "conservative Democrats" section. The section was outdated and poorly sourced. I moved some of the content to the "historical factions" section. I tend to disagree with your analysis; however, if there is reliably-sourced information about a current faction of conservative Democrats (as distinct from a current faction of moderate Democrats or a few individual conservative Democrats here and there that do not make up a faction), I am open to the creation of a section on a current faction of conservative Democrats. MonMothma (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe we should include Conservative Democrats in the factions section of the page as it is currently included as a faction of the party on the main Democratic Party page. It is inconsistent if one page on the Democratic Party states that conservatives are a "faction" yet the page on the factions of the Democratic Party says they are not. Possibly copying the conservative section on the main page and including it as a faction on this page could solve this issue. As other editors have stated conservative democrats are in decline, but are still present. This source sums it up pretty nicely. BootsED (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Following up on my previous post, if the consensus is to keep conservatives mentioned as a sub-faction of moderates, then removing the conservative section on the main page would bring our two pages into agreement. Conservative Democrats could then be simply listed as a "see also" under the Moderates section of this and the main page. BootsED (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

BootsED, I'd be fine with that. I agree that the two pages should be consistent with each other. In reviewing the "Conservative Democrats" section of the Democratic Party page, I don't see anything indicating that a conservative Democratic faction still exists. MonMothma (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)