Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 13

A few weeks ago, someone added text to the lead saying that the Republican Party is fiscally conservative. The body of the article disputes this. The lead should not falsely claim that this political party, which has only advocates for fiscal conservatism when Democrats are in power and has never implemented fiscally conservative once they themselves are in power, are a "fiscally conservative" party. The long-standing lead should be restored and we should certainly not mislead readers with brazen falsehoods about the nature of the party. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That section refers to their "21st-century ideology". Needless to say, sometimes ideology and what happens in practice are two different things. I agree that they talk a good game when it comes to fiscal responsibility....actually executing it is something else. So we need to find a way to communicate that effectively.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support "the party advocate for fiscal conservatism when Democrats control the presidency, but run up deficits when they themselves are in power or control the presidency", but that may be too detailed for the lead. It's either that or saying nothing about fiscal conservatism in the lead. The lead certainly can't say it's a fiscally conservative party. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of government spending through the tax code would be appropriate:

Faricy (2011) demonstrated that when tax expenditures are counted as a type of government spending, Democratic and Republican parties are indistinguishable in annual changes to federal government spending. This study also finds that Republicans are more likely to increase tax expenditures when in control of government thereby subsidizing the activities of businesses and the wealthy.

soibangla (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and. soibangla (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"but run up deficits when they themselves are in power or control the presidency" Only partially true. If the History of the United States public debt is accurate, budget deficits and increased public debt have occurred under the administrations of both major parties. According to the table we have, the administrations which contributed most to the debt-to-GDP ratio (by percentage points) were:

• 1) Franklin D. Roosevelt (1941-1945). Increase by 67,1%.
• 2) George W. Bush (2005-2009). Increase by 20.7%.
• 3) Barack Obama (2009-2013). Increase by 18.5%.
• 4) George H. W. Bush (1989-1993). Increase by 13.0%
• 5) Ronald Reagan (1981-1985). Increase by 11.3%.
• 6) Ronald Reagan (1985-1989). Increase by 9.3%.
• 7) George W. Bush (2001-2005). Increase by 7.1%.
• 8) Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (1973-1977). Increase by 0.2%.
  • Administrations which experienced a relative decrease of the debt-to-GDP ratio included: Bill Clinton (1993-1997, with a decrease of 0.7%), Richard Nixon (1969-1973, with a decrease of 3.0%), Jimmy Carter (1977-1981, with a decrease of 3.3%), Dwight D. Eisenhower (1957-1961, with a decrease of 5.2%), John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson (1961-1965, with a decrease of 8.3), Lyndon B. Johnson (1965-1969, with a decrease of 8.3%), Bill Clinton (1997-2001, with a decrease of 9.0%), Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1957, with a decrease of 11,0%), Harry S. Truman (1949-1953, with a decrease of 21.7%), Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman (1945-1949, with a decrease of 24.4%).
  • While both Presidents Bush, President Reagan, President Nixon in his second term, and President Ford run up deficits, President Nixon's first term and President Eisenhower's both terms were quite successful in handling the public debt. Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Would editors feel the statement While claiming to advocate for fiscal conservatism, actual platforms have varied widely during different administrations is short, to the point, and can be considered to be based on the article's body/cited text? I don't think it's important to identify in the lead which administrations have better/worse compliance with that claimed platform, nor is it appropriate to use charged terms such as "run up deficits" in the lead - this information should be reserved for the body where it can be expanded upon using neutral language. I'm also fine with no mention of fiscal policy in the lead at all - I can see the opinion that it is too detailed for the lead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the statement you suggest in your first sentence is alright but it leaves out essential info: I would add the clarification that Republicans only advocate fiscal conservatism consistently when Democrats are in charge, and not only stop advocating for it when they themselves are in charge but run up deficits. There's nothing wrong per se with running up deficits and it wouldn't be noteworthy to mention unless it specifically sheds light on whether the fiscal conservatism that the party claims to espouse is principled or not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That is too “into the weeds” for the lead regardless of if it’s included or not. It does not matter as much when they go against fiscal conservatism, just that they do. And that’s covered by the second part which says that their platforms have varied widely during different administrations. I’m open to better wording that clarifies they have been “unconservative” during some administrations, but specifics about which/trends should be left for the body. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What are the sources for this claim? If this is in the lead it needs very robust sourcing. Springee (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"It does not matter as much when they go against fiscal conservatism, just that they do." Our article on fiscal conservatism associates this term with the ideology of Bill Clinton and the so-called Clintonomics:

• "While the mantle of fiscal conservatism is most commonly claimed by Republicans and libertarians, it is also claimed in some ways by many centrist or moderate Democrats who often refer to themselves as New Democrats. Although not supportive of the wide range tax cut policies that were often enacted during the Reagan and Bush administrations,^[1][2] the New Democrat coalition's primary economic agenda differed from the traditional philosophy held by liberal Democrats and sided with the fiscal conservative belief that a balanced federal budget should take precedence over some spending programs.^[2]"
• "Former President Bill Clinton, who was a New Democrat and part of the somewhat fiscally conservative Third Way advocating Democratic Leadership Council, is a prime example of this as his administration along with the Democratic-majority congress of 1993 passed on a party-line vote the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which cut government spending, created a 36% individual income tax bracket, raised the top tax bracket which encompassed the top 1.2% earning taxpayers from 31% to 39.6% and created a 35% income tax rate for corporations.^[3] The 1993 Budget Act also cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families and 90% of small businesses. Additionally during the Clinton years, the PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) system originally introduced with the passing of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (which required that all increases in direct spending or revenue decreases be offset by other spending decreases or revenue increases and was very popular with deficit hawks) had gone into effect and was used regularly until the system's expiration in 2002."
• "After this combination of tax hikes and spending reductions, the United States was able to create budget surpluses from fiscal years 1998–2001 (the first time since 1969) and the longest period of sustained economic growth in United States history.^[4][5][6]"
• The article also contrasts the fiscally conservative Bill Clinton with the lack of conservatism of Ronald Reagan, when tax rates were cut while military spending was increased.: "By the end of Reagan's second term, the national debt held by the public increased by almost 60% and the total debt equalled $2.6 trillion. In fewer than eight years, the United States went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.^[7]" Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Are we sure that we can list Libertarianism as an official faction of the party? Especially since there is a Libertarian party. Although there is a tea party faction, and they do have Libertarian traits and ideals I don't know if Putting Libertarianism as a faction of the republican party Is a fair statement. It Makes it seems as if Conservatism and Libertarianism are similar and can be put in a big tent party, and i feel as if they cant. Would love feedback. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Lapeyrouse (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say so sense the prevalence of prominent US republicans that identify as libertarians such as Rand Paul and a GOP Libertarian congressional caucus Liberty Caucas--AbledAtol (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point, but I dont think its enough too be listed as a official ideology. Although there are politicians in the republican party who conform too libertarian beliefs, The republican party is anti-immigration, has imposed government intervention on the free market, Donald trump imposed gun control like red flag laws ( I know trump is very unique but he is still a republican) I think The republican party has more right wing nationalist and conservative values over libertarianism

The GOP's anti-democratic maneuvers have nothing to do with the party's "composition". Instead, it belong under political positions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring that the premise of this statement is based on subjective conjecture (which would perhaps be more fair if it were made to precisely refer to specific policies and individuals/sections of the voter base), it does not denote a policy. There is no such things as "anti-democracy" in the GOP platform, for instance. The text largely refers to the sentiments of the Republican voter base and the actions of Republican politicians, which exist in themselves separate to actual policy. thorpewilliam (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

What a strange response. The Republican Party does not even have a formal policy platform at the moment. The section in question coves the actions of the Republican Party as whole, its leaders, and its userbase, which peer-reviewed research has characterized as entailing anti-democratic measures. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

GOP platform The section which covers the composition of the party as a whole, i.e. "its leaders, and its userbase [sic]" is the "Composition" section. Placing it in "policy" under the imprecise and negatively-implicating heading of "democracy" is neither neutral nor linguistically good practice. And that's putting aside that the section of text itself offers no response/fair comment from Republicans which would produce greater balance. thorpewilliam (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Actions taken by the party to block policies or undermine democratic norms is not the "composition" of the party. It's nonsensical. Also, click the 2020 platform link. It's one page expressing their full support for whatever Trump wants (unspecified) and then the old 2016 platform is added at the end. In other words, the party does not have a platform. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems many of the efforts to block policies are typical of a party not in power concerned about the actions of the other power. I do understand the concerns with respect to IMPARTIAL raised by Thorpewilliam. Springee (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure maintaining the 2016 platform doesn't nullify it, so yes they have a platform. CaliIndie (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The platform exists; it simply remains unchanged from 2016. In other words, the party has maintained their platform. Note the text previously under “policy” does not cite the GOP platform or any other party document, or, for that matter, any elected representative of the party. Otherwise, the positions discussed in the policy section can all be found in the platform. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it supposed to be illegal immigration? The only legal immigration restriction the GOP did was Trump's travel ban on Muslim-Majority countries. But that's the only one I can recall. Ak-eater06 (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the GOP platform is not broadly in favor of limiting legal immigration. Toa Nidhiki05 15:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, though the GOP does advocate reform to the immigration system. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No, the party is broadly anti-immigration. It supports cuts and restrictions to legal immigration, as well as stringent policies against illegal immigration. In 2018, three-fourths of Republicans in both the House and Senate voted to cut legal immigration to the lowest levels since the 1920s. Furthermore, the last Republican president took a number of actions against legal immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Even a 40% cut in legal immigration isn't no immigration, and you can't say that's straight opposition to immigration. Toa Nidhiki05 13:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, the new standard on this page (aside from telling brazen falsehoods about the party's positions on various issues and edit-earring to restore those lies) is to introduce cherrypicked poll results on public support for cherrypicked Republican Party positions, and then edit-war that content into the article in the absence of consensus. I sincerely doubt that this is a principled standard that the editors on this page truly support. Should we go ahead and add public polling results on all the Republican Party's positions? For example, should the article clarify that the public overwhelmingly supports automatic voter registration and early voting, whereas the Republican Party opposes and/or seeks to restrict both of those? Or should the article exclusively cherrypick poll results that make individual Republican positions seem popular? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Snoogans, the opening sentence of this section is a broad attack on many editors who don't agree with your particular POV on this article. This is far from a neutral content question. Your concern may well be justified but your opening comment is very problematic. Springee (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment:It would help if you knocked off the personal attacks (for a change).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The prior status-quo was that the great bulk of the particular section is criticising that particular policy and only giving light to condemnation of it. That in itself is fine but on its own does not achieve the balance that Wikipedia strives for. If the policy is criticised in academia, but supported by the general public, surely these both ought to be mentioned given sufficient reliable sources are available. Also, as respectfully as possible, are the OP's contributions cherrypicked as well? Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If an academic literature is negative on a subject, then the appropriate NPOV action is not to cherrypick polls to mislead readers into thinking the public broadly supports the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The very basis of academic literature is that it is not broadly conformist on any one subject as broad as the subject of this article. The issue is when edits only use academic or other literature to further the editor's own ideological ends in violation of encyclopaedic standards. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Going to restart this debate, as more concrete actions are taking hold. While I don't think it should be added YET, this should be looked at, even though it is still only in the idea phase and will only consist of a few members. What are the thoughts of others?

https://punchbowl.news/wp-content/uploads/America-First-Caucus-Policy-Platform-FINAL-2.pdf https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-america-first-caucus/index.html https://apnews.com/article/politics-marjorie-taylor-greene-immigration-eefdf9c180f69008d60ed92b9ef2ce03? Rapmanej (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This caucus has exactly three members and has been repudiated by even the Freedom Caucus. Toa Nidhiki05 17:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of national conservatism in any of those sources and in fact cannot find any reliable sources about it. TFD (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with including the 'America First' caucus as a faction. There seem to be sources about it. I just wouldn't give it undue weight by making it seem bigger than it is; we are still talking about a relatively small faction even within the GOP.JMM12345 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

One of the positions of the Republican Party is apparently to "prosecute double voting". Is there anything unique or noteworthy about this purported position? Do Democrats not support prosecuting crimes? My removal of "prosecute double voting" was promptly reverted without explanation. "prosecute double voting" should be removed and I fail to comprehend the rationale for keeping it in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You decided to be “pointy” by adding additional polls with no additioanl citation or context. It is worth noting, for example, that the GOP is not proposing the abilition of early or mail voting, so saying “the public supports early and mail voting” as an abstract statement doesn’t actually deal with the proposed GOP laws. Georgia still has mail-in voting and more early voting than states like New Jersey, New York, or Delaware. Toa Nidhiki05 15:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I can kind of see what the editor wanting that in the article is getting at - it's known that the Democratic party is against the prosecution (or at least the jailing or large fines) of people who vote when they are not aware they are ineligible to do so (or fraudulently). Republicans, on the other hand, advocate for the "full force of the law" being applied to anyone voting when they aren't eligible - even if they were misinformed and didn't do it intentionally. If that is to be included, it should be explained more fully than "prosecute double voting" - because it's more complex than that. To reply to the user above, if reliable sources release the results of those polls together, it is not appropriate for us to "cherry pick" one of them to include here. We either include the results as correlated/connected by reliable sources, or we don't include any of them - thus including the one polling result without including the rest would be a violation of WP:SYNTH because the reliable source connected them yet we are saying they are not so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

My principled position is that Wikipedia articles should generally not be citing polls to say this or that is popular/unpopular (precisely because of the risks related to UNDUE, NPOV vios, and cherrypicking), but if there's a will to do that then clearly the polls should not be cherrypicked. As you say, "if reliable sources release the results of those polls together, it is not appropriate for us to "cherry pick" one of them to include here." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this was part of a rather pointy edit. This really needs to be written in a generalized, summary form, not one that suggests we are hoping to catch the GOP is a lie or something. That reeks of failing IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, your edit here [] restored newly added, disputed content []. Your reason for restoring was claiming that this was to restore long term content. In that case the correct action is to restore only the long term content, not the newly added, disputed content as well. Please correct this oversite. Springee (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Springee, will do. Give me a few minutes to sort out precisely which parts are longstanding. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how far back we need to go to say "stable". It looks like much of that content has changed in the last 30 days. It may be best just to present things here and let people debate an impartial version of the text. Springee (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There were a few edits bundled together. I was initially focused mainly on the lead, but from the section here, it seems you're more looking at the voting requirements section. I compared to a revision April 1 when I was looking for the status quo, but someone who's been following this page more closely recently might have a better idea of what it truly is.

Anyways, I think "limiting early and mail voting" is a much better example to give than "prosecuting double voting". Most of the recent debate has been about mail voting, and limiting early voting is also something the GOP has pushed heavily and has had a big impact. "Prosecuting double voting", on the other hand, is something that Democrats also support so isn't really a distinguishing feature at all. "Aggressively prosecuting double voting" would be a little better, since as bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez pointed out the GOP supports prosecuting it more forcefully, but even so I'd say early/mail voting is the most obvious example choice alongside the existing purging voter rolls and limiting voting locations. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that the line civil and voting rights organizations often accuse Republicans of enacting restrictions to influence elections in the party's favor doesn't go far enough. Republicans on multiple occasions have explicitly admitted that their voting requirements legislation is being pushed with the goal of giving them an electoral advantage by making it harder for liberals and people of color to vote. Characterizing that as just an accusation being made by voting rights groups rather than an established truth accepted everywhere except unreliable right-wing media is WP:FALSEBALANCE. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you give me some examples of Republicans on multiple occasions explicitly admitting that their voting requirements legislation is being pushed with the goal of making it harder for people of color to vote. Please be specific.JMM12345 (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

This article cites numerous examples. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That article cites exactly zero examples of Republicans explicitly admitting that their voting requirements legislation is being pushed with the goal of making it harder for people of color to vote. The writer of the article certainly thinks that that is the goal of Republican proposals and even uses terms like "Jim Crow" and "White Supremacy" when talking about what Republicans are doing, but it doesn't cite a single example of Republicans explicitly admitting that their proposals are intended to disenfranchise people of color or will disenfranchise people of color. The couple of times it quotes Republicans, those quotes don't on their face have anything to do with race.JMM12345 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Sdkb, there's a surprisingly few number of "explicit admissions" in that article. I furthermore don't think that Washington Monthly should be considered acceptable for claims such as this on political articles - their political articles vary between editorially sound and basically opinion/blog pieces that their staff can write and publish. The fact that their links to "sources" are blocked behind revenue generating links is another bad sign. If you can't provide a source that directly states that the party as a whole believes this, instead of just some people who said things vaguely suggesting things, you may wish to not go down that road anymore. While Wikipedia does summarize the major viewpoints of reliable sources, most reliable sources actually intentionally do not say that they are trying to prevent people from voting - at most they talk about the effects of the laws. While some individuals (many?) claim that it's intentional, we do not take opinion and turn it into fact just because reliable sources repeat that (attributed) opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Returning to the specific subject of this talk page section: I have removed the "prosecute double voting" text, which is an obvious red herring; this position does it differentiate them from their chief rivals (obviously, Democrats favor prosecuting voter fraud in the extremely rare cases when it occurs). More importantly, this is not what sources emphasize, nor does this content have consensus here. Neutrality^talk 03:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Since multiple people have objected to this now... sources overwhelmingly cite whiteness as a central component of the modern Republican base. Actually, just from a quick skim of the sources to refresh my memory, whiteness is more predictive of Republican support than gender (and a number of sources comment on this, eg. on how white women increasingly vote like white men in terms of Republican support), so if anything it would make more sense to remove the "men" part than the "white" part, though sources do still emphasize white men as a particular element of the Republican base. We could possibly list whites and men separately (though I think most sources list them together), but I don't see how whiteness can be removed when coverage is so overwhelming as to its centrality to modern American politics and the party's bases. --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the compromise wording, it is not terrible but is to a certain extent a move in the wrong direction - it could be reasonably flipped to something like "white people (especially white men)." See eg. . White women frequently vote Republican as well; the Democratic advantage among women is really more among nonwhite women. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• For a long while it was "white Americans, men,..." More recently it was switched to "white men," which I'm not really sure is better. Both are fully supported by sources; this is just a matter of reverting the inexperienced/WP:NOTHERE editors who don't care about sourcing and are just trying to remove it since they don't like it. Maybe adding a hidden comment warning would help deter. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It's quite simple: literally all exit polling and public polling in the last decade has shown that men tend to vote more Republican and women more Democratic. This is not debatable, it's not arguable - it's literally the baseline statistical data used by political scientists. To say that only white men are a core GOP constituently goes against reliable sources on the matter when, broadly speaking, it's all men. The same applies to women, except for them it's nonwhite women that are the core liberal constituency, not white women. If we want to emphasize white men in particular, fine, but this is just not a debatable thing in political science. And while we're discussing, it might also be worth adding Cuban Americans as a group for Rs - this is a general constant in most elections. Pew gives a 58-38 advantage for Rs. Politico finds something similar. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• From the sources I have read, the GOP's #1 demographic is white non-college-educated men. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • All of the sources in the article specifically highlight how men in general vote GOP, with a few making slight note within the overall piece about racial breakdowns that reference white men in particular. So the sources you've read don't really matter here unless you can present them showing this as a central point, and what you're talking about wouldn't impact the wording here anyways.

The college educated part has bugged me for a while. If you look at the exit polls of the last few (presidential) elections, considering just the undergrad degrees, there hasn't been a staggering difference until you get to the postgraduate level (which was just 15% of the vote last time). For example, in the 2020 election it was 51% (D) vs. 47% (R). To call something that close a demographic is (I think) misleading. Especially considering Mitt Romney won this demographic as recently as 2012. (This is leaving out "some" college education and associate degrees which the GOP has won in many instances.) If it was breaking at something like 65-35......yeah, I'd call that a major difference....but 51-47? That's not a major difference worthy of calling a demographic.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Democrat's strength among more highly educated voters comes out mainly once you control for income. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know.....but in the last election the GOP won incomes from 100-200k and it was a tie over 200k. And in 2016 , they won every bracket over 50k. (Same deal in 2012: .)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah now that you mention it, I was looking at the info for the 2004 election and Republicans not only won college educated voters comfortably, but also won all income brackets of 50K and above again too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics! Since the same thing happened in 2012 and the lede section of the article is explicitly referring to the party's "21st century voter base" as a whole rather than "most recent voter base" or something, it's preposterous to act like the 2020 election defines the party's support amongst people of a certain income in the entire 21st century or to act like the 2016 and 2020 elections define the party's support amongst college educated individuals in the entire 21st century. It's gotta be removed, and we should honestly be taking a look at potentially replacing it with "people with higher incomes" instead, since there's a lot more verfiable consistency in people with more money voting Republican. Davefelmer (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• • I am however, more willing to consider Aquillion (talk)'s suggested wording of breaking it down between white americans and men as seperate groups and linking both like that. If that was the original wording for a long time, it makes sense to return to it, and I believe ample sources do cover both groups as core parts of the GOP base, whereas 'white men' in particular is not widely covered in reliable sources and mentioned more in passing amidst larger articles that look at the genders as a whole as the main point, and the equivalent of what would be black women being a core Democratic Party (United States) voting block is absent on the article for that party, so there's no basis or precedent to do it here. Davefelmer (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Why would you not, for that matter, include the intersection of all the demographics? The Republican party is popular amongst rural, white, non-college educated Silent Generation men, but it's also popular with all of those subcategories on their own. Take any intersection of any of those groups and you'll find they tend to vote Republican. Why would we just choose the two to group together? Splitting them up, e.g. "White Americans, men...", as it was a few months ago is better. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Totally agreed. I would caution on the 'non-college educated' part though, as I've written on above, since the party primarily doing well with non-college educated individuals as opposed to college grads is a rather new phenomenon, and doesn't define the party's base throughout the entire 21st century as the lede suggests. For instance, Republicans won college educated and college grad voters comfortably while losing non high school graduating voters in 2004 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics and they won college graduates while losing non college grads again in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics. Thus, the statement shouldnt have a mention in the lead at all, as it's entirely a construct of recency bias. If anything, it should be replaced with "people of higher income", since Republicans have won every income bracket of 50K and above in all but two elections in the 21st century and every income bracket of 75K and above in all but one 21st century election. What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of state Republican parties are listed as Right-wing so could the main articles also have this as its position? Thomascampbell123 (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You mean like in the infobox? I wouldn't have much of a problem with that, but I'd be curious to hear other opinions; it already lists "Right-wing populism" and " Right-libertarianism" as factions. Perhaps it would be better if we said that the position is "Center-right to Right-wing", so as to cover the diversity of thought within the party.JMM12345 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Republican Party is a catch-all party, read Factions in the Republican Party (United States). Vacant0 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The field was removed after discussion. While there is general agreement about relative position in the spectrum, there is disagreement about absolute position. For example, all agree that the Reps are to the right of the Dems. But there disagree about how far to the left or right other party is or whether we should use the same criteria for the U.S. as for other countries. Since we supply the parties' ideologies, it is unnecessary to tell readers where we think those ideologies are situated in the political spectrum.

Also, Vacant0 is right about the big tent nature of U.S. parties, although they have become increasingly polarized along the left-right axis in recent decades.

TFD (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect GQP. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 2#GQP until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually came to this page to explore the “GQP” tag that is extremely prevalent on social media since the assault on the Capitol on 1/6/2021. The effects of Q-Anon on the former establishment GOP is completely missing from the page despite its historic and enduring impact on the party since 2017. An updated GQP section is now overdue.

I disagree. Just because a name is used on social media by people who don't like the subject of the article doesn't necessarily mean that we need to redirect it in wikipedia. For example, among some right wing circles on social media, people have negative terms to refer to the Democratic Party, however we would never redirect those to the Democratic Party (United States) because we would recognize that that is a partisan attack rather than a generally accepted nickname.

Now, if you think that something is missing from the page, you're free to try to find reliable sources and either suggest what you think should be added on the talk pages or get an account and add it yourself. Either way, that is a bit different than whether this should be a redirect.JMM12345 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Clearly this article gets a lot of attention by a lot of editors who are trying to improve it. Yet it doesn't have and as far as I can tell has never had a section on the *structure* of the GOP, its actual functioning. It seems to me like that developing such a section would be more important than any other existing part of this article. If it existed, it would be the part that is most concretely *about the Republican Party*, rather than abstract analysis of or claims about the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party article has a "Structure and Composition" section. The Libertarian Party article has a "Structure and Composition" section. The Green Party has a "Structure and Composition" section.

If you look at European Union parties, the articles are practically *all* about structure and functioning, which is pretty logical. British political parties all have an "Organisation and Structure" section. Merkel's Christian Democrats have an "internal structure" section.

The CPSU and CPC articles are mostly "Organization". So are the world's tiny opposition communist parties.

Basically, this article is by far the biggest fluke of all political party articles on Wikipedia, in completely refusing to say anything about the actual structure, organization and functioning of its subject. If you wanted to answer the questions, "How is the GOP organized? How does it function?" you somehow could not do that with this twelve thousand word article. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like it is indeed something missing from the article. If you'd like to write such a section, please do (just please include cited sources, which are essential for a topic this controversial). You can make an edit request here to have it added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)