Kommunal.az

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic Party (United States) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: How is the Democratic Party's ideology labelled on the political spectrum in the infobox? A1: The consensus among editors is that the Democratic Party is a big tent party, encompassing ideologies including but not limited to centrism, social liberalism, progressivism, and social democracy. A consensus was reached that the Democratic Party is mainly center to center-left. You are free to contribute to such discussions if you have sources for something different.

Other talk page banners

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. Democratic Party (United States) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. Article milestones Date Process Result September 27, 2005 Peer review Reviewed October 14, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured article candidate This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: United States: History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance). Politics: American / Political parties High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Top-importance). Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

On 25 March 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to Democratic Party. The result of the discussion was not moved.

I agree that the mainstream of the Democratic Party consists of centrist or center-left. However, left-wing politicians affiliated with the DSA clearly exist within the party, and they should be mentioned as factions within the political position.[1] Otherwise, it will be impossible to persuade editors who disagree with the "Center" designation within the political position. ProgramT (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The beginning of the article is also rather defensively worded, arguing that academic analysis places the party nearer to the center by international standards.

In my view, this is not particularly relevant. Labels like left/right are always going to be relative, and must be placed within a national context. Many "moderate" parties in Eastern Europe would have right wing social views by American/western european standards. Center-left seems to be a better descriptor overall. Alpha King 3306 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's my view that we've just had an RfC on this issue that was closed not even a week ago. Nobody who participated in the RfC even suggested this solution, so it should be left as is. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We describe parties based on how RS describe them, not in order to appease editors who don't wish for a position to be included. Cortador (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the socially center-right conservative is no longer prominent in the Democratic Party. For example, the Blue Dog, which used to be socially center-right in the past, is now fiscally center-right, but culturally liberal. On the other hand, the DSA is a far-left organization by American standards; by European/international standards, the DSA is not far-left, but at least left-leaning rather than the German center-left SPD or the British center-left Labour Party. So the Dems "left-wing" faction needs to write in the infobox. ProgramT (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Democrats' established position is "center to center-left," but while the "center-right" faction within the Democrats is virtually defunct, the "left-wing" faction is far more prominent. This difference is very important: There are no politicians like AOC or Zohran Mamdani in the British "center to center-left" Lib Dems. ProgramT (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OCON, content from other articles isn't a convincing argument on its own like this. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the reasoning you provided comes to the conclusion "So the Dems "left-wing" faction needs to write in the infobox." – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In international standards, simply "center to center-left" is very fragmentary, and ignores the diversity of US Dems. Jeremy Corbyn, who was called Britain's Bernie Sanders, was effectively forced out of the center-left Labour Party (UK). The British Liberal Democrats (UK) don't have left-wing democratic socialists comparable to Squad (U.S. Congress). Labour Party (UK) is not 'woke'; major Labour politicians in transgender issues are often socially conservative. ProgramT (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter when a plethora of RS support the current consensus and an RfC has determined that "center to center-left" is the best way to describe the party. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Squad are just seven people. Unless you can provide reliable sources that state that their influence is so significant that they shifted the whole party's political position, they don't matter. Cortador (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on what left or right mean, or where the center is. And is based on the party leader, the manifesto/platform, parliamentary groups, the voters? RS (such as they are) aren’t consistent with respect to each other, either. Are “international standards” the best rubric or should left, right and center only be defined with respect to national politics? RS don’t agree about that either. There is no consensus – editorial or RS – for the current political position labels. The Democrat and Republican articles both read like they were written by the DNC press office. Dr Fell (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, a consensus was indeed reached via rfc, and plenty of RS were provided in said rfc. Your saying otherwise doesn't make it true. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was about adding "center"; it did not address "left-wing". This argument will never end unless everyone recognizes that the Democratic party is a big tent and has a much broader range of views than other political parties. "Center to left-wing" is the only solution! Philosopher Spock (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Definitely agree. 94, or 45%, of Democrats in the House are part of the Progressive Caucus, which is listed as center left to left-wing (note some of these are part of the CPC and the NDC). How can you list the party as center to center left when almost half of the party, at least in the House, is clearly to the left of that? I think it made much more since when it was listed as center left, with centrist and progressive factions, as that accurately reflects the ideological makeup of congress (and elsewhere in the party) with the Progressive Caucus and the NDC. Listing the party as Center to Left-Wing as some have suggested also seems reasonable as a way to reflect its ideology ~2026-41248-5 (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They are center to center-right. A large chunk of them voted to condemn socialism. At minimum that's a center-right position. The furthest left politicians they have favor a reform-based approach to making a mixed economy more socialist, and those types are less numerous than the types who are blatantly pro-capitalist. ~2026-58176-5 (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Democrats are not at all right leaning in the slightest. they are not far left, even then, they still follow the left leaning side of economics, which is capitalism, but regulated. even then a more accurate way to describe the Democratic Party is that they are socially on the left, and politically moderate. practicing a portion of cultural liberalism, but as a whole the party supports economically supports means-tested programs (income limits), ACA, not universal single-payer health care, Incremental student loan relief, not free higher education, Child tax credits rather than universal basic income, Work requirements remain largely intact. which places them more in the center.

additionally, if they were far left why has the party had no serious party push to nationalize major industries, No abolition of private property, and No worker seizure of the means of production. Additionally, they performed bailouts of banks (2008) rather than dismantling them, and sponsored pro-market trade agreements (NAFTA).

All in all, Center-Left better describes the party in my opinion, but by American standards they are the leftwing party. the main significant reason is if they were a Center party, they would likely vote for flat taxes, accept privatized healthcare as a stable compromise, Freeze welfare expansion, accept restrictive voting laws for “balance”, treat unions and corporations as equal moral actors. which the Democratic party generally doesn't. therefore, i would argue to remove the Centre part of the political party, and place them solely as centre-left Caruggeri18 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Far-left" means you're some sort of communist and/or anarchist who, generally speaking, believes in seizing power from the bourgeoisie via violent revolution. Suffice it to say, there are no far-left Democrats holding office at any level in the US. Even calling them "centre-left" is far too charitable. Someone like Elizabeth Warren would be regarded as right-of-centre in a normal developed country. "But they're left wing by American standards!" Well the political spectrum isn't generally regarded as relative. For example a Saudi prince who favoured giving women the right to work a job without her husband or father's permission, and allow women to go outside with just a simple hijab rather than full abaya and niqab, would be considered quite progressive by the standards of Saudi Arabia's ruling class, but we wouldn't call him a far-left radical feminist. Trilobright (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally-speaking, progressives like Elizabeth Warren who tend towards social democracy or social liberalism would be center-left no matter where they are. But the Chinese Communist Party is not considered far-left in China, for example. That is also true! Altanner1991 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

" "Far-left" means you're some sort of communist and/or anarchist" The main article on far-left politics also includes ideologies like left communism, which opposed the Bolsheviks because its adherents thought that Vladimir Lenin and his supporters were champions of state capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Left communists are communists, even many anarchists are communists (anarcho-communists). Altanner1991 (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mainstream Dems are center to center-left/center-left. Combined with this centrist faction (who I think have moved to center to center-left) + progressive faction who are center-left to left-wing that “Center-left” is pretty accurate. But there is a conservative faction that maybe is center to center-right. Newyorker86 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think we should open a consensus vote to change towards center-left only. Given that there are positions that the party takes as a whole that do not align with a centerist party as previously mentioned in my previous comment. There are numerous centerist positions that the Democratic Party does not hold. The party doesn’t want a Flat-Tax, they don’t want to freeze welfare expansion, and accepting restrictive voting laws for balance. All of which are part of centerist policy. But they are not on the leftwing because they don’t support nationalizing industry, and have supported pro market policies even recently. The party is Center-Left and that is the best way to describe them, based on policy. I believe that the page should reflect that. Caruggeri18 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and voting isn't a substitute for discussion. The content of the article must reflect the reliable sources that are cited within the article, and currently, those reliable sources describe it as both centrist and centre-left. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 22:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Democratic Party is best described as center-left because its dominant ideological commitments expanding social rights, regulating markets to protect public goods, and advocating progressive reforms fit squarely within center-left frameworks.

Descriptions of the party as “centrist” often depend on comparison to Republicans rather than on absolute ideological criteria, which artificially compresses the party’s position toward the political center. Additionally, when compared to international political parties, the Democrats’ policy orientations align more closely with center-left parties than purely centrist ones. ~2026-94587-6 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those claims need substantial sourcing to back them up, and, as demonstrated in the previous RfC, there is consensus that, based on the labels used in sourcing and their respective weights, "center to center-left" is the most appropriate way to characterise its position. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The flat tax is a far right idea, not popular with centrists. TFD (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there are many centrist democrats but what makes them strong enough to be a full political position? There are a large number of progressives in the democratic party. Why is that not considered in the political position? The standard average democrat position on any specific issue is the promotion of culturally liberal ideals, the expansion of welfare, and promotion of civil rights. All of these, from the standpoint of U.S. politics, are Center-left so why not use political position relative to American politics rather than global politics? Farkas09 (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we need to discuss this. This is a significant change from the longstanding center-left consensus. Alpha King 3306 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new consensus was reached via rfc. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must have missed that. If you could link it to me I'd appreciate it. If so, I'm fine leaving the position as is, but with the paragraph either removed or edited to remove specific references to EU parliamentary groups. Alpha King 3306 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

#RfC: Should "center" be added to the political position? is the rfc, and why must the references to specific European parallels be removed for you to support the paragraph's inclusion? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As already discussed above, the consensus for centre-left was flimsy. It was added by a now-topic banned editor who claimed there was "overwhelming consensus" for its inclusion when there wasn't even a numerical majority. Cortador (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who added that? Shadow4dark (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the topic question, because of the plethora of sourcing supporting its inclusion alongside the consensus that was reached in an rfc. Why to not exclusively use US standards? Because excluding sources from the rest of the world purely on that basis violates WP:WEIGHT. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but so does primarily granting weight to European sources. Alpha King 3306 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a single paragraph mentioning how international standards (in general, sourci, current g focuses more on Europe than elsewhere) would place the party closer to the political centre is "primarily granting weight to European sources". Also, all four of the citations in that paragraph belong to American sources.

To solve this though, would removing the explicit mention of Europe (i.e. "[...] centrist by international standards, in particular those of Europe [...]) whilst keeping the mention of one or both of the European parallels be an acceptable solution to you? – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with those sources is they primarily make comparison to Western/Central Europe, not that the are European per-say. As much as I don't prefer it for some of the reasons I have above articulated, I am willing to give way to consensus on the political position.

However, it is not standard practice on Wikipedia pages about political parties to frame their positions by reference to the political spectra of other regions or countries, and doing so risks giving undue weight or suggesting a universal standard where none exists. For me, I think what would be acceptable would be to both exclude that specific mention of Europe and example in parenthesis, or otherwise to clarify that this is not representative of the whole world, but rather only a small part of the world's standards. E.g. I would not make reference to the political standard's of East-Asian political standards in an article on a left-wing party in Ghana. Alpha King 3306 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it's an issue that they primarily draw comparisons to Western and Central Europe, especially since that's attributed in the paragraph. I also don't see how this could be undue weight, since, again, it's attributed and not in wikivoice. I can think of some examples of political parties where attention is drawn to the difference between a party's perceived ideology/political position within and outside of its country of origin, however, per WP:OCON, arguments based solely on precedent are generally unconvincing.

I'm of the opinion that explicitly mentioning the fact that public/non-academic perception of the party within the US differs from academic and international analyses is a good inclusion, as it gives a nice balance of sources that avoid WP:WEIGHT issues of arbitrarily excluding sources that don't base their conclusions on a purely American standard. As I said in one of my edit summaries, Template:Globalise exists for the purpose of ensuring that articles don't exclude international perspectives when they're reasonably believed to exist. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point about Template:Globalise and the value of including international perspectives where relevant. However, my concern is that presenting European or “international” comparisons on a U.S. party article risks overstating THAT specific region's weight. Especially as the first paragraph in the ideology section.

If international perspectives are included, they should be framed as one regional comparison among many, not as a defining standard. Otherwise we risk falling into WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE problems even if it’s attributed. Again, the issue is the very obvious Eurocentrism here. If you went to the Middle East, for the most part on social/cultural issues, the Democrats would be considered radically left wing by those standards/conservative Islamic academics. Alpha King 3306 (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind moving it lower down in the section, I just placed it at the top of the section because it's a simple description of the left-right position on the spectrum which was previously absent. I think it would also be suitable as the last paragraph before the "Economic issues" subsection, as long as it doesn't break up the flow of the 5 paragraphs already there. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to put it lower down, I still have some issue with it specifically mentioning EU parliamentary groupings, but I'm willing to meet in the middle there if it's moved further down, and that minor alteration is made. Alpha King 3306 (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would removing the mention of the Lib Dems but keeping the ALDE/RE mention (or vice versa) be a suitable compromise to you? I'm still of the opinion that listing a parallel is useful contextualisation. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 13:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Again, that is so specifically European (EU) that it does cross into WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE issues. If you want to include it, I would want several from all parts of the world, not just Europe. But that might become too unwieldly, so I'd prefer just removing it. 192.68.112.171 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like many of the sources don’t really reference international standards or political positions and just broadly talk about factions within the Democratic Party, or personal opinions. Farkas09 (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just exclude a political position, and stick to ideology, if necessary? It’s really hard to describe a party whose support among White voters just goes continuously upward the more education White voters have.

• How else can one explain why White voters without college voted for Trump 66-32%, while White voters with graduate degrees voted for Harris 58-40? We know Whites with graduate degrees are far richer than Whites without college degrees.

Also it’s hard to clearly label a party whose support among Black voters is extremely high, with Assad-level (92-7%) margins among Black women. Meanwhile, Whites in the Deep South are nearly as Republican. This is just racial polarization, not specific political positions.

This is a party best exemplified by its 2024 presidential nominee being a Black woman with a graduate degree (law degree). Statistically, that is the most likely voter for the party. The two may seem to have nothing in common, but being Black or having a graduate degree makes one very likely to support the party. 2600:1008:B222:685B:383A:3055:DAE6:4A82 (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) None of those are good reasons to exclude the party's political position, and B) there's already been a consensus established via RfC to include a political position. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 01:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The party does best among some of the poorest and richest voters of the country. Kamala Harris won voters making over $200,000 a year (52-46%), probably with graduate degrees, and also won the poorest majority-Black counties in the country.

What are we judging the party by then? It’s positions on social issues? 2600:1008:B222:685B:383A:3055:DAE6:4A82 (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're judging it by how sources describe it, as always on Wikipedia. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a centrist position to support late-term abortion? What about open borders? What about sex change operations on children? None of those have mainstream support Exzachary (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are entirely subjective. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that Obama was involved in deporting many illegal immigrants. Democrats do not support open borders, they support allowing refugees to run from war-torn countries, and oppose wasting billions of taxpayer dollars building a border wall. Besides, the children are statistically the ones who request sex reassignment surgery, not the parents. drdr150 (they/she) (Yell at me Spy on me) 15:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The process here is not (and should not be) for editor's to independently determine a party's ideology and position by reviewing where they stand on each issue, but to rely on high-quality, ideologically-diverse reliable sources. That has not happened. The Democrat article has effectively been vandalized with false information, less savvy users are being subject to misinformation and Wikipedia continues to lose public trust. You can review the last Requests for Consensus that resulted in the decisions to label the Democrats "center to center-left" and the Republicans "right-wing." Most editors contributing to that process were expressing their personal politics. That these changes are mounting increased resistance yet still have not been reverted reveals just how broken the process is. New RfCs are needed now. You are correct that late-term abortion, open borders and sex-change operations for minors are opposed by ~80% of voters, and have found some support within some Democrat factions. But it's not within our remit to determine ourselves how far to the left that positions the Democrats. Dr Fell (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other people's medical care is none of the Democratic Party's damnbusiness. Nor is it any business of yours or mine. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 94, or 45%, of Democrats in the House are part of the Progressive Caucus, which is listed as center left to left-wing (note some of these are part of the CPC and the NDC). How can you list the party as center to center left when almost half of the party, at least in the House, is clearly to the left of that? I think it made much more since when it was listed as center left, with centrist and progressive factions, as that accurately reflects the ideological makeup of congress (and elsewhere in the party) with the Progressive Caucus and the NDC. Listing the party as Center to Left-Wing as some have suggested also seems reasonable as a way to reflect its ideology. ~2026-41248-5 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To solve all of the controversy, why can’t the party be categorized as a “big tent” primarily center-left party, with centrist and left wing factions? The argument that democrats are economically right wing is mostly based on comparison to other countries—which is not valid in my opinion. The AOC/Sanders wing is likely left enough to warrant being called “left-wing”, considering the reforms they want would amount to a significant enough change to the status quo 47.14.12.92 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To solve the controversy, we need a revert followed by a proper RfC. Both for this article and for the Republicans. Obviously, you are correct: In a two-party system, both parties will be big tents, spanning many constituencies, interest groups and ideologies. These articles are doing a grave disservice to Wikipedia's users (ie, the people we should be aiming to serve) by collapsing the ideological breadth of these two parties into compact labels unsupported by real consensus or broad, objective RS. Dr Fell (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by a "proper RfC"? The most recent one follows all the RfC guidelines and was closed by an uninvolved third party after discussion had stabilised. I don't see any way that could be construed as "not proper". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the current consensus isn't supported by RS, bring up RS that demonstrate that and convince your fellow editors. So far, you haven't done that. Cortador (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The question isn't "what feels balanced to editors", it's "how do the sources describe them" (especially the highest-quality sources, like academic ones discussing where parties fall politically.) Even if your opinion is that comparison to other countries is not valid, if that's how the best available sources analyze them, then that's what we have to use. And I would argue that it does make sense to follow that standard - Wikipedia is written for an international audience. --Aquillion (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Democratic Party’s base is probably the most highly-educated of any political party in the world. Voters with graduate degrees are an underrated core constituency of the party, despite also being a very wealthy demographic. 98.228.56.157 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure how this is at all relevant to the talk page for this article. The discussion here isn't an opportunity to share unsourced claims and unsubstantiated theories, nor to make value judgements on the value of any particular segment within the party. In fact, it's not an opportunity to do any original research at all. Voters with a postgraduate degree heavily favored Harris over Trump; voters with a college degree narrowly favored Harris. For both cohorts, Trump reduced her margin relative to 2020 (-3 among postgrads and -9 among college grads). And not sure why you added a "despite" – Trump won the working class and middle income voters; Harris won high income voters. But there's a lot of nuance and confounding factors involved, so compressing it as such wouldn't tell the real story. But I should stress – while documenting the key constituencies within each party is helpful, there is no consensus on how center-left/left (or center-right/right) is defined or should be applied. Dr Fell (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My point was the more education White voters have, particularly for White women, the more likely they are to vote Democratic. It’s the education itself that makes White voters more likely to vote for Democrats.

  I could personally just remove a political position, and stick to ideology. Education isn’t everything—White Southerners with college degrees are still Republican, and Black voters aren’t affected by education (but Hispanic/Asian voters probably are). White Southerners with graduate degrees are probably the most cross-pressured group.

  Note: I’m in graduate school, so I’m obviously biased towards people with graduate degrees. 98.228.56.157 (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, white women – or single women – are largely keeping the Democrats afloat the moment. Every other demographic is shifting away from them, some cohorts quite sharply. (This typically devolves into an argument as to if the left is or right is the one actually changing. The FT had some data ~1 year ago suggesting that the marked shift is really just among women, isn't limited to the US and isn't tied to Dobbs.) And I also agree that educational level makes one more likely to vote Democrat – at least in recent elections. But it wasn't that long ago that blue collar votes were their most loyal voters. Tempora mutantur.

  I'd be with you on supporting political position. Both parties are quite big tents and have a number of ideological cohorts within them, sometimes competing ideologies.

  As it stands, I don't think either this article or the Republican one are doing a decent job of documenting the political positions and ideologies of each party. Dr Fell (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can’t predict the future, but two states in particular are diverging: Georgia and Florida. Georgia was decided by 2.2%, and Florida by 13.1%.

  • They’re neighbors, both Southern states, and 50-60% White. But Black voters haven’t changed, while Hispanic voters are shifting rightward, particularly Hispanic men.

  There may come a day when white women are evenly split, with a college/non-college divide. (Half of younger white women have college degrees.) Meanwhile Hispanic men may also be evenly split or even lean Republican.

  It would be a tectonic realignment, one that would give Republicans long-term gains among Hispanics, while Democrats can compete in places with lots of college-educated White women.

  Links:

  https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/18/us-women-are-outpacing-men-in-college-completion-including-in-every-major-racial-and-ethnic-group/

  https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2025/04/30/canadas-new-conservative-movement-resembles-donald-trumps

  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-gains-with-hispanic-men-harris-up-with-white-women-reutersipsos-polls-show-2024-10-25/ 98.228.56.157 (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since 1990, GA’s black population has increased, more than elsewhere in the South. I think outside of the other demographic shifts you mentioned, that’s the cause behind GA’s narrower elections. It doesn’t really kick in until 2020, though. 2008, 2012 and 2016 see the D vote at 1.8-1.9 million. That pops to 2.5 million in 2020.

  Polarization by educational attainment is a proxy for class and seems an unavoidable feature of democracies. But I would worry if polarization sharpens along lines of race and sex. Lee Kuan Yew’s warning “in multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion” would be the practical end of American democracy if it came to pass.

  For now, we still have the problem of this article not accurately documenting the ideology, political positions and factions of the party. Dr Fell (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't predict the future, but the Democrats 66 (D66) party in the Netherlands is an interesting party that may hold clues for the future of the American Democratic Party.

  • "D66 is especially popular among people who hold a university degree, and its voters are mostly concentrated in larger cities and in municipalities with an above-average number of wealthy residents."

  The D66 party tied with the far-right (PVV party) in the 2025 Dutch general election. Tomorrow's elections in Virginia/New Jersey/NYC mayor may be similar, of highly-educated voters opposing Trumpism and right-wing populism. 130.126.32.244 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  General election results in the Netherlands have nothing to do with the political position.of an American political party. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Global electoral trends reverberate. In the 2023 Dutch general election, the 2024 anti-incumbent streak was foreshadowed.

  And the 2025 blue wave in the states that held elections was foreshadowed by a liberal, educated, pro-LGBT (gay leader) winning in the Netherlands. ~2025-34618-19 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are center to center-right. AOC/Bernie use left-wing rhetoric but vote like centrists. ~2026-58176-5 (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the future, we may have to change the political position to “Centre-left to left-wing” as the party may slowly shift towards progressivism, and potentially democratic socialism. Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the NYC mayoral election last month might just be a sign that we could see a progressive wave at some point in the near future.

Maybe not in 2028, considering the victories of some moderate democrats such as Mikie Sherrill winning the NJ gubernatorial election, and Abigail Spanberger being elected governor of Virginia. But still, with the political landscape changing pretty rapidly, something that may continue coming into the 2026 midterms and beyond, especially considering how low Trump’s approval ratings are as of now, we will likely see a progressive wave slowly develop within the next few years. ~2025-38110-23 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTAL. We don't predict the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" In any case, isn't Democratic socialism opposed to the party's Clintonism and fiscal conservatism? "many democratic socialists also advocate for state regulations and welfare programs in order to reduce the perceived harms of capitalism and slowly transform the economic system.^[1]" Dimadick (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The party isn't defined by Clintonism, it isn't inherent. ~2025-33344-89 (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn’t a crystal ball as others have said, nor is that true by political standards. Your only other edit is on the GOP talk page saying we shouldn’t say they are advocating for liberalism because not every member of the party is (which isn’t required, just that the party is as a whole). Please stop suggesting edits without sourcing just because they align with your political opinion Retr0r0cket (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because the party is based in the USA which is a right-shifted country and that makes me think that the party is equally right and left even though we have apparently REAL left politicians. Take Brazils PT for an example. they are both similar parties based on the people that dont fully shift towards the left because if they did they'd be seen as radical and "overly woke". yeah this is my justification ~2026-82826 (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would suggest that the liberalism faction political position should be center to center-right and the progressive faction be center-left to left wing because of democratic socialist members ~2026-40939-5 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what does it mean to establish a consensus it's my first time commenting or making suggestions. ~2026-40939-5 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CONSENSUS. It essentially means discussing with other editors on this talk page and finding agreement with them on it. — Czello ^(music) 15:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the liberalism faction political position should be center to center-right and the progressive faction be center-left to left wing because of democratic socialist members ~2026-40939-5 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, sourcing is required for such a change and it's not clear what content in the article you want to alter. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is defining where along the left-right spectrum these various groups belong. Are democratic socialist left-wing (because socialism is by definition the Left) or are they center-left, because that's how Americans describe them in Europe, in contrast with leftists who are more radical. Also, there are only a handful of democratic socialist members of the Progressive Caucus (which technically is not even a caucus of the Democratic Party). TFD (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the prior archive there was a discussion that lead to the 'election symbol' on the page being marked as 'citation needed'. This tag seems to have been removed, but there still isn't actually a citation, nor is the Wikimedia listing for it providing anything broader than a link to 'democrats.org' where it doesn't appear now nor in the archives. I'm also not sure it is used as an 'election symbol' in general - do the national Democrats even have one? Can't edit directly, but figured I'd point this out because it still seems odd of an inclusion, especially with the header it has. LucifersCoils (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Appears more accurately that it was removed because it had the 'disputed' tag and the discussion that disputed it was archived. But there was never actually any challenge to the dispute at any point; is there a different procedure for approaching this in this case? Not experienced in Wikipedia, sorry! LucifersCoils (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the symbol since nobody was able to bring up a source for it. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the D sign and the donkey sign be listed together? Cbls1911 (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We found consensus to have just "center-left" last year. Can someone explain when center was added? The sources seem old and I can't find the consensus that overturned the previous one. Paul Vaurie (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been added here by Brat Forelli after this discussion on the talk page. — Czello ^(music) 11:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello Actually, it was added as the result of this RfC. Brat Forelli🦊 11:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. — Czello ^(music) 11:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I’d like a source for the claim that the Democratic Party is center to center left ~2026-54656-7 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid question, but it is not an edit request. Not all discussions need to be edit requests. If you are referring to the infobox, the citations can be found in the article text itself. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A large chunk of Democrats voted to "condemn socialism" which is at minimum a center-right position. Many Democrats have approved far-right policies like the Laken Riley Act or continuing to fund a militarized police force or forever wars. That faction is more numerous than the AOC/Bernie faction. Sanders and Cortez still routinely vote in favor of right wing policies too and their political profile matches "make the mixed economy more socialist through reform" so they are center left at most and are the furthest left members in the party. Probably the most accurate descriptor of the Democrats would be "Center left to Center Right" but if that's too broad, Center to Center Right is more accurate than Center to Center Left.

Arguably, the voter base of Democrats is more like Center to Center Left, but the politicians in the party are to the right of that. ~2026-58176-5 (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:OR; we go with what reliable sources say. See the #FAQ. — Czello ^(music) 08:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there are no reliable sources that map political parties along the political spectrum and the sources used are inconsistent and violate Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable." TFD (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• White Vote by County in 2020.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]