Talk:Democratic Party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Portal:United States
 United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic Party (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review Democratic Party (United States) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Democratic Party (United States): edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

Things to do:

  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. Archive 4
  5. Archive 5


Contents

[edit] infobox party = "Democrat"?

I have been seeing this in many, many infoboxes in many biographical articles. It seems to me the party should read "Democratic"...unless Democrat is considered an adjective describing the candidate rather than the party, maybe this should be changed? Hazydan 08:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So you would have to go back and change this in all of historic writings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.7.186 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Pictures of Kerry, Obama, Patrick, and Clinton Should be Removed

I motion that the pictures of John Kerry, Barack Obama, Deval Patrick, and Hillary Clinton be removed. Kerry did not win the 2004 race and should be removed, if we leave his picture up there, we should put pictures of Samuel Tilden, William Jennings Bryan and Adlai Stevenson on this article as well. Obama has been in the Senate for less than two years, and the talk of him being President is mere guesswork, from looking simply at the interviews and speeched he has given. Deval Patrick has not even served one day as Governor of Massachusetts, so I have no clue why he is on here. Hillary's main claim to fame is that she was first lady, and her reason her picture is on the article is like Obama's picture's reason for being on the article. I motion that we have a new rule, where former Democratic Presidents and House Speakers should only have their pictures on the article, to preserve the historical continuity of the article (This allows Pelosi to stay in the article, since she is all but certain to be House Speaker next January). Shaunnol 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We do indeed have pictures/posters of Tilden, Bryan and Stevenson on this or the History of Dem party website. It seems unwise to remove the people who are most talked about. Rjensen 11:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

They are the most talked about as of now-- I think that in the near future (2008) we should remove their pictures and replace them with the new current crop of democratic stars. That is the advantage of having an online encyclopedia--we will always be relevant!

Perhaps we should include a picture of Thomas Jefferson because the Democrats are referred to as "the Party of Jefferson" and ideologically this would give people an idea of the Democratic Parties' roots. Zubdog 2:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Shaunnol, what criteria would you use for pictures? John Kerry did lose the last presidential election but he's still a Senator from Massachusetts and a major player in the Party. If he's yesterday's news, then what exactly is your argument against Deval Patrick? He's tomorrow's news? I think those people are excellent representatives of the Party today. Showing former Demo Presidents and Speakers wouldn't reflect the Party very well in my mind. That might be historically accurate but less relevant for today. Middlenamefrank 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent issues section organization

While I like the Recent issue stances section, I think it needs to be organized by category. However, I am at a loss as to what categories to create. the ones I have come with are:

  • Economic issues (for Minimum Wage, Energy Independence, etc.)
  • Social issues (or Cultural issues) (for Health care, reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, etc.)
  • Legal issues (for USA PATRIOT act, torture, etc.)

These don't seem quite adequate. Any feedback? --Primalchaos 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How about foreign policy issues -- UN, war, treaties, trade agreements, nuclear proliferation, etc. Jpers36 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe controversy and popularity -- How the United States veiws the Democratic Party and how many members it has. Mr.Weirdo 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, foreign policy should be added. As far as the controversy/popularity thing, the section is dedicated to the positions of the Democratic party, not other people's position on them. Also, adding that seems to be inviting an edit war.--Primalchaos 12:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I just want to be included, okay? I'm new at this. --Mr.Weirdo 00:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I implemented the changes. I tried adding a 'foreign policy' section, but none of the stances listed seemed to fit.--Primalchaos 05:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add a subsection on how national Democrats voted on authorizing force against Afghanistan ("those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States") and Iraq under Foreign policy issues. Also, trade issues are absent from economic issues. I may get around to dealing with that later but I wouldn't mind if someone stepped in and did it instead. It could also go under "Foreign policy issues."Settler 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If anyone is confused by this edit, just know that it means that Dems are slightly more apt to rely on and use international institutions in regard to foreign policy than Republicans, who tend to emphasize realism) a bit more than Dems (a la Henry Kissinger et al, though the Dems also have a strong realist vein). The Wikipedia articles on the various international relations theories are pretty poor overall, so I figured it warranted an explanation here. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the early history is still a jumble

This is a complex issue so it's no surprise that it's taking a while to get right, but the early history is still incredibly unclear in the article. In fact reading the appropriate sections of this talk page is more enlightening. The fundamental problem is that what exactly happened in the transition from Jefferson's party to Jackson's party is complex. This article in parts speaks of them as separate parties, in parts as the same party, and in other parts as some nebulous in-between thing (the latter is more or less the case). In my opinion a lot of the history is being thrown off by edit-warring over the specific date of founding (1792? 1822? 1824? 1828?), which seems to result in the rest of the article being papered over in one direction or another. Our reader ought to be able to read the history part of this article and come away with at least some very basic understanding of the situation, i.e. Jefferson founded a party, there was chaos within the party in the 1820s, Jackson either founded a new party out of the remnants or significantly reorganized it, and since Jackson's time it's been more or less stable. --Delirium 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic Party Wikipedia page states that the Democrats 'trace their origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792' and that it is 'the oldest political party in the world today'. This is frankly incorrect due to the fact that the British Conservative Party can trace its origins back to the Tory faction who supported the Duke of York (later King James VII & II) during the exclusion crisis of 1671-1681 and then its origins are found in the Tory Party. Whilst it is difficult to pinpoint the exact creation of the Tory Party it is possible to state that the Tory Party established a secure hold on government in England from 1783 (a full nine years before the date cited as the starting point of the origins of the Democratic Party in the USA). See: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=party.history.page for further information. (suggested amendment submitted by Robsonm - Oxford, England)Robsonm 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Some earlier discussion is here. Settler 01:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

More vandals again, notably on one of the sections on Hilary Clinton. I'd like to clean it up and then lock it to prevent this stuff from happening.

I just semi-protected the page from editing from anons and new users (less than 4 days). Nishkid64 22:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic party Logo has been vandalised and needs edited. (It won't let me do it) Also ,some vandal completely changed the page, when i view it, it lists a long insult using the eff word a lot. Im a republican supporter but this is just wrong.

[edit] 2008

Ive been watching the 2008 presidential election as it unfolds and I think this combo would be good:

Barack Obama (for President)
Phil Bredesen (for Vice President)

Obama Bredesen 08

They would both appeal to the South and Midwest, where the Democrats need the votes the most. What other combos would be good?

Monbro 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that talk pages are not usually designated for casual conversations, but more for the actual development of the article. So, in the future, please discuss something related to the article. Thanks! By the way, Barack for '08! Bredesen would be a good choice to get the Southern and Midwest vote, but I was thinking of a Southerner with more political experience. Nishkid64 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't use talk pages for political discussions. Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines)--Jersey Devil 22:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plans

I am merging the current 21 century history into the History of the United States Democratic Party article, as outlined in the To-Do list at the top of this talk page:

As the new History of the United States Democratic Party article has been created, bring the history section (especially the subsection "21st century" down to a reasonable size, while still keeping it detailed and informative.

The history from 2005 to the present will be left alone, while the two subsections of the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 will be edited down in this article to the important parts. Settler 23:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: Small change regarding Stem Cells

The statement that Republicans' opposition to embryo derived stem cells is religiously motivated is false. Morals and religion, although closely related, are not the same. One can have the belief that the destruction of an embryo is morally wrong without having any religious convictions whatsoever.

Thank you for your consideration.

Wayne Kahler (registered independent) fenderacoustic@mail.com

I thought I caught and removed most of the extra text about the Republican Party's positions in that section; thanks for pointing that out. That section is supposed to be for describing the Democrats' positions, not Republicans' positions, so I removed it. The Republican Party (United States) should be consulted for such matters relating to their political positions. Settler 04:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Trade Issue

I put it a paragraph on free trade, (it got reverted saying it should probably be discussed on talk page a bit, so here I am!) My new version...

The Democratic party has a mixed record on free trade that reflects a diversity of viewpoints in the party: more conservative and moderate Democrats are for free trade while those further to the left as well as union forces are against free trade. In the 90s, the Clinton administration and a number of prominent Democrats were for free trade and pushed through a number of agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In fact Al Gore's strong performance against Ross Perot in a famous debate on NAFTA on the show Larry King Live helped secure passage of the bill. Since then, many Democrats have moved away from the free trade ideas that were so prominent during the Clinton years and opposed free trade agreements. [1] Often this opposition to free trade is described as support for fair trade.

This is an important issue, but it's kind of hard to tackle because different democrats believe different things and the leadership position has been evolving. (It's hard not to oversimiplify a bit when you want to keep it ultra short-1 paragraph short). And I don't think describing Al Gore's performance as strong is POV... This debate helped secure passage of the NAFTA bill, established Al Gore's reputation as a strong debater and made Ross Perot the butt of numerous jokes (I believe this is the source of the famous, "Can I finish" Ross Perot qoute). Comments? Good to go in? Mgunn 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't comment further on the Gore/Perot debate characterization, but would like to hear what others think. My main remaining quibble with the paragraph, however, is that it casts the debate entirely in terms of support for or opposition to free trade agreements. For instance, it merely says that some Democrats are opposed to free trade currently without explaining why (i.e. job outsourcing, among other reasons). I generally support free trade, so I'm not pushing my POV here, but I think the more populist position on trade needs to be explained a little better (obviously, it's just a blurb, so not too much can and should be said, I just think a bit more explanation is necessary). For what it's worth, I strongly agree with you that the party's position on trade needs to be discussed in the article. Thanks for the contribution. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic Party scandals

User:BryanFromPalatine recently added this subsection about specific scandals involving individuals who just so happen to be Democrats. While I strongly believe that articles about political parties should discuss major scandals intimately tied to those parties (Watergate should obviously be discussed in the Republican Party's article, for instance), the "scandals" added by BryanFromPalatine are not, in fact, "Democratic Party scandals," but rather scandals involving individuals who just so happen to be Democrats. Thus, the addition, in my view, easily violates WP:NPOV and are inappropriate to list in *this* article (but not in the individuals' articles) per WP:NPOV#Undue weight (on top of the fact that the list is unencyclopedic, or at least written as such). Finally, the list is essentially entirely unreferenced, causing WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP problems. Though the lack of citations could be cured, the NPOV problem cannot. On top of all of the above is the fact that it's just a bad idea to set a precedent where editors go to political party articles and add subsections full of things like "Member of Parliament X, MAIL FRAUD". Two things that do need mentioning in the article text, however, are the impeachment trials of Clinton and Johnson. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the Free Republic talk page. That's where the inspiration to edit that way came from. Settler 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather stay away from all things freep, thank you very much :). Free Republic sure is inspiration for a lot of great ideas, isn't it? · j e r s y k o talk · 04:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Johnson was made VP by the temporary amalgamation of the National Union Party, opposed by the regular Democratic Party nominees. Though Republicans deserted him, it's not entirely the Democratic Party's fault he became President in the first place. Settler 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much a WP:POINT violation. Not to mention WP:NOT a soapbox.--Jersey Devil 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Um... huh? Discussing article changes out of bounds? Noting that Johnson was brought into office by the National Union Party, opposed by the Democrats, is a POV? Settler 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I was referring to the other user making edits on the page solely for the purpose of proving a point made in the Free Republic talk page.--Jersey Devil 05:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I got confused for a minute there. I'll get back to my usual editing then. Cheers. Settler 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
User:BryanFromPalatine promised to add negative info into 'left of center' org's articles, and said he would add serial killer John Wayne Gacy to this page. He's upset that Freeper and alleged Fake Anthrax letter terrorist Chad Castagana, who was arrested only weeks ago, is included in the Free Repubic article. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, no political organization (like Free Republic or the Democratic Party) can run background checks on the people who join -- or vote for it, in the case of a political party. The best that it can do is throw out people who are guilty of misconduct, once they become aware of that misconduct. Chad Castagana has been repeatedly banned from Free Republic, and yet there is a persistent effort on the part of certain editors here to include references to him, and to all other members of Free Republic who ever did anything naughty (such as the individual from Democratic Underground who opened an FR account in order to post personal information about the owner of Chuy's Restaurant). Until I came along, the only issues being discussed over there was not WHETHER, but HOW the information about them should be included.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Turnabout is fair play. What goes around, comes around. If it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include information about Chad Castagana and the Chuy's personal information posts in the FR article, then it is appropriate to include information about every registered Democratic voter who was ever arrested for a crime in the Democratic Party article; it is appropriate to include information about every person who ever had an account at DU and was ever arrested for a crime in the DU article; etc., etc. Pick a policy and apply it equally across the board. I kind of like the policy proposed by Jerseyko: they "... are inappropriate to list in *this* article (but not in the individuals' articles) per WP:NPOV#Undue weight ..." If that policy is applied to such temporary members of Free Republic as Chad Castagana, and similar incidences in articles about conservative organizations, with the same promptness and vigor that Jerseyko has displayed here, you can watch carefully as I quietly fade away. BryanFromPalatine 12:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You say "turnabout is fair play," . . . . except that those of us editing this article aren't "playing" at Free Republic, so there's no "turnabout". Jersey Devil's right, you really need to read Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Finally, I wasn't "proposing" policy, I was interpreting the undue weight policy to make an editorial decision (good luck trying to interpret it to delete the one controversy from the Free Republic article). · j e r s y k o talk · 14:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with Jersyko here. This is a venue for academic interest, not political jingoism. Those individual controversies are based covered in individual politician's article, and already are.--Primal Chaos 20:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Most of the Castagana info was deleted from the article. It used to say:
"Free Republic founder Jim Robinson aknowledged that Castagana had been a poster at Free Republic, and had been the subject of bannings in the past. Robinson noted that Castagana's last username had been Marc Costanzo. The posts in question were determined to be Castagana's by examination of the IP logs, admitted Robinson."
"Castagana wrote about the letter-threat incidents on Free Republic, in one case noting Keith Olbermann's reported reaction to receiving one of the letters Castagana is alleged to have sent. Castagana, posting as Costanzo whose sig line read "Name your poison", wrote on Free Republic on 10-30-2006 regarding the Olbermann letter-threat "I do not believe he sent it to himself. But that is just guess work." and "I heard from a liberal blog that Olbermann was a prima donna at the hospital..."
That's notable info for the FR article, just like the Killian Docs, and Jerome Corsi. I can understand that you are upset that a fellow freeper is an anti-semetic domestic terrorist wannabe, but your actions are innappropriate. Take your concerns to the FR talk page, or an RfC. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Democrat Party"

Should the use of the term "Democrat Party" by opponents of the Democratic Party be discussed somewhere in this article? See the discussion at this article: Democrat Party (phrase). Wiki, believe it or not, actually has an article called "Democrat Party"! Griot 09:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

with 1 million google hits on "Democrat Party" it's notable , especially since Bush and many leading Republicans and talk radio types favor the term.Rjensen 09:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
But you don't know what those hits are. To blogs? To "Democrat Parties" in Liberia. Please, let's not substitute finger-wiggling

over they keyboard for scholarly investigation. Griot 18:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

we do know that in Indiana, one state that requires political organizations to legally incorporate with the Secretary of State, there are 34 local groups with "Democrat" as part of their legal name) versus 226 that use "Democratic"). These seem to be active local clubs. (Brown County is the official county organization). Alphabetically the first few are as follows: 17TH DISTRICT DEMOCRAT CLUB, INC.; INDIANAPOLIS, IN 17TH WARD DEMOCRAT CLUB INC; ANDREW JACKSON DEMOCRAT CLUB OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY IN; BLOOMFIELD DEMOCRAT INCORP; BROWN COUNTY DEMOCRAT CENTRAL COMMITTEE CORPORATION; CITY OF PORTAGE DEMOCRAT CLUB; CLARK COUNTY DEMOCRAT MEN'S CLUB, INC.; and CLINTON COUNTY DEMOCRAT CLUB INC. source: [2]. The point: when you get a lawyer and file with the state government, 10-15% of the local clubs use the term "Democrat" . This shows the terminology is reasonably widespread in and out of the Democratic party.Rjensen 18:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
In other words, more than 85-90% of the clubs are against it, for BLOOMFIELD DEMOCRAT and similar cases use the noun, not the adjective; there is consensus against it within the Democratic Party of (red) Indiana. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that "Democratic" is favored by 80-90% of Democrats; and perhaps half the prominent Republicans and conservatives. But the fact that so many Dems officially use the "Democrat-adjective" version suggests there is no deep hostility to its use at the Dem party grass roots. Rjensen 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Amd much of that 90% is deeply hostile, as the sources at Democrat Party (phrase) say; both as a partisan offense and on grammatical grounds. It is a very rare proposal indeed that can't get 10% adherents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the various political epithets being made into separate articles, and made my views clear in the past about that particular one, but if the alternative is to merge that whole article into this one, I would be against that. At the moment there's a whole sentence or two about it now in this article. I suppose one more could be added. Don't anyone mark me down as being tenacious about doing that either... Settler 09:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
No. Not because I see any offensiveness in it, I am not a Democrat I do not care, but it is no different than people saying "Republics" in reference to Republicans. Most of the time it is just a misspelling or mispronunciation. --Revolución hablar ver 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
"Most of the time it is just a misspelling or mispronunciation." I mean absolutely no offense, Revolución, but I think a healthier dose of political cynicism is in order. For example, allow me to introduce you to Frank Luntz . . . ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 15:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It may interest one to know tho that in Spanish the name for the U.S. Democratic Party is Partido Demócrata which does literally mean "Democrat Party", instead of Partido Democrático, which of course means "Democratic Party". This Spanish version is on the official Democratic Party website. --Revolución hablar ver 15:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Democratic Party Ideology: Centrist or Center-Left?

This is probably a debate that will last for months, so we might as well start it now--that is, the depiction of the Democratic Party as a party of the political center.

I personally do think that the term "centrist" does describe the party--especially in recent years with the rise of the DLC and the centrist candidates in the 2006 elections. However, this should be coupled with "populist" in the ideology tag of the party infobox for the reason that those candidates have shown economically interventionist policies and other causes that are considered "populist" to their constituents.

Finally, the terms "liberal" is something that should be kept, because there are liberals and progressives in the party. KruusCosko 19:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "liberal" should not be kept, or at least changed to "social liberalism" as is, perhaps, more accurate. The party's stance on economics may represent the american definition of liberalism, but not the global one. The democratic party is the closest thing the united states has to a functioning social democratic party in the vein of New Labour, not a liberal party like the FDP in germany, or the Venstre in Denmark.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.130.128.18 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Proposed issues to resolve

  • (1) An editor has suggested that this article is too long and is in need of work in reducing its length.
  • (2) Another editor has expressed the opinion that there are too many images.
  • (3) Finding a reputable citation for "Andrew Jackass" that's not just some other article using this Wikipedia article as its original source.


As for (1), I started cutting down the size of the 21st century history until part of it was unfortunately readded by another editor. Obviously whatever edits I or anyone else makes may not be satisfactory to everyone.
(2), I've removed various photos in the past, and added some; what looks good at resolutions of 800x600 or 1024x768 does not look so great at higher resolutions or on widescreen displays. I'll probably remove a portrait or photo or two shortly and move another around but I suppose it's worth having the discussion.
(3) is rather self-explanatory. Settler 03:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed a portrait of Speaker "Champ" Clark, moved Wilson's and O'Neill's, and removed Obama's because he is neither a president, speaker, nominee, nor leader of the Democratic Party. His photo could replace Clinton's in the future should something change in regards to this party's future presidential nomination. Settler 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the pictures, but I won't argue if others think there are too many :(. Summary style might be useful, though. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I revised the paragraph "According to one theory, in its original form, the jackass was born in the intense mudslinging that occurred during the presidential race of 1828 as a play on the name of Andrew Jackson, the Democratic candidate. Jackson had been called "Andrew Jackass," and the defiant Jackson adopted the nickname," until a reliable source or scholar can be found for the claim, particularly one that doesn't appear to be so modern as to be using Wikipedia itself. Settler 09:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me first say that the elected "progressive" wing of the party is just as numerous as the elected "conservative" wing of the party. Also, I object to the placement of the label "center-left" because by normal standards the Democratic Party is overall a right-wing party. Therefore, I propose the following sets of ideological identifiers:



or

  • Centrism
  • Liberalism
  • Progressivism
  • Neo-liberalism
  • Conservatism

Thoughts? --Revolución hablar ver 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. If "normal standards" are European Democratic Socialist parties, yes, the Democratic Party *might* be termed a "conservative" party. Even that label is arguable, however, as I would argue that it is more accurately centrist by European standards (think social issues, for example). However, it is certainly not conservative by Latin American standards (nor is it leftist by those standards), African standards, or Asian standards. And it is not conservative in terms of American political norms. Yes, some members of the Party are further to the right than others. However, the sheer numbers of Democratic Party members in the House that support things like these pieces of legislation demonstrate that the Party is not a conservative party. As a more concrete example, let's look at the label neo-liberalism as applied to the Party: a strong neo-liberal would eschew talk of raising the minimum wage (and would most likely argue that it should be eliminated completely), while the Democratic Party in the House voted with no intra-party dissent to raise it. While the Democratic Party perhaps has a neo-liberal streak, I believe it's wrong to use it as one of the main descriptors of the Party. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Conservative how? Socially, or economically? The fact is that America doesn't have any choices available for true conservatives or true liberals, just two irritatingly hypocritical centrist parties, one economically liberal and socially conservative, the other economically conservative and socially liberal. From the viewpoint of a person who is liberal on both topics, neither party is very appealing at all. Politics is not so one-dimensional; a single word can't describe a political party. Kasreyn 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop saying that it is center-left. Anything even slightly to the left in this country is considered communist and will not earn as much as a seat. I would even put that it is center-right but I don't want to get into pointless arguments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cff12345 (talk • contribs).

The Demoratic party is ABSOLUTELY center-left. Left wing would be the Socialist Party or the Communist party. Saying "center left" does not imply that the party is a "centrist" party, it just means that they are not the extreme left wing. DanielZimmerman 21:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the platforms of most center-left governments to that of the US Democratic Party, you'll find that the US tends to be more center and conservative than the traditional center-left parties. I wouldn't call it conservative (though arguably it is on some issues), but I do believe centrist is an accurate definition. It's definitely less socialist than traditional center-left parties, but that is due to the hostility shown by most Americans to that term. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop changing it back to center-left already! The Democratic Party is often very liberal and supports state funding and control of lots of programs but not so much as to make it left of center. And do not remove this discussion entry like you did last time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cff12345 (talk • contribs).

No discussion was removed. Perhaps it's in the archive of this talk page. What, exactly, are you calling the "center"? The European center? In American terms, the Democratic Party is centrist, center-left, and liberal (generally accepted to be the "left" in American terms). You seem to agree that it's both liberal and centrist, but don't like the center-left descriptor. Again, in American terms, it's somewhat illogical to refer to the party as centrist and liberal but not something between the two. For what it's worth, I agree with you that, in an international sense, the Democratic Party is more centrist than, say, most democratic socialist parties. Perhaps all of this could be resolved if the link to the center left article were merely removed, leaving only the descriptor. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved your post to the bottom of the page, because that is where it is supposed to be. That is where new topics belong. See the talkheader. Settler 17:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This user is trying to push a WP:POV. I personally believe that both center and center-left should been in the infobox.--Jersey Devil 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Generally parties of the centre-right support liberal democracy, capitalism, and the market economy, private property rights and the existence of the welfare state in some form..." - you see, isn't it true that you could call the Democratic Party a center-right party as well? I believe this is the argument that Cff12345 is making - as CENTRISM is used to describe the location of international political parties in relation to one another in terms of economy and liberties. Thus, I think it's not a good argument to suggest that we use the term "centrism" relative to typical American ideology, as this article is really supposed to remove the reader from such a bias as relativism. Other users have noted that the Democrats promote intervention in the economy which is something in common with Center-left. However, the same argument could be made using the definition of Center-Right. Consequently, the Democratic Party has THE MOST in common with actual centrism itself and so should be given this label instead. I'm removing Center-left from the page, and if another user must add it again, I'd expect a better argument than the fact that the Democratic Party is center-left by American standards. Rob Shepard 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe POVs

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. (a)

A user has been promoting the inclusion of a conspiratorial article created yesterday, mostly revolving around a person without a biography here, (Mr. Hassan Nemazee). Fringe views about Iran illegally funding and controlling/influencing the Democratic Party do not belong in this article. That is not to claim their future guilt or innocence in this supposed matter. Settler 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire article seems to be wild speculation and original research. I suspect it would not survive Afd. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Oldest political party?

The footnote states that "The British Parliamentary parties were not based on the voters until the mid 19th century." I don't see how this makes them other than political parties. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34 8 January 2007 (GMT).

Yeah it seems like quite a bold assumption that nobody in the world thought of an idea to make a political union with like minded people with rules and regulations for 6,000 years prior to the Democratic party to contest elections. Anyway the Whigs and the Tories were close enough to be considered political parties, they just wouldn't be under the current standards. The footnote is probably referring to the rebranding into the Liberal and Conservative parties. Although I would like to know what "Based on the voters" means. I'd rather it was changed, I'm not american so I don't know 18th century US politics, but being the first American political party is still a strong feit in itself, to claim its the first in the world as an absolute fact isn't really something that can be proved. Mikebloke 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The British "parties" were factions in Parliament. Voters did not count. The American parties started that way but by the late 1790s they were rooted in the electorate--a system Britain adopted years later. Historians have been pretty good in tracking political history of every country, so their results are reasonably sound. Two recent British scholars say: "the Democratic Party has a good claim to being the world's oldest political party" [ John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America (2004) - Page 315]; a leading historian says:

"The Democratic party still survives as an institution (it is the oldest political party in the world)" [from D W Howe, The Political Culture of the American Whigs (1984) - Page 12]; from political science: "the Democratic party in American politics—the oldest political party in the world." [Gary L. Rose, The American Presidency Under Siege - (1997) Page 151]. Rjensen 09:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a common claim of their presidents as well. President Clinton described his party as "the oldest political party in all of democracy anywhere." [3] President Kennedy said "The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the world" [4] [5] [6] [7], Carter said his party was the "the oldest continuing political party in the world" [8] [9], etc.
Perhaps it could be slightly rewritten to eliminate the trailing footnote. Settler 10:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be that both Clinton and Kennedy said that, but without any proof, that's only their opinion. --Sibenordy 22:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Some Republifascist recently deleted the entire article and replaced it with some incomprehensible garbage. The recent vandalism shows the stupidity and the brain-dead nature of the conservative movement. Please restore the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.214.143 (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I second the above post - there's something wrong with this article that doesn't show up on the edit page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mchandl5 (talk • contribs).

It looks fine to me. What specific edit(s) are people suspicious of? Settler 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I just caught someone sneakily vandalizing this talk page by editing this article. Annoying. Settler 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Woah. I fired up Internet Explorer (which I usually avoid) while not logged in and the page was heavily vandalized. Now I see what you mean. But then I hit refresh and the vandalism disappeared. If I clear the browser cache, and refresh, the vandalism reappears. Specifically, it is this vandalism in question. Settler 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked the templates used in this article, too, and none of them appear to have been vandalized recently. Odd that one incident of vandalism resulted in so many comments here. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Log out, and completely clear your browser cache, and then check the article. The vandalism is stuck on the page. That's a problem. Settler 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
On further experimentation, it seems to not affect other browsers that I've tested besides Internet Explorer. Settler 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I never use IE, but I got the vandalized version when I checked the page without logging in. When I checked it a second time (after closing IE and reopening), however, it was fine. I wonder if this warrants mention at WP:ANI, or if it's just a bug that will work itself out soon. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The New Democrats, Centrists and the DLC was singled out for criticism under the Factions section so I removed it; I do that as well as under the justification of helping to reduce this article's length. The briefest of overviews probably doesn't need it anyway as it is more appropriately dealt with under the linked articles in that section. Settler 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal anti-abortion/pro-lifers

Reliable source(s) are needed for "Not all pro-life Democrats are conservative Democrats, however. Many are quite liberal, in fact." because a similar phrase was asked for a citation a while back by another editor and none ever came. And "in fact" is a form of a weasel word when constructing an article, particularly without attribution. Once reliably sourced, it could be reintegrated with better writing. Settler 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would guess the intended referent is the late Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, or his son, Bob Casey, Jr.. Pro-life issues aside, neither is a conservative Democrat, strictly speaking; and the son is fairly liberal on several issues. I'm sure there are other instances, and that this, with some effort, can be sourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The long article

this is the longest article i have seen on wikipedia. it desperately needs to be split upMissy1234 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Some articles have this one (it currently ranks as the 383rd longest article) beat, but there's room for improvement. Settler 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons why this article is so long is that there is some good but lengthy information here about the DNC under the 'Organization' section. I'm thinking about moving it to the DNC article unless its already there. Oleanna1104 20:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some topics should be moved to relevant subpages. This page should still exist though. I am removing the {{split}} template. --Apoc2400 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corruption

I reverted an addition of the following passage after a seperate poster pointed out it is a better fit in other articles:

According to exit polls, corruption was a key issue for many voters.[1]

I have to agree that it doesn't belong in the article as it is written. Maybe it is placement? It seems out of context. In my view, the article is discussing the make-up of the current democratic party, then this passage pops up out of nowhere, discussing exit polls for the mid-term elections? Why? I think I understand the point you are trying to make but it seems to be a point better made in the page for the 2006 Midterm Elections. Anyway, have a nice night. CraigMonroe 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the above comment. The page is long enough as it is.--Jersey Devil 04:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Room for improvement, sure. The Microsoft article, a featured article, is now longer (maybe not in pure prose), and they have only been around since the 1970s. It's sort of unfair in a way to hold organizations much older to the same length standard. Since the "toolong" header was added to the article, approximately 13KB has been shaved from the article, mostly through my efforts, with a spin-off article and condensing multiple paragraphs down to a few sentences here and there among other things. Settler 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It's already on the 2006 midterm election page, as I wrote in the edit summary. Corruption was cited by voters as the key (or most resonate) issue for why they voted the way they did and journalists noted those that named it were more likely voted for the Democrats. I'd sooner get rid of "Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency" than get rid of what voters told the exit polls and the analysis: "Three-fourths of voters said corruption and scandal were important to their votes, and they were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates for the House. Iraq was important for just two-thirds, and they also leaned toward supporting Democrats. Voters who said terrorism was an important issue split their support between the two parties." [10] There used to be plenty of polling cited in this article (mostly pre-2006 election polls and the like until they became outdated) and the 2008 outlook section incorporates polling. The Republican Party article incorporates a lot of interesting exit polling. The 21st century section is supposed to be for recent history, not the makeup of the "current democratic party" I've been tempted to move the whole geography paragraph somewhere else but it might require renaming another section or creating a new one. Settler 04:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
While I think both Settler and those contra have a point (I won't jump into the discussion fully), I do want to say that I'm not really sure how one short sentence is contributing that much to the article's length. Cheers. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Membership

How many registered members does the Democratic Party have? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StudentSteve (talk • contribs).

[edit] Nuetral?

I honestly don't think that this article is very nuetral. It seems as if in some areas they talk about how the demecrats were better off in then republicans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prep111 (talk • contribs).

This bias appears in the Ideology & Voter Base area. To say that Democrats are pro-civil rights masks the fact that they commonly oppose some civil rights: gun ownership, economic freedom, freedom from non-merit based discrimination, military draft avoidance, etc. I haven't figured out a good way to edit this yet.Twslandlord 14:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Civil rights, according to my handy Webster's, is "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality, especially regarding minorities", and especially meaning the rights guaranteed the 13th and 14th amendment. So, most of your citations about gun ownership, etc., really don't match up. Now, while you might want to debate economic freedoms (as oppose to equality) and various other rights (like gun ownership), these don't fall under "civil rights" as a category.--Primal Chaos 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1992 - 1976 = 16

I'm Swedish and maybe I don't get the all the words and nuances correct, so please don't hesitate to correct me on this. This article states that when Clinton was elected in 1992, that was the first time in 12 years that a democrat was elected. I corrected this a while ago to 16 years. A democrat was elected in 1976 (Carter) and in the following three elections republicans were elected (1980+1984: Reagan, 1988 Bush). So, in 1992 there had been 16 years since a democrat was last elected. Therefore, I once again change to 16 from 12. But please, as this maybe is a very specific English construction, do inform me on this and do correct my upcoming edit of the article. --Astor Piazzolla 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I think, perhaps, that editors are mistaking "for the first time in 16 years, the United States elected a Democrat to the White House" for "for the first time in 16 years, a Democrat was serving in the White House". Don't sell your English short ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mate. (Is that proper English?). Won't sell it short. There's no taker at a reasonable level! --Astor Piazzolla 09:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam

I removed this sentence, as massive oversimplification:

The Vietnam War in the 1960s opened a split on foreign military intervention that persists into the 21st century.

The Vietnam War was escalated by Democrats; and opposed by several Republicans. The Kosovo intervention was conducted by a Democrat, largely supported by his party, and largely opposed by the Republicans.

This is a conclusion, from a history still in progress; Wikipedia should not be drawing such conclusions, and certainly not in an intro; they're not consensus among the secondary sources, much less here.

I've done other rewriting; I would appreciate it if does who disagree with parts of the edit would edit further, not massively revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that statement is anything but correct. The Vietnam War was escalated and begun by the Democrats but it also caused a large split in the Democratic Party between the Johnson-Humphrey establishment types and the RFK-McCarty-McGovern types. That is why Johnson didn't even run for a second term, because people within his own party were running against him because of the war.--Jersey Devil 20:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The sentence did not read like it intended a split within the Democratic Party, which I agree Vietnam did cause; but I find very dubious that that split still continues; or lasted past Scoop Jackson's death. Something should be said about Vietnam, but this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centre-left??

I saw in the political party box that the Democratic Party is "centre-left." That is quite untrue; the Democrats are, especially from a more international point of view, centre-right. Many of their tenets, including liberalism, are centre-right as well. -Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.232.110.111 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree pretty much. I know America is a very right country (traditionally the capitalistic country), but centre-left isn't really a good classification from an international POV. The Democratic Party is further to the right than the 4-5 largest political parties in the Netherlands (where I live). What about centre-right, and then make the Republican Party right-conservative? I realise these terms are relative (inhabitants of the former USSR would probably classify the Democratic Party as extreme-right), but this is more internationally correct. Salaskan 18:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already made several arguments essentially concurring with yours. I've changed the article in the past so that it has read "Centrist," believing that this would be a fair compromise to biased editors from the right... Yet it was changed again to Center-Left as one editor "feels" that the Democratic Party is not centrist. In my most recent edit I left the "center-left" title but added "centrism" hoping that this would be some sort of reconciliation, though I entirely agree with you that the "center-left" label is categorically incorrect. Rob Shepard 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the people who reverted your neutrality edit do not reply on this talk page, so I guess we can put it back. Perhaps something like 'progressive right (international POV) / centre-left (American POV)? Salaskan 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "Centrist" would be a good compromise. If editors feel that that places them too far right, then they can express those sentiments here, rather than reverting without discussion. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile, please look at the discussion above this section on the issue. There has been long discussion on this and you can not base a consensus for just "Centrism" based on this section. I think adding "Center-left" and "Centrism" would be the most logical solution to the current discussion.--Jersey Devil 11:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I have been involved in this discussion before. I maintain that the Democratic Party is controlled by the right-wing and centrists. However, most supporters are center-left. The article should reflect this. So I have put all three Liberalism, Centrism, and Conservatism in the political ideology, and Center-left, Centrism, and Center-right in the political position. Some may strongly object to my inclusion of conservatism but this is a fact, see Blue Dog Democrats. For those that object to Centrism, see New Democrats or Democratic Leadership Council. --Revolución hablar ver 12:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And actually the DLC actually is more of a center-right organization, but they include many self-described "moderates" a.k.a. "centrists". --Revolución hablar ver 13:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about this... what if we just did away with these "ideology" and "position" categories for the infobox? Honestly, both major parties are big-tent parties with members on all far reaching "sides of the aisle". There are extremists, ideologues, moderates, centrists, liberals, conservatives, wing-nuts, crazy-as-a-horse motha's, normal, swing-voters, independents, etc. that would fall under both major parties. That's why labeling them is a nearly impossible task. And each person that comes along will disagree with one label or another, which leads to these long, drawn out edit and revert wars. Why have these at all? Wouldn't it save us all a lot of contention and work by just eliminating these two things? Maybe I am way off, but I think this would be a great start. Those parties that self-identify as having an ideology could still include these, but for the major parties that are big-tent parties, what ill could come from removing them? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the categories do a lot for those from other countries genuinely interested in the ideology of the party. Perhaps a compromise of both "centre-left" and "centrist" would appease everyone? I strongly disagree with "conservatism" being listed in the infobox, however. There may be some conservative Democrats, but that is definitely not a central tenet of the party. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. If there are those who persist in considering the Democratic Party to be firmly "center-left" - I'm not one of them - then we can't really come to a better decision than to continue to include both "center-left" and "centrist". ObeliskBJM 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Another user decided to add in centre-right. It seems too me, however, that the only editors who follow this are socialists—Revolucion identifies himself as such on his userpage, and Salaskan is from the Netherlands and hence also probably socialist. Of course from the socialist viewpoint, the DP is centre-right, because they themselves are rather firmly left. We must realize that the international perspective includes everyone from communists to anarchists to monarchists. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarification, not everything to the left of the US (which is traditionally a capitalist and right-wing country, forgot the Cold War? Or the standpoints on liberal freedom rights and the influence of Christianity?), is "socialist". I am not a communist myself, if that bothers you. My opinion is that this page should reflect an international POV, too, and not just the American. If you'd take a random country and place the Democratic Party in the political spectrum, it is certainly quite right-wing. Perhaps not compared to the Republicans, but a governmental financial project even is something very unique, let alone things like reliable social security for everyone and such.

By the way, why is "probably a socialist" an argument for you to not take the opinion of "socialists" into account? Is it an inferior political ideology which is not viable or relevant? Your assumption of someone coming from the Netherlands always c.q. most often being a socialist seems like even more proof to me that America is relatively very right-wing. I really can't see why you object to my proposal of stating both an American POV and an international one; this seems like a good compromise to me. Salaskan 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not claiming that socialists have no credibility; I am only pointing out your possible bias, which is definitely relevant. As for its place internationally, the DP is definitely not in the right wing. Most states still have authoritarian, right-wing governments. Very few have socialist or even democratic socialist governments. Allow me to point out that capitalism is not automatically on the right side of the ideological spectrum; it extends pretty far to the left. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you have a 'possible bias' as well, as you also have a political opinion. By the way, capitalism definitely is right-wing, I don't know what your definition of left is... But naturally, it depends on how radically capitalist it is. If you compare, say, the social security in Germany and the U.S., you can say Germany is more left-wing despite both countries being capitalist. (I can say this as you claim that someone from the Netherlands is probably a socialist by definition:) You are American, and hence have a probable right-wing bias. Anyway, what is wrong with including BOTH an European (for your sake, and I can kinda comply with this as countries in Africa and the Middle-East are indeed often authoritative and right-wing) AND an American POV? Wouldn't that seem a nice compromise? Salaskan 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course there's a degree of relativism in this, but I personally still maintain that "centrist" is the most accurate description of the Democrats from an international perspective. Are Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy really that far to the right of Gerhard Schroeder or Romano Prodi - not to mention Tony Blair? I think that what is being confused in this situation are ideology and institutions: Schroeder's SPD, for instance, may appear quite leftist to certain Americans, but it's really not so much the party ideology that makes it appear so - rather, it's the fact that the SPD operates within an already existing social-democratic system. That's a matter of opinion, admittedly, but I think that there is some evidence to back it up. If you look at the German political party compass, for instance, and compare it to the US 2004 presidential election political compass, you'll find that the SPD and John Kerry occupy a very similar position. Anyway, that's just my take on the conflicting views of the Democrats from a US and an international perspective. I still believe that "centrist" best describes the Democrats but am willing to compromise, if necessary, to include "center-left" as well. ObeliskBJMtalk 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think that the inclusion of both is a fair compromise. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Obelisk-BJM writes: "Of course there's a degree of relativism in this, but I personally still maintain that "centrist" is the most accurate description of the Democrats from an international perspective." You correctly qualify your comment by stating that it's "from an internationalist perspective". Our problem here is that there's more than one relevant perspective. Internationally (at least among industrialized Western democracies), the Democractic Party is center-right. From the American perspective, "center-left" is an accurate description. Because of this inherent imprecision, I agree with Cielomobile that including both is the best alternative. JamesMLane t c 05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the donkey symbol

An editor wished to know about the donkey symbol in relation to the DNC's website and has since commented it out of the article. The donkey icon used to be the favicon of the Democratic National Committee. Their blog is entitled, "Kicking Ass," as in a kicking donkey IIRC. The donkey symbol can be found presently used in their RSS feeds. Their "Democratic Donkey" history page claims they never officially adopted the symbol, but have made use of it. Settler 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks as though from the wording of the DNC and the dearth of the donkey as a symbol on thier official site that they are moving away from that. Knowing the history of the association of the donkey with the democratic party (Andrew Jackson jujitsuing an insult) one would think that wouldn't be the case. (→Netscott) 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International membership

Though it took me forever to find the offical information, the U.S. Democratic Party is a member of the Alliance of American and European Democrats. Rblue 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemocratic_Party_%28United_States%29_c85c.html"