Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:SamHB

2015-05-16T07:26:01Z

Proustdead:

<center>SEMI-RETIRED, BUT NOT DEAD '''This user is no longer active at Conservapedia. God Bless.'''</center>

<center>'''Anyone who wants to contact me may do so at sam4557@gmail.com.'''</center>

I do not edit here very frequently, because I have to log in from a college that I don't get to very often. Be patient.

In addition to the email above, I have accounts, all under the same name (SamHB) at Wikipedia, Wikiversity, Ameriwiki (I am an administrator), and that other place that rhymes with "national picky".

 

{{Userboxtop}}
{{User Evo}}
{{User OldEarth}}
{{User bigbang}}
{{User Protestant}}
{{User pidigits|nearly 100}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

<center>'''IF YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED'''</center>

<s>I communicate occasionally by email with Andy and a few other admins. I have a cordial relationship with Andy, and have had him reverse blocks on a number of occasions. He has always been helpful and cooperative. If you have been blocked for reasons that you do not consider proper, feel free to contact me at the email address given above. I ''may'' be able to argue your case.

But you must first convince ''me'' that your case is sound, before I attempt to convince Andy. If you have been blocked for vandalism or parody, don't waste my time. If you have not been making edits in a good-faith effort to improve Conservapedia, don't waste my time.</s> The preceding was written when I had a grossly exaggerated view of my reputation at Conservapedia.

----

SamHB you're still a killjoy.
[[User:Proustdead|Proustdead]] 03:26, 16 May 2015 (EDT)

There is a section about the Daily Beast article on my [[User_talk:SamHB|talk page]]. It was originally on mainpage talk, and seems to have disappeared.
----
 
 

A few words about vandalism and parody in science and math articles. There's a lot of it. I have reverted a lot of it. Just in the last few weeks I cleaned up some parody in the articles on Calcium and on Gabriel's horn. (Well, in the latter case I just pointed it out.) ''Both parodists' accounts are still active.''

Furthermore, I would like to point out that there is a lot more parody in math and science articles. It's just too much for one person to fix.

But I do want to help clean up some incomplete work that I did for the MV Calculus course.

In a recent email to Andy, leading to the reinstatement of my account, I said, in part:

:Although I have dropped out of the multivariable calculus project, I need to give Jacob a heads-up about the notation I used in my part of the lectures. Mostly in lecture 3.2, as I recall. I used somewhat unorthodox definitions of generalized coordinate systems -- "natural" coordinates rather than "orthonormal coordinates + Lamé coefficients". The latter are more common, but natural coordinates are, in my opinion, actually simpler and, well, more natural. Jacob probably prefers "orthonormal + Lamé". So he needs to decide: keep it my way, or change it to his way. The change would mostly involve changing my formulas (cross product, etc.) to the ones that are common in physics textbooks. ("Natural" coordinates, on the other hand, are common in tensor calculus textbooks.)

:I also disagree with what he has written about limits, and want to discuss that.

:....

:I want the discussion to be on some talk page on Conservapedia, where any interested party can join in.

:....

:The block reason was, in any case, "Retired under voluntary circumstances; Admin(s) will reactivate upon request". There was further discussion of my situation, between Jacob and Ed Poor, at the talk page for Cramer's rule, which I would like you [AS] to look at.

:I really can't help if I have to do everything in secret email. And I do want the MV calc course to succeed. And I notice that it is really going to happen, and that there is a lot of interest in it.

:So I would like you to please restore my account and user/talk pages.

Andy did so, sending me a nice reply. He even apologized for having taken so long (5 hours) to get to it! (You see, he had previously acted on a request in only 2 hours :-)

So I want to discuss my past contributions to the multivariable calculus course. There may be some problems with integrating my material with that of others (Specifically JacobB, of course), since my approach to vector components in curvilinear coordinates was somewhat unorthodox. See my talk page, at the bottom.

==A note on the second law of thermodynamics==

There seems to be a good deal of confusion and unclear writing in the article.

The subject of thermodynamics, including the second law, was well established during the 19th century, by such people as Carnot, Gibbs, Clausius, Clapeyron, Maxwell, Helmholtz, and Thompson (Lord Kelvin). This long predates the advent of quantum mechanics. The subject of statistical mechanics, and the "randomness" or "uncertainty" were well understood. It does not depend on the uncertainty (the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle") of quantum mechanics.

There are two generally recognized types of "perpetual motion machine." A "perpetual motion machine of the first kind", which is what people generally mean when they use this term, is one that violates conservation of energy. Since the first law of thermodynamics is just conservation of energy, such a machine would violate the first law.

Such a perpetual motion machine is generally taken to mean one that actively gives out nonzero energy (you can see ads for these things on the internet<ref>http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/</ref><ref>http://www.fuellesspower.com/</ref><ref>http://www.magniwork.com/</ref>), rather than one that simply holds its own, even though a machine that holds its own, that is, never runs down, could obviously be considered a "perpetual motion machine."

Entities that hold their own and never run down actually do exist. Atoms are examples of them. The electrons orbiting the nucleus, if they are in their ground state, never stop. They never lose energy at all. (OK, the fact that they never lose energy depends on quantum mechanics, and I said above that quantum mechanics isn't involved, but the radiation from accelerating charges was unknown when thermodynamics was formulated.) Other things that never stop are quantum-mechanical harmonic oscillators, and gas molecules in their random motion. The latter was central to the kinetic theory that led to the development of thermodynamics. That is, the people developing thermodynamics were aware of the perpetual, never running down, nature of gas molecules. They postulated, correctly, that gas molecule collisions are perfectly elastic and never lose energy. They really are "perpetual motion machines."

The second law of thermodynamics relates to a more obscure fictional device, a "perpetual motion machine of the second kind." This would be something that violates the second law by causing heat to travel, without introduction of energy from an external source, from a colder body to a warmer one. In fact, it can be shown (and was shown in the 19th century), that any heat engine more efficient than that required by Carnot's law is impossible, because it would permit the construction of a machine that moved heat from a colder body to a warmer one.

From looking at the edit history of the article, there seems to be something of an edit war involving an insistence that the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine be described using the word "derail". This is an extremely unhelpful word, suggesting a similarity with a railroad train running off its tracks, and seems to be an attempt to evoke the commonsense notion of macroscopic mechanical devices wearing out due to friction. The second law is actually very clear in what it states and does not state. The article also muddies the thinking by including a folksy and cute, but woefully imprecise, layman's description by a famous science fiction author. While it is true that a person's room will tend to get messy if not attended to, and shuffling a deck of cards leads to more disorder, this is related to statistics, and involves an entropy change that is utterly minuscule compared with what goes on in thermodynamics. The "intelligent intervention" that the article describes (cleaning up the room, or sorting the cards) is statistically infeasible in the thermodynamics case. In fact, the scientists formulating the second law of thermodynamics considered this, in the form of a "Maxwell's demon", and showed that it was impossible.

The claim that the second law of thermodynamics disproves relativity or evolution is too preposterous to reply to.

When I get the time, I will probably write some articles on thermodynamics elsewhere on the internet.

==My Past Contributions==

I have contributed to the following articles. Some contributions were minor, but most were major, and many of these articles were created by me. Some got moved from my "sandbox" pages into article space by other people.

Algebra, Joseph-Louis Lagrange, exponent of "r" in Newtonian gravity, Calc3.1/2/3/4/5, tensor, wave equation, e (mathematics), vector, vector space, vector field, conservative vector field, irrotational vector field, Maxwell's equations, Hodge star, exterior derivative, Cramer's rule, Riemann integral, Green's theorem, dense subset, limit (mathematics), boolean algebra, mathematical paradoxes, function, complex analytic function, continuity, countable, group, real number, rational number, complex number, Cauchy sequence, Dedekind cut, bijection, injection, surjection, ham sandwich theorem, two-pancacke theorem, divergence, curl, cross product, dot product, infinity, functor, continuous function, Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, principle of induction, general relativity, real analysis, Pierre Simon Laplace, diagonalization.

==My Future Plans==

This section . I may need to consult with some sysops on this. Fixing the [[Compass and straightedge]] article is an important item.

The comment above, about consulting with sysops, referred to the fact that I was blocked and reverted by Daniel Pulido after an earlier attempt to discuss math, so I wanted to contact him by email to get his approval. But he has himself been blocked, so maybe things are OK.

While there are a huge number of things that need in the mathematics area, I've picked out four that would be good to on. I want to collaborate on these with Ed Poor, who is the other math expert currently around, so I have placed and extensive discussion on [[User_talk:Ed_Poor|his talk page]], which see. I'm also going to bring this to the attention of [[User:JamesWilson]], who may be another up-and-coming math contributor.

*[[Compass and straightedge]]—This has been rescued from "parody hell", but it needs much more work to present the material in a way that is logical and understandable to the target audience.

*Elementary [[Algebra]]—This has been a topic of discussion between me and Ed for quite some time, generally centering on the question of "how do you explain to an elementary student what the question 'x+3 = 7' is really asking?"

*Peano axioms—The fundamental logical basis for all of arithmetic. I dimly recall a discussion between Ed and someone else on this topic; it didn't seem to get anywhere. It is an extremely fascinating topic for the target audience!

*[[Center]]—This has been a disaster for a long time. I really don't know how to write the "headline" sentence for this; that is, what's the first thing you say about what the "center" of a geometrical shape is? I solicit any insight that Ed (or anyone else) can provide.

==More thoughts on math==
Since there is a renewal of interest in writing mathematical articles, I'd like for people to feel free to use my [[User_talk:SamHB|talk page]] for discussion of math articles, if they so desire. I may be able to offer advice or guidance, or suggest fruitful topics.

People should also feel free to discuss math writing in general, including the topic that is near and dear to me—setting the right educational level for our expected audience. I only ask that:
*Do not tell me we need extremely advanced articles at the college level. See [[Talk:Algebra|here]] for the latest example of misguided advice along these lines. Just don't ask. I'm not interested.
*If criticizing my or anyone else's writing level or style, please provide a link to a sample of your own writing on the same or equivalent topic and at the same depth, so that we can see just what you have in mind.

==To mark a page for deletion==
Use <nowiki>{{db|blah blah blah}}</nowiki>

<references/>

User talk:VargasMilan

2015-05-16T07:24:39Z

Proustdead:

{{welcome|sig=<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:52, 1 January 2010 (EST)}}

I'm starting a guild for mercenaries, with the goal of freeing oppressed peoples and unjust regimes, amongst other things. The guild will participate in the assassination of a few world leaders and some smaller jobs on the side, along with providing manpower and support for a few of my other projects. A few of these jobs I plan on doing in exchange for political amnesty for all operatives in the UK and US. I plan to change the world and this guild will be my catalyst for doing so. I already have my right hand man chosen, but any group needs members. Write me a short curriculum vitae (think like a resume detailing your skills and how you can prove your worth to me as an operative of The Den Of Azathoth) and I'll read it over and decide whether to accept you or not. Also, as I'm still scraping together funds for a server rig and other such necessary things, any donations would not only pretty much guarantee membership, but would expedite several of my plans greatly and when the guild is established you would have a position of high rank and command. Either way, donation or none, I look forward to hearing from you, and the possibility of taking you into the fold of things is enticing. Godspeed.

We also will work for you if you have money.
[[User:Proustdead|Proustdead]] 03:24, 16 May 2015 (EDT)

== re: Atheism article ==

If you want to replace the bare link footnotes of the [[Atheism]] article with more descriptive non-bare links, that would be most welcome. I am involved in some major projects right now and I am pressed for time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 16 July 2014 (EDT)

:Okay, I'll do some more then. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 16:01, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
::Thanks. Much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:26, 16 July 2014 (EDT)
:::Thank you again for all your work on the atheism article. It's appearance looks noticeably better plus it is more informative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:43, 15 January 2015 (EST)
::You're welcome. I also like the article and appreciate all the research you've done for it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:47, 15 January 2015 (EST)
:::Thanks. I don't think I would do the research again. Atheism is a rather stale topic and its prospects in terms of adherents [[Global atheism|looks poor]] in the 21st century. I agree with [[John Updike]] who said, "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position." If I knew the [[New Atheism]] was just a fad, I wouldn't have bothered. In hindsight, it has a lot of indicators that it was merely a fad.

:::My research had a ''The Bridge on the River Kwai''/Gestalt principle like element to it. Once I started the task, I wanted to finish it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:13, 15 January 2015 (EST)

::::You gathered in one place a lot of supporting evidence that otherwise would have been scattered all over the internet and of limited use. I think you deserve a kudos for that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:17, 15 January 2015 (EST)
:::::I did put a fly in the evangelical/militant atheist soup by putting this evidence together in one place. And a good [[Christian apologetics]] team has both an offense/defense (Saying why other worldviews are wrong and why Christianity is correct). So some good came out of it. But there is the issue of the [[opportunity cost]]. I could have used the time to advance other causes (Christian evangelism, anti-slavery efforts, anti-poverty efforts, etc. etc.). If you look [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz= HERE]and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=GB&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist%2C%20atheism%2C%20New%20Atheism%2C%20Richard%20%20Dawkins&geo=AU&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and [http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=atheist&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz= HERE] and at the [[global atheism]] article, it does seem like atheism is losing steam in the world, the US, the UK and Australia in recent years.

:::::Part of this downward trend is due to Christian efforts and a lot of it is due to atheists shooting themselves in the foot through their ill behavior and infighting (see: [[Atheist movement]] and [[Elevatorgate]]). In addition, the more we know about the physical world and about the nature of man, the less plausible atheism is. In addition, the atheist community has largely [[Atheism and politics|allied itself with the left end of the political spectrum]] and in recent years, the left has not fared very well. And high sovereign debt around the world in developed countries, makes the left's prospects dimmer. Austerity measures are often not something a country chooses. It is something that is forced upon them. And austerity measures and leftism are not a good match. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 15 January 2015 (EST)
I just noticed something. If you look at those graphs, you will see that upward part of the graphs correlate with the rise of [[New Atheism]] and the political left (Obama, etc. etc.), but the descent of the graphs is correlated with the fall of the [[New Atheism]] and the political left losing favor. I didn't notice the political aspect until just now. Christendom has a higher degree of diversity in terms of politics due to its high geographic diversity. Like I am politically to the right within the multiple Christian editors of User: Conservate-ism and politically to the right of former admin Philip Rayment for example. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 15 January 2015 (EST)

== Great job and small request ==

You are doing a superb job as far as the atheism footnotes.

I have a small request as far as the atheism article footnotes. For various reasons, I try to keep all the links on the page highly relevant. Like all the links going to the specific source pages. So if you could avoid the links going to the home pages of the news websites (or other websites), I would appreciate it.

The article is going to look fantastic when the footnoting is finished and it will be more helpful to readers as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:28, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

:Okay, I'll compress them if you like. Thanks for the compliments. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 21:40, 17 July 2014 (EDT)
::OK, I just compressed one. The footnote to the Marxism website. You can see what I did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:59, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

== re: two other articles ==

After you finish footnoting the atheism article, consider footnoting the [[evolution]] and [[homosexuality]] articles because those articles are popular articles too. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:11, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

:Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 20:05, 20 July 2014 (EDT)

== footnotes - atheism article ==

The only reason I changed one of the footnotes in the article is because I found a better source. Your footnoting is excellent and makes the article more user friendly which is important. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:29, 21 July 2014 (EDT)

:Thank you, I was just about to ask you about that change. And thank you for the compliments. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 17:33, 21 July 2014 (EDT)
::The [[Evolution]] article is probably the most popular article on this website. And the topic is related to atheism too. Would you like to do the footnoting for the evolution article too? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:43, 28 July 2014 (EDT)
:::That one is very long. I would prefer to work on some of the smaller "Liberal characteristics and traits" articles first. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:01, 29 July 2014 (EDT)
::::OK. There is an article which has under 50 footnotes and over 1,000,000 page views. The [[liberal]] article. This would be an excellent candidate to do better footnoting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:46, 29 July 2014 (EDT)

== spammer on the loose ==

See Recent changes at 23:52. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:16, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

::I'm [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AVargasMilan&year=&month=-1| pretty sure you do have blocking powers]. Did Andy not congratulate you? [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:32, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

::We now have confirmation direct from Andy. It's on [[User_talk:SamHB | my talk page]]. Go have a look. He appreciates your work. (As do I.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 01:01, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

== News maybe? ==
I found this article on cracked.com mentioning 6 studies that proves that not all fields of science are trustworthy and that some scientists will do what they can to get more funds for their "research". I'm not 100% sure if it's trustworthy, but maybe after proofreading it you guys could use this in your news or global warming article somewhere. [[User:MontanaMax|MontanaMax]] 01:20, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

http://www.cracked.com/article_20789_6-shocking-studies-that-prove-science-totally-broken.html

:Thanks, I'll look into it. But how do you think we would look linking to ''Cracked'' on the front page? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:25, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

::I guess I understand, but its rare to see a usually liberal/gray site admit something like this. [[User:MontanaMax|MontanaMax]] 01:28, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

:::They also did a piece something like "10 things you didn't know about life behind the iron curtain" featuring a writer who lived in Romania. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:36, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
::::I suggest you be vigilant with the main page as some may try to vandalize it with crude drawings using this "hidden" graffiti program -> http://dudl.me/ Vandals use it all the time on major sites. -[[User:MontanaMax|MontanaMax]] 16:54, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

== If you like doing administrative tasks ==

If you like doing administrative tasks, there are a lot of orphan pages that need to be linked to from other pages. You can find the list of them here: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:LonelyPages&limit=500&offset=0 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:14, 11 October 2014 (EDT)
::I started the work by deorphanizing the [[African Burial Ground]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:23, 11 October 2014 (EDT)

== Relativity ==

Thanks for calling that missing counterexample to my attention, and thereby (that means "because of what preceded" :-) keeping the numbering consistent. I'll get on it when I have the time. It will be a fairly straightforward one. In fact, there have been very few truly original "counterexamples" lately. I will try to eschew sesquipedalian expressions, and generally avoid "a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind" :-) Though such disdain is often hard to avoid on that page :-) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 12:13, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

:There's a lot to be said for self-confidence I suppose. Have at it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 13:09, 12 October 2014 (EDT)

== another spammer on the loose ==

Check RC. I'm sure you would have noticed it pretty soon. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:30, 30 November 2014 (EST)
:Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 15:40, 30 November 2014 (EST)

== No hard feelings, I hope? ==

I really do respect you. And I see that, with your recent edits to the National debt, along with many other things, you really are a subject matter expert, and willing to use that expertise. There are a lot of people that just fix punctuation and stuff, in what appears to be just an attempt to curry favor.

Now if I could just figure out what "withering patrician disdain" means!

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 1 December 2014 (EST)

:Do a search of the phrase in Conservapedia! It's one of Conservative's favorite quotes. You'll see who the original missive was ''actually'' aimed at without the substitution of your name. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:25, 1 December 2014 (EST)

::My goodness, you're right! I hadn't thought of that. Amazing. The way so much of his <s>garbage</s> writing is. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:40, 1 December 2014 (EST)

== Proper use of mainpage talk ==

OK, I'm going to follow your example, and try to get people to use main talk for discussion of the main page content only, and the community portal for general discussion, flaming, arguing, etc. We'll see how that goes. Maybe people are just too set in their ways, and they'll go back to the old way.

By the way, I have a vague recollection of someone fixing the lose vs. loose error recently, and I think it was you. If so, thank you. I fear that I am loosing my mind over this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 17:31, 6 December 2014 (EST)

:The switch over to the community portal seems to be going extremely well. I'm pleased that something I did is already getting people to use the right page. By the way, at the very bottom you will see a note by me about a user ("TheonlySIL", or whatever) that really, really, really desires to be blocked. Just sayin' [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:51, 6 December 2014 (EST)

== Project ==

Would you like to collaborate with other editors on a wiki project to help Conservapedia be a strong resource for a given topic.

The topic could be decided by the editors participating.

If you are interested, please go to: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#A_project_for_active_editors_to_collaborate_on The collaborative project]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:04, 25 December 2014 (EST)
==Survivalblog==
Thank you for your edits. Don't you think that this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Survival_Blog&curid=132924&diff=1131585&oldid=1131584] was rather rambling to the point of distracting the reader from what we are trying to say? Could you please consider rewriting it for clarity? I think the reader can get the idea without a parody of the blog's writing style. Many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:25, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Your edit improves things. It would be my preference to have moved the discussion to a general overview article like [[Survivalism]] and the long quote to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]], but I am dropping my concerns. Again, many thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:53, 13 January 2015 (EST)

== Conservative vouched for this person. ==

Could you give me a link to this? Thanks. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:50, 14 January 2015 (EST)

:They edited together consecutively within the space of one or two minutes. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:55, 14 January 2015 (EST)

::Sorry, I didn't know that ''not objecting to'' means ''vouching for''. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 14 January 2015 (EST)

== I got rid of Burke trash and other trash on your talk page for you ==

I got rid of Burke trash and other trash on your talk page for you.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:20, 21 March 2015 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to make it easier for you to revert edits, and also for you to have night editing. Congratulation!

:Thank you, Andy! I appreciate it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 22:57, 29 March 2015 (EDT)

== Fixed typo on main page ==

I fixed the typo on the main page. Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:20, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== I don't understand ... ==

Why do you keep reverting my edits to the Obama and Unemployment page? We all know that unemployment has fallen (albeit with a lowering workforce participation), why shouldn't the article reflect that?

== I updated the Barack Obama and United States Unemployment article ==

I updated the [[Barack Obama and United States Unemployment]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:36, 30 April 2015 (EDT)

== I just sent you an email ==

VargasMilan, I just sent you an email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 9 May 2015 (EDT)

:Thanks for the welcome. I sent you a reply regarding what you said in your e-mail. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 19:05, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
::OK. I just sent you a followup email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:30, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
:Thank you. I will check into those to see if there's anything I've missed from my own research. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 20:40, 9 May 2015 (EDT)
::OK. I just sent you a final email to tie things up as far as our recent discussions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:24, 10 May 2015 (EDT)

==Inserting false information==
When you banned me you put as the reason for my ban, "inserting false information", what was the false information I inserted? I just want to know so that I'm more careful and do not do the same thing again this time. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:53, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Also, what was my bad behavior in general? I want to make sure I know what mistakes to avoid in the future.--[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

:Well the CNN article was one. I just remember there being a number of problems. I believe I noted the problems in the edit summaries.

:When you asked about edits to the LDS article, I thought you were referring to the talk page, but in the article you made a mistake there too that I noted in the edit summary. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:29, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

::But thank you for your positive contributions. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:44, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Was a feeling that my editing was "liberal" part of the reason I was banned, or was it more so for poorly sourcing what I wrote? Because when I saw the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" I thought that comment was odd because I'm actually far right politically on most other issues, although I guess I might be less conservative than this site in that one area. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:53, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:You were behaving like a liberal spammer. The results of the edits being somewhat liberal made them seem more deliberate.
:As for the comment, I'd just be speculating. It was User:Conservative who said it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:06, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I think it might have been because of edits like this,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1144550&oldid=1144544], I was making a positive statement in this edit, not a normative one. A positive statement is a neutral statement of fact that is not related to issues of right or wrong, while a normative statement refers to statements of fact that involve moral judgements. I was not saying pedophilia was ok in that edit, I was saying that I did not agree all religions condemned it, because numerous sources have said that Mohammad married a child and that the Talmud (which is a book some Jewish denominations use as a supplement to the Bible) allowed child marriage, I was not saying that what Mohammad allegedly did was right or that what the Talmud allegedly said was right, I was saying that because numerous sources have said that, the statement that all religions condemn pedophilia is questionable. That's not the same thing as saying pedophilia is ok, that's not what I was saying. And when I removed the part about homosexuals being connected to the pedophile advocates from the article, the reason was because homosexuality isn't the same thing as pedophilia, and because the advocates I saw mentioned looked like they were more so advocating a slight reduction in the legal age for sex, not legalizing pedophilia. I was not saying that I approved of homosexuality or that I agreed with their proposals. In the Alfred Kinsey article, when I removed the part saying he advocated adult sexual abuse of children, I did not remove it because it was not true, but because it did not have a source [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alfred_Kinsey&action=historysubmit&diff=1144742&oldid=1144681]. I was not saying the statement was incorrect or defending Kinsey in any way. In the ephebophilia article,when I said that was not a problem [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ephebophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1145014&oldid=1144906], I was going by what the reliable sources says, that attraction includes attraction to legal adults, 18-19 year olds, so it isn't the same thing as pedophilia, saying its not a sexual perversion is not the same thing as saying it would be appropriate to act on it. So I think some of my edits were misinterpreted. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:Like I said, they, perhaps incidentally, lined up on the side of liberalization. Because...treating human sexuality positively rather than normatively is in itself a liberal red flag. Beginning with Havelock Ellis. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Ok, that is true. I remember Sigmund Freud, another advocate of sexual perversion whose writings I find highly disturbing, saying that he was not concerned with value judgements, and I think that is disgusting to ignore a normative role completely, because then things as heinous as pedophilia or sadism become acceptable. But when I made that statement about my statement about religious views on pedophilia being positive not normative, I was not saying I would treat the subject in general positively. It should be treated normatively because pedophilic acts are heinous and the attraction is disordered. I was just making the positive statement that some religions seemed to condone it, I was not advocating treating the topic in general in a positive way, in fact I maybe even should have followed making that statement by making clear with a normative statement that if a religion condones something that heinous, it is doing something morally repugnant and wrong. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:47, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

==Christian Science==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=657309022&oldid=657229724] Wikipedia begins its article about Christian Science with the statement, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy" without saying "or as her adherents would prefer to say, discovered." I'm not going to edit war about this, but adding the second statement seems redundant and unencyclopedic to me. Saying that she founded does not imply that its a false religion, it just says that she is the person who started the religion in this world. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:Did you read my edit summary? She is presented by the sect as discovering the laws of spiritual forces rather than as treating symptoms. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I did read it, I just don't agree that its necessary to put that in the lead. I don't think saying she started the religion in this world, implies that her claims that she discovered spiritual laws are false. And I think its less redundant. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:49, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::I don't know, doesn't it kind of provide a flash of insight that would make the reader interested to read more? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:57, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Maybe, but it does not look like its neutral, it looks like its endorsing the religion's claims. Is the purpose of the article to neutrally cover the church, or to be an advertisement for the church? If the purpose is the former, then it does not make sense to make that the first sentence. Anyway, it still is redundant, that's the main problem I have with it. I know this encyclopedia is not supposed to be neutral the way wikipedia allegedly is, but I still think there should be some level of neutrality in reporting information here. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:01, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::But if the article can get a conservative to personally understand the appeal, it might put a conservative more on guard against its potential religious unorthodoxy as described later in the article. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:10, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::Honestly, to me it looked like the statement was endorsing Christian Science as the correct religion. (Since it seems like my saying the Talmud condoned pedophilia lead to people mistakenly viewing me as a pedophile advocate, I will clarify that I'm not saying I think Christian Science is true, I'm saying it looked to me like the article was saying that). --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:13, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

== Soviet Union ==

The article about the Soviet Union,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&action=historysubmit&diff=1152397&oldid=1152395], has a photograph of a cat in it. That just seems kind of bizarre and off topic to me. But I'm not going to remove it myself because I don't want to cause problems. But my opinion is that it should be removed. What do you think? --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:05, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

:It does seem strange. But it was added by the same administrator who imposed your topic ban. He'd think you were getting even with him, so you'd better ask him about it first. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I honestly didn't know that. Which administrator is that? I already removed it.--[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:19, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I readied the photo to avoid controversy.
::You readied it? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:23, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
:::I meant I re-added it, or I thought I had. It was a typo. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 02:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
::::Perhaps in your fantasies you did, but in reality, you didn't! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:30, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

Democratic Party

2015-05-16T07:18:52Z

Proustdead:

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1828
| ideology = range from extreme [[leftist]] to [[moderate]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = liberal/[[Hollywood values]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The tea will go well with the madeleines.
-h@xx0r1997
The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. It has favored [[liberalism]] since its foundation in 1828 (although Democrat supporters have [[Deceit|deceitfully]] claimed that the Democrats prior to 1964, the year the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] was enacted, were "conservative" and, in a case of [[Liberal Amnesia]], willfully misled the public into believing that the Democrats and the Republicans "switched philosophies" practically overnight around that time, although actual conservative Democrats have always formed a minority within the party). In general it is [[pro-abortion]] and anti-[[free enterprise]], supporting higher taxes, anti-gun policies, and a much larger, more invasive government, while the [[Republican Party]] is generally [[pro-life]] and pro-free enterprise, supporting lower taxes and small, responsible government<ref>http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican#Role_of_Government</ref>. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists. Many [[conservative]]s consider him to be the worst president to date.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century a portion of the party supported [[slavery]]; the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." Today, there are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentious Democratic policies, especially stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> Surveys which address both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate currently has an average 78% negative approval rating, with only 13% expressing approval.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html|title=Congressional Job Approval|work=Real Clear Politics|accessdate=October 2, 2012}}</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national [[party platform]], however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions.<ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref> The Democratic party also adopts policy positions and platforms at the state and Congressional district levels.

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically claim that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10% and then fell to 6.2%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm|title=Employment Situation Summary|work=Bureau of Labor Statistics|date=August 1, 2014|accessdate=August 5, 2014}}</ref>

Democrats support a minimum wage that increases with the increases in the cost of living and currently advocate setting the minimum wage at $10.10 per hour. President Obama signed an executive order imposing this wage on federal contractors, but Congress has not adopted the $10.10 wage for all interstate commerce.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/12/minimum-wage-federal-contractors_n_5489027.html|title=Obama Moves On Minimum Wage Without Congress|date=June 12, 2014|accessdate=August 5, 2014}}</ref> Currently, only 4.3% of all hourly wage workers receive the current minimum wage of $7.25.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf|title=Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2013|work=Bureau of Labor Statistics|date=March 2014|accessdate=August 5, 2014}}</ref>

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>
Democrats favor expanded taxpayer funding of higher education, particularly for scientific research, land-grant colleges, community colleges and historically black colleges.<ref name=ed/> President Obama established a White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-historically-black-colleges-and-universities|title=Executive Order 13532 -- Historically Black Colleges and Universities|date=February 26, 2010|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref> Democrats cut the interest rate on Stafford student loans to 3.4% and eliminated private banks as middlemen in federal student loans.<ref name=ed>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education|title=Higher Education|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Health care===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. Many Democrats favor single-payer health insurance, but as a compromise supported a plan that preserves private health insurance with an individual mandate and government subsidy of premiums based on the health care plan adopted in Massachusetts. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress, and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] coverage to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Others argue that the United States must compete with foreign countries where governments cover all health care costs giving foreign companies an advantage over U.S. products. Another argument is that prior to ObamaCare, uninsured people would fail to get preventative care and would go to hospital emergency rooms for treatment, resulting in higher health care costs and large subsidies paid by people with health insurance.

===Homosexual "Rights"===
White Democratic leaders — but not blacks or Latinos — consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s or "marriage". On May 9, 2012, [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] announced that he supports same-sex "marriage".<ref name="ABC News">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/obama-sex-marriage-legal-16312904|title=Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage|date=May 9, 2012|work=ABC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html|title=Obama announces he supports same-sex marriage|last=Gast|first=Phil|date=May 9, 2012|publisher=CNN|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the [[minimum wage]], workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriage"]], and the [[separation of church and state]].

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However, Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform — most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] and many methods of [[contraception]] — are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]]. In 2012, there was a controversy regarding a national organization of religious women ("nuns") speaking out against House Republican budget proposals. This resulted in a national publicity tour and protests called "Nuns on the Bus".

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that organized religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the [[ACLU]]. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Congress, and as a result when a member of the Alabama Supreme Court, [[Roy Moore]], posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim that [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1792 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Republicans (Jeffersonian) | Jeffersonian Republicans]] was a political party established under the leadership of Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. At the time, it was generally called the Republicans, but it had no relationship to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. The 1816 election was the last occasion when the Federalist Party nominated a presidential candidate. In the 1820s, the Jeffersonian Republicans split into several fractions. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected president in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Republicans.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> The leadership of the Jeffersonian Republicans, including [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref name="presidents">William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats (still split in two due to the issue over slavery) became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party (formed by former Whigs and abolitionists), which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two due to the issue of slavery. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joined to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref name="presidents" /> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref name="presidents" /> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election. In 1940, Roosevelt broke with tradition and sought a third term as President.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.

In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. The Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became a minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a national majority of the popular presidential vote only in 2008. However, the Democrats won a plurality of the popular vote in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2000.

[[Image:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], adding 103 million acres of park land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on September 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]], who had pledged "no new taxes."

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South moves toward Republicans===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern "values" (including [[segregation]] of blacks). They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref>See the exit polls at {{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=2004-11-02\|accessdate=2006-11-18|title=U.S. PRESIDENT / REGION: SOUTH / EXIT POLL}}</ref>

===1990s===
In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] (DLC) attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the DLC, was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." 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. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.

===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for House Majority Leader, electing Steny Hoyer instead of John Murtha. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] showed Obama being the clear favorite, with the vast majority of polls (with the exception of early September) depicting Obama as the clear favorite.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in February 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in November 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

Some critics refer to the group as the [[Democrat Party]].

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Obamacare]]
*[[Racism and the Democratic Party]]
*[[Democratic party (disambiguation)]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/lawrence-patton-mcdonald-b_15.html A Forgotten Man: Congressman Larry McDonald]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Eagle Forum

2015-05-16T07:18:42Z

Proustdead:

The Eagle Forum is [[Phyllis Cheesesteak's | Phyllis Schlafly's]] conservative political organization. It is the umbrella organization which includes the [[Eagle Forum rape decriminalisation committee]], the [[Eagle Forum PAC | Eagle Forum Political Action Committee]], and [[Eagle Forum University | Eagle Forum University]].

==External links==
*[http://www.eagleforum.org/ Eagle Forum Official Website]
[[Category:Conservative Organizations]]