Talk:Democratic Party

The view that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are conservative is biased.
I think they are centrists and never conservatives. Joe Biden used to be a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, but he has shifted to a similar political view since the Obama administration. After Trump's election, Biden also turned left socially, citing fair trade, not free trade. Bill and Hillary are originally members of the New Democracy Coalition, and it is very biased to see this as conservatism.--BluePink (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The United States is outwardly hegemonic, but internally it is not such a conservative country. The United States is a country of diversity, and there are many more advanced countries that are more conservative than the United States internationally. Viewing Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton as conservatives is a view that Democrats do not recognize as a social liberal(=center-left) party, a narrative that is not so objective.--BluePink (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite the considerable differences in social culture and political environment in each country, it is error-prone to match European political standards to American political standards. Asians face far more blatant racism in Europe than in the United States.(=This means that Europe is not always more liberal than the United States, and rather, there are even cases where Europe is more conservative than the United States.)--BluePink (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Even Donald Trump not say he opposes homosexuality, but Moon Jae-in is ever say he opposes homosexuality.# However, while the media and academia call Donald Trump a conservative and even a far-right, Moon Jae-in is not called a conservative. This is because Moon Jae-in tries to lead South Korean society, which has a Ultra-Conservative Wingnut culture, to a relatively liberal direction, but Donald Trump is aiming for reactionary. (But still, South Korea is much more very very conservative than the United States.)--BluePink (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

From my perspective, Biden is absolutely the epitome of "centrist" in the Democratic party, insofar as we define centrist within the boundaries of the Democratic party. To me this seems obvious, given his rather sharp turn when it comes to Black Lives Matters after the protests arose within the US. Within the US itself, he edges to the center-left end of the spectrum, and on the international stage of politics, he's a firmly moderate-right candidate. The section you take issue with was actually subject of a short edit dispute which was resolved without much conversation (mostly since I got bored) and was inserted by a driveby BoN, then a short dispute between me and Oxy after I reverted those changes in particular and then reinserted in a different way by the BoN. I'll freely admit to not knowing a lot about Clinton though, although from what I've seen and read, I do think that calling them conservatives is a stretch, even when defining them in the limits of the Dems. 13:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Centrist stupidity! Stop defending liberals!
Y'all keep removing it from the "centrist stupidity " category. The Democratic party is not left wing. Nor it is center-left. It is not even REMOTELY left. it is center-right to right-wing. Sure, it may have social liberal policies, but leftism and rightism is based on economics, not social views. Therefore, the Democratic Party is center-right to right wing. This liberal stupidity shouldn't be unmentioned so it should be in the category Centrist stupidity. Catgrrl37-0 (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked, AOC and the Squad, who are known for their progressive (by international standards) economic policies, are Democrats. Why would a conservative party allow members that are far more left-wing to gain any sort of prominence? Why would a conservative party supported by a conservative base allow Bernie Sanders to nearly become their presidential candidate for two consecutive elections? How could he be competitive enough to be number 2? Finally, left-vs-right isn't based on economics alone. It's based on conceptions of society and how and what the government should do regarding it. As such, both economic and social issues are part of the left-right spectrum. The Democratic party may have many centrist members, but it is still a center-left party. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Admittedly by European standards the Dems are probably right of centre but by the criteria of their own country they are considerably left of centre. Scream!! (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Progressive Caucus is still a minority faction within the Democratic Party. 16:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, 90 out of 233 seats is nothing to sneeze at. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm not saying they're a tiny minority, they aren't. But secondly, they don't really have the clout for more hardline progressive policies at the moment. Because it isn't just about how many people you have on your side, it's also about how much political and social capital you have. That's growing, but isn't really at the point where they could go toe-to-toe with the more right-wing Dems like Pelosi or Schumer. 16:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true. But the fact that they even have the amount of clout to openly suggest those policies makes it clear that the Democratic party can't be right wing. The fact that they exist in such numbers makes it clear that the Democratic party can't be right-wing. I'm not saying that you think the party is right-wing, but merely in context to the OP. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The Dems as a party are liberals, not leftists. The base of the Democratic Party isn't right wing for sure, but the leadership most definitely is. — Oxyaena Harass  16:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had no idea Bernie and the Squad were right-wing. Twodots (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't you know? They actually want a state to exist!!! How more right-wing can you get!!!!oneone!! (obvious sarcasm) IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What you guys are all forgetting is that the Democratic party is a big-tent party with numerous factions. The centrist one, which would be called center right in most countries, is currently in power, dominating the congressional leadership and executive parts of the party. The left of center faction, while growing, is not the one in charge. There are also other groups outside this duopoly. Also, "the democratic party is a left wing party because it has left-wingers in it" displays such a farcical ignorance of American politics I don't think I can address it.-Flandres (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Flandres is correct here. Each of the major parties is made up of multiple factions which are in a loose alignment with each other, and each is constantly vying for overall control of the party proper. Now, I do not agree with the classification of the Dems as right wing proper, mainly because even the Blue Dogs aren't that far right. 17:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * GC, I was not implying they are fundamentally right wing-they are centrists in the context of the society from which they emerged, and that is what matters. That they are centrer right internationally is a mere byproduct of the differing evolution of various nations. Oh, and twodots-Oxy said the party leadership was right wing. Sanders is NOT the "party leadership." Please read.-Flandres (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Flandres, the Democratic party has to be at least somewhat left-wing if it has a significant number of progressives in it with a significant amount of influence. If the House Liberty Caucus had 90 members instead of 7, it and its policies would be a major player in the Republican Party. As a result, libertarian and Tea-Party ideas would infect the discourse, and would no longer be ignored. As a result, the party would shift somewhat in that direction, just because the majority of the discourse is directed towards these new ideas. If the Democratic party was solidly conservative, it's ranking members wouldn't allow such an ideologically different group to gain such power and command such attention. IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They are centrists who tolerate the left because it is electorally convenient. The party is somewhat left wing by low, low, American standards, but it is still dominated by centrists in leadership positions and its policies tend to be centrist. You don't really understand how political parties are run, do you? Also, I WAS NOT FUCKING SAYING THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE. Big Tent Centrist. B I G T E N T  C E N T R I S T.-Flandres (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the implication, I was disagreeing the the original poster's assessment and should have said as such. 18:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure of that. While they may have tolerated the radicals for a little while, the whole 2020 election was a big battle between leftists and centrists. Now especially, Team Biden has been fighting pretty hard against the left, especially regarding cabinet appointments. The fight only seems to be scaling up in intensity. I take umbrage with you saying I don't understand how political parties are run. Trump's period of the Republican Party has been one of absolute, iron control. He's been able to gain control and maintain it through the liberal use of insults and power, forcing Republican politicians to toe his newly-created party line. He was able to do this from his party's failure to do just this, and force Trump out of the primaries and push to drain his influence. This failure corresponds with Biden's current dilemma regarding the left. IveBeenFrank (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more complex than that. Trump gained power, made alliances, and then chose how to wield that clout. But right now, the Progressives don't have as much clout as the Blue Dog democrats. Additionally, both the Blue Dogs and the progressives weild power in a different manner than Trump, since they have different priorities and aligned interests. 18:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Frank, did you just unironically imply the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump campaigns/movements are somehow equivalent in terms of extremist radicalism?-Flandres (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they're not equivalent. Politics isn't physics; everything doesn't balance out. Nonetheless, many of the same base values and principles attracted people to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump: the belief that elites had control over government, that they as workers were being exploited, that the mass media sought to suppress and control them, and that their leader would change this by advocating for them. The greatest difference between the two groups comes down to their leaders: one is a blundering megalomaniac, and the other is a well-meaning, sane, generally kind individual. That isn't to say that without Sanders, everyone who supports or supported him would turn to Trump, but merely that these movements are caused by reactions to current events and political balances on different sides of the political spectrum. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, populism tends to appeal well to disaffected and marginalized people. Shocker. — Oxyaena Harass  15:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the bloody category description. Centrist stupidity refers to hacks who appeal to "centrists" but practically espouse pseudoscience, bunk ideas or just are far morer leaning towards one end of the spectrum that they're practically a conservative or a leftist. The Democratic Party isn't "centrist stupidity" by the categories own description. The case for tagging them as centrist is one you could make, but I'd reserve that more for the more right leaning members of the Dems and the more left leaning members of the Republicans rather than the whole party. The alignment of centrism on the political spectrum is relative after all. What is considered "centrist" in my country is considered to be somewhere around Warrens political position in the US (so firmly in the progressive wing although not as stupidly hardlining as Bernie or AOC and as a result relatively left). 21:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're just another liberal. I'm not listening to you. Catgrrl37-0 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not listening to people with differing points of view from yours might be the problem here. 22:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, you're basically admitting to being a political fundamentalist akin to a kid putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!1!" 22:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ...apparently saying "the category description doesn't match what you're trying to add" is now liberal...? Whatever. Didn't expect much else as a response. 10:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Welp, looks like we've got ourselves yet another far-left wannabe revolutionary who alienates liberals and/or centrists who at least somewhat agree with them. Oh joy. -- Goatspeed. 22:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the view that the Democratic Party is a centrist party. The Democratic Party is a center-left big tent. Social liberalism is also a center-left ideology, and the AOC, which supports 'defund the police' and 'modern monetary theory', is also very radical in European standards. Joe Biden was also more conservative in the past, but more social liberal now.--Umaru16 (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Legibility
I've started trimming this article's lists. As it was it was a barely legible compilation of names placed into categories without context. I'm inclined to say that the whole factions section would be better off with summaries of each faction's ideologies and policy, and a link to a category page rather than a list. Thoughts?-Hastur! (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ditch the lists. The only names we really need are super notable ones like party leaders and some famous faction figureheads. Basically, I don’t care about almost anyone on these lists. 02:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like Hastur's idea, it conveys the information more efficiently. 02:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The “Future” section
The section called “Future” kinda looks to me like a lot of speculation resting on a few vague and/or uncited claims. I mean, it might be right or not (I don’t really understand US politics), but it sounds a lot like just one person’s opinion that’s not based on anything concrete?
 * I would agree with that. I support removing this section entirely, much like some of the overly bullish predictions that were once on the capitol riot article.-Flandres (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree, it has hardly changed since 2017, and it shows. It appears to have been added almost entirely by User:Plutoniumboss, in early March, 2017: . Serene (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Internal factions section
More than half of the article is filled by bloated lists of no name congressmen and governors, courtesy of some strange BoN that might be copypasting their entries from another site based on the randomly capitalized political positions they add. Either the lists should be trimmed further to exclude anyone that doesn't have an article or they should be removed entirely. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)