Talk:Republican Party (United States)

"Center-right", Center-right to right-wing", or "center-right to far-right"

We're unfortunately back into this discussion.

Recently, several editors have made changes right-leaning countries in the Anglosphere as "center-right to right-wing" based off of them having right-wing/far-right factions. This seems a bit ridiculous.

Because of the two party system: it's common for political parties to dramatically their ideology over time. And we have traditionally not scratched their political position over it.

• The British Labour Party was far more left-wing (some went so far as to argue that it was a "left-wing" rather than "center-left" party at the time) under Jeremy Corbyn v. Keir Starmer.
• Even under the peak influence of the Backbone club, and the introduction of Rogernomics, most sources continued to refer to the New Zealand Labour Party as "center-left".

I removed it here due to the relatively poor sourcing + change of WP: PRECEDENT. What do editors think?

As two-party systems force all "left-wing" and "right-wing" forces, by definition, into two main policies, it's not surprising that as organizations they have periods of "right-wing/hard right" politics and "centrist" ones.

I'd go far as to state that even if there was a President Jeremy Corbyn (thought experiment), or Bernie Sanders, that it wouldn't make the Democrats no longer a "center-left" party.KlayCax (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:, the RFC in question seems to be just for some description of the party being right of center, rather than the given wording that was added in.I wouldn't say that there's a consensus here.

@Toa Nidhiki05: and other editors have favored "center-right" rather than "right-wing" or "far-right". That's what I also think.

It's typical for center-left and center-right parties to have periods of time where they could be easily described as being de facto right-wing or left-wing parties. Yet that doesn't change the above facts. KlayCax (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

From the closer's comment: 'clear consensus to be to include the general position as "right wing"'. We can restart the discussion, of course, but you shouldn't just ping one participant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If you interpret it that way, @Firefangledfeathers:, then it shouldn't include "center-right to right-wing" at all, but rather a description of it as "right-wing". (Meaning that "center-right" to "right-wing" also violates it.)

The sources in question for "right-wing" are extraordinarily poor. A passing mention to "the right-wing Republican Party" doesn't mean that it isn't a center-right party. Nor does passing mentions to the "left-wing Democratic Party" mean that it isn't a center-left party. Do sources deny that either party is? Because it seems to me that passing mentions and a single, opinion-editorial from Politico do not override what a large majority of academic sources state.

A bit off topic, but this gets into a deep problem raised by other editors: people started deciding where the parties fit in their opinion rather than what sources state. That's the complete opposite of policy. It's typical for center-left and center-right parties - by their nature - to have hardcore or even radical factions. But that doesn't mean that the party of the whole isn't a coalition of right-leaning centrists to hardcore conservatives, libertarians, and populists. KlayCax (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally: none of the sources state that it is a "center-right to right-wing" party. They describe it as either "center-right" or "right-wing". Making it a violation of WP: SYNTH.

Of the two, the highest-quality sources seem unanimous in their conclusion. Unfortunately it's common for people on here to look at people like Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, and many others as "far-left/left-wing" and "right-wing/far-right" and then are attempting to change the positions of center-left and center-right parties because of that. KlayCax (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And all of these problems are not just limited to this article. But other political party articles as well, @Firefangledfeathers:. KlayCax (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on "center-right", except that I was happy that its inclusion seemed to end the last major edit war. The last discussion (I think) was at #Political positions being reinstated once again. If you oppose "center-right" and think it doesn't have consensus, you won't see me reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources are not "extraordinarily poor". Multiple academic sources stating that the GOP is right-wing is sufficient to support that clay, and that has been done. Cortador (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am generally satisfied with current consensus, but there absolutely is something to be said about sources that inconsistently describe the party as any degree of right, and factions ranging from the center to the far right. The reality is, both parties are big tent manifestations of their entire ideological side. I don't know the best way to explain this in article other than to say as much in the lead. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, let's not go down this rabbit hole again. Consensus was to say center-right to right-wing. We have lots of high-quality academic sources describing it as such. I would challenge anybody who disagrees to find high quality, academic sources from journal articles to back up their claims. Otherwise, it's just personal opinion. BootsED (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Describing a party as far-right based on a faction is entirely reasonable if said faction is significant/dominant. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Statistically, the “far-right” is a fraction of the second-smallest caucus in the party, and substantially outnumbered by centrist caucuses. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Caucus size doesn't matter. What matters how reliable sources describe the faction. Cortador (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It does matter. Both of them do. And reliable sources demonstrate the "far-right" as a minority in a minority caucus - outnumbered by the centrist caucuses - and the party broadly labeled as center-right or right-wing. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking factions entirely from caucuses is original research. Stick to what sources actually state. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s not original research when multiple reliable sources report on caucus memberships as a whole, which they do. WaPo and NYT have both done full articles on them. Toa Nidhiki05 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, please find some high quality, academic sources to make this claim. News articles are good but should supplement, not supplant peer-reviewed papers. BootsED (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that we should change the position into Right-wing, Factions, Centre-right to far-right especially the fact that only a faction of the party is Centre-right. Anyone agrees? Richie1509 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The republicans under Trump are “Right-Wing to Far-Right” in my opinion. Jaybainshetland (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/26/opinion/sunday/republican-platform-far-right.html

This doesn't say that Republican party is far right but makes very good and interesting observations on how much right it is

Please have a read everyone 2409:40E1:100E:6F93:5B56:46AD:AB19:390C (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Richie1509. Please see this and the above the discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

OK Richie1509 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This all seems to me to be a very artificial discussion. I'm not American, so watching from afar. Realistically, the policy position of the Republican Party now is surely whatever Donald Trump says today. It's very long time since the official party has overruled anything he has said. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the party center right, I think Right Wing is a more accurate description. Jayson (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So should we change the position since only a faction of the party is centre-right? I think we should. So should we? Richie1509 (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I think the "right-wing" classification should be removed, and only "center-right" should remain. The Democratic Party is listed as "center-left," and it is no less to the left than the Republican Party is to the right. Donald Trump is not right-wing or a conservative, he is a populist (and one who causes a lot of controversy at that). The Republican Party platform has shifted its position on same-sex marriage, abortion, IVF, and birth control much further to the left than it was before, and it would make no sense to suddenly classify the party as "right-wing" when it has been becoming gradually centrist overtime. DocZach (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

There have been lots and lots of reliable and very credible sources that the republican party, in recent years, has shifted much further to the right, compared to the level at which the democratic party has shifted to left EarthDude (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep I definitely agree. The source given for right-wing populism in the party itself states how that block has become the dominant faction of the party EarthDude (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ideological position in based on the politics of the country, not a universal standard

This is to explain that ideological position is based on how RS describe the party and the politics of the country. This is not about changing the ideological position of the Republican Party in the infobox. Please do not substitute your own views for how reliable sources describe the Republican Party.

Side-note: My personal political views are mostly libertarian, that is mostly socially liberal and fiscally conservative, though not on all issues. I have a similar set of views as Chase Oliver, who I will likely vote for in 2024.

Examples

• Many political parties around the world are socially conservative, such as in the Muslim world, Africa, and Asia, but still considered to be politically left-wing because they are liberal on fiscal issues and their countries are socially conservative.
• Similarly many political parties that are socially liberal in countries that are very socially liberal, such as the Nordic countries, New Zealand, and Canada, are still considered to be politically right-wing because they are fiscally conservative and their countries are socially liberal.
• Some political parties are big tent or ideologically diverse parties, including the Republican and Democratic parties, with several factions. For these parties, a range of views on the political spectrum may be appropriate.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, parties that have been fiscally conservative had been considered left-wing, while parties that have been fiscally liberal have been considered right-wing. That's because mainstream political parties deal with reality. They select policies which best reflect their ideology according to time and place. TFD (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to add a point though that even with the countries political standards rather than the universal, mainstream political parties can have ideological positions that is not Centre-left or Centre-right such as Likud, Fidesz . Mhaot (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The position label of a party (or person) is relative to the speaker's assumed center position. Nobody will ever agree on the correctness of a label, so why do we still use them? It's much more relevant to examine positions on specific issues (which the article already does). Dad98253 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Add 'Trumpism' as a faction

^ 49.184.140.57 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Already discussed. Party members supporting the party nominee are not a faction. No one considers Harrisites supporting the opposing candidate to be a faction. TFD (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Trumpism is more than just "supporting the party nominee". — Red XIV ^(talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See Right-wing populists DN (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Electoral symbol or logo??

Why this elephant symbol is shown as logo?? I edited this as electoral symbol previously but got reverted everytime. Donkey isn't shown as Democrats' symbol in their article. We have separate banner logo for the Republicans. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree the actual Republican "GOP" logo should be what we use, however if I remember, and I could be wrong, it might have been removed due to copyright, I just don't remember so I will re-add the official logo in place of the election symbol and see what happens. Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ahammed Saad @Completely Random Guy No, it wasn't removed for copyright reasons. There's a group of users replacing the logo with the electoral symbol without explaining their choice. Pantarch (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well thats not good, how can we go about returning it to its official logo in place of electoral symbol without causing an edit war? Completely Random Guy (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

First, consensus needs to be reached here, then a source should be found (we have one: https://fabrikbrands.com/branding-matters/logofile/republican-logo-history-republican-elephant-logo-and-symbol/), and finally, an invisible comment should be added near the logo explaining the choice. Pantarch (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we do a poll? Completely Random Guy (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the files being discussed are these: File:GOP logo.svg (logo) File:Republican Disc.svg (electoral symbol)--Pantarch (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Party membership

This was previously removed, but has been re-added back. I have some objections to this:

1) This information isn't actually party membership. It's party registration data from the 30 states that actually register by party for the purpose of voting in primary elections. 2/5ths of states do not have party registration, so this isn't even a full sample.

2) Ballot Access News doesn't seem like an incredibly reliable or useful source.

Given this information isn't actually membership, is only a sample from 30 states, and comes from a dubious source, I don't think it should be added. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You make total sense, I did not know it only captured membership figures from 30 states. Now that I know that I am against adding it myself. Even if it did capture results from all 50 state then we would have to question how they got that. I am against adding it to the national parties and I suppose we should scrutinize it for state level parties. Ultimately it would be helpful to have membership figures for both parties but unless we find a reliable source we should leave it blank! Completely Random Guy (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is missing from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello out there. Does anybody know why the infobox isn't showing McConnell? GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm being ignored here. I've brought the problem to WP:Village pump (technical). -- GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Questions on sources for "center-right" designation

The sources used to back up the claim the party is "center-right" do not appear to state such, state a point against that label, or state it as a historical position. For example, Gidron and Ziblatt state "We consider center-right parties as those that construct big-tent coalitions, drawing support from all different right-wing currents simultaneously—while other parties right of the center specialize in mobilizing voters based on narrower agendas...in the American case, this three-sided image of the Republican Party features prominently in research on the intellectual history of the American conservative movement (Nash 1996; Phillips-Fein 2011, p. 729)" but then explicitly state that "While we accept the fact that the Democratic Party shifted to the economic center during the 1990s, the Republican Party shifted even further to the right during this time period (McCarty et al. 2006)" with no statement on the party shifting back towards the center thereafter; Keckler and Rozell identify the center-right as a part of the broader conservative movement, with the latter represented by the Republican Party; Donovan appears to be referring to how in theory the electoral system lends itself to two big/dominant parties (one of the centre-left and one of the centre-right) rather than explicitly calling the Republican Party as it currently exists centre-right; and the cited link/PDF from The Routledge Handbook of Political Parties does not appear to contain the cited quote (and even if it did, it doesn't appear to reference the Republican Party at all, unless there is some context missing). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

"the Republican Party shifted even further to the right during this time period (McCarty et al. 2006)" The source is 18-years-old and reflects a rightward shift during the 1990s. It can not be used to determine the current position of the party in the political spectrum, but it can be used to cover changes in that decade. Perhaps it can be used in the article on the History of the Republican Party (United States). Dimadick (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Partisan phrasing

"opposing transgender rights" seems like partisan phrasing to me. Maybe there's a better way to put this? CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe there is. Do you have any suggestions? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Naming specific issues, such as sexual education and sports. CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty inarguable the party opposes transgender rights, defined by the common meanings of the term. Can't tell you how many "Trump is for us, not they/them" ads I saw. But it is possible there are better ways to describe it. Maybe the specific policy issues (access to bathrooms, sports, surgeries, documents, etc.)? At that point it's just getting too broad. Toa Nidhiki05 18:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 Honestly culture war issues aren't worth delving into beyond their due weight. That advertisement is one thing, but voters' top priorities during the election were mainly: the economy (#1), democracy, abortion, and immigration.

• I don't think having discussions about transgender issues on the talk page, which are bound to result in flame wars and conflicts, is a good idea.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ghost consensus about demographics

I recently updated the description of the GOP voter base with this:

As of 2024, the party receives majority support from Arabic, Native, and White voters, and has gained increased support among Hispanics. A majority of working-class, rural, men, individuals without college degrees, and lower income voters also support the party. Traditionalist religious voters, including Evangelicals Latter-Day Saints, Muslims, and Catholics generally lean Republican.

Senior citizens are no longer the strongest GOP voting bloc, Generation X is. Age has become a significantly less significant predictor of voting support than 2016 and before.

Racially, most Native American tribes (heavily heterogeneous; the Cherokee are generally far more conservative than Navajo, for instance), Arabs, Haredi Jews, and others are more conservative than whites.

Conservative, traditionalist religious groups of all-types vote Republican according to exit polls. Many even surpassing white evangelical Christians.

Don't think these changes are objectionable but felt that I should mention it on talk. OntologicalTree (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Please no news sources for analysis ...for the basics pls review Gruwell, Cindy; Ewing, Robin (2022-05-25). "News as a Source". Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. Moxy🍁 19:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

OntologicalTree a sockpuppet

See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax. Doug Weller talk 09:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"Transgender rights"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What transgender "rights" does the GOP oppose? 66.177.84.252 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Not being beaten in the streets by people you hate them for no reason. If you have anything helpful to contribute to the article that would be great :) Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The right to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, for one. See Nancy Mace and Sarah McBride. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any right that permits a man to use a woman's bathroom (regardless of what sex he thinks he is) Dad98253 (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

okay. a friendly reminder for both you and the OP, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Carlp941 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose discussion of transgender issues for the most part. It's an issue, but not among the most important issues for voters. The economy, immigration, foreign policy, healthcare (including abortion), etc. are far more important for voters.

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox or culture war arena.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Civil rights legislation

Was enacted by the republicans, not the democrats. The democrats tried to filibuster it. 2600:1700:FB0:8D70:686C:3D2F:97CD:8F4F (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this somehow a suggestion for an improvement to the article? HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

What happened after 1964? (Hint: it's the Southern strategy) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that statement in the LEAD as well. It isn't sourced anywhere that I see. As percentage of party, more of the GOP voted for the 1964 civil rights act than Democrats.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The Southern strategy reference in the lead was an wp:egg snuck into the lead a while back. Though it never had a clear consensus editors were willing to edit war it back in claiming it was true. I'm sure the discussion is in the archive. Since that discussion I've found some additional references that would tend to dispute the link here. The issue here isn't if the GOP used such a strategy, the facts supporting such a deliberate strategy seem ambiguous - they don't prove it false nor do they prove it true. Rather the question is if the Southern realignment was caused by such a strategy. Here it seems, per the sources, that scholars are not in agreement. I haven't ever made this change to the lead because I need to refind at least one of the references and because a number of editors have decided it's critical to include this claim/link in the lead thus removing it would be a fight. If others are interested in pushing this change through I'll try to find the evidence over the next week or so. Springee (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• I wrote almost all of the Solid South article. Read the section on the Southern strategy, which I wrote. The reasons for why the South realigned are debated, but how it realigned is extremely clear.

The fundamental issue is that Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the law, while Republican Barry Goldwater opposed it. The South stayed Democratic at the state-level, including for Congress, for decades. It wasn't until the 1994 Republican Revolution that Republicans won a majority of U.S. House seats in the South, and only after 2010 that Republicans won most state legislatures and became dominant in the South.

There is one exception to Republican gains in the South: the state of Virginia, because Northern Virginia is extremely Democratic as part of the Washington metropolitan area. The Confederate capital was Richmond, Virginia. Democrats control the Virginia General Assembly, and have won the state consistently since 2008. It was the only former Confederate state never to vote for Trump. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't taken a close look at the article since I think before COVID. I'm not sure what changes you've made. I'm also not sure if I understand the difference you are making between how and why. I would agree there is the voting evidence that shows when things changed. I'm not sure if there is agreement that the fundamental issue was Johnson signed the law while Goldwater didn't. That is part of the question of top down vs bottom up reasons for changing. Especially as things move further in time from the 1960s it's harder to assume that voters are motivated by a 1964 vote in 1980 or in 2010. Regardless, I think the EGG to the Southern Strategy is a problem and should be removed (especially if I get around to finding those sources I mentioned above). Springee (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It was actually enacted by both parties, although Republicans were more likely to support than Democrats:

Senate version

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%) Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

Senate version, voted on by the House

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%) Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

The actual divide was between the North (where >90% of representatives/Senators backed it), and the South (where >90% of representatives/Senators opposed it). Coincidentally - Democrats held nearly 100% of seats in the South. Toa Nidhiki05 22:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Right wing to Far right

Someone else mentioned this too. Why it isn't labelled as right wing to far right? Trump has clearly criticized former Republican governance and has abandoned neoliberalism and globalism as party policy. Also Trump and Republican Party have associated themselves with parties and people which are labelled as right wing to far right such as UKIP and Farage, Fidesz and Orban. Republican Party position of political spectrum really needs to be changed to right wing to far right so people know exactly what Republican Party actually believes or is situated on political spectrum and not this erroneous identification. 86.124.126.108 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for this? Regardless of our personal political views--I voted for Harris and agree with the Democratic Party on most issues--the fact Trump won the popular vote in 2024 means that roughly half the country supported his agenda. See WP:SOAPBOX, and there have been plenty of discussions on this. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

TDS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it would be good to make mention of TDS and add a link to the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" wiki. It would probably make for a more balanced discussion about "Trump era" politics (e.g., as a counter balance to the claims of illiberalism).

One place it might be inserted would be at the end of the paragraph beginning "Trump lost the 2020..." following the sentence that starts with "By 2020, the Republican Party..." (which contains all of the claims regarding illiberalism).

The added statement could look something like the following: "Since the 2016 election, [[Trump derangement syndrome]] (TDS) has become increasingly mainstream in politics and the media. This non-medical term refers to an irrational fear of anything that has to do with Donald trump. The anti-Trump hysteria peaked during the 2024 election cycle with media claims that Trump was Hitler, a fascist, and if elected would end democracy." Dad98253 (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:UNDUEWEIGHT, also as someone with a couple of mental disorders myself claiming that disliking Trump is one is honestly disgusting. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any inclusion of this content, because it's not relevant to the Republican Party as a whole. Readers have their various views about Trump, but this article is about the party, not Trump. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right-wing populism expanded its demographics.

Per the New York Times, the only group to substantially shift left from 2012 (last non-Trump election) to 2024 is White voters with college degrees, though Black voters still stuck almost entirely with Harris. This is D-R margins.

• Black voters went from 95-4 to 85-13 from 2012 to 2024 (R+19). But 85% is still extremely high.
• Hispanic voters went from 69-30 to 54-44 from 2012 to 2024 (R+29).
• Asian voters went from 67-32 to 58-40 from 2012 to 2024 (R+17).
• Others went from 58-40 to 49-48 from 2012 to 2024 (R+17). I'm not sure what this category is, but sure.

• White, no degree went from 37-61 to 31-67 from 2012 to 2024 (R+13). The sheer margins of 61 and 67 are still high.
• Non-white, no degree went from 78-20 to 67-30 from 2012 to 2024 (R+21). This is a big shift.
• Non-white, no degree went from 82-17 to 63-35 from 2012 to 2024 (R+37). This is a massive shift.

• By age, 18 to 29 went from 61-36 to 54-43 (R+14), 30 to 44 went from 53-44 to 49-48 (R+8), and 45 to 64 went from 49-50 to 45-54 (R+9).
• White voters went from 41-57 to 42-57 from 2012 to 2024 (D+1), which is negligible.
• Whites with degrees went from 46-52 to 55-43 from 2012 to 2024 (D+17), which is a big shift.
• And 65+ went from 46-53 to 48-51 from 2012 to 2024 (D+4), which is a small shift.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/25/upshot/democrats-trump-working-class.html JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Project 2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If Project 2025 is not a case for why Republican Party is a right wing to far right political party it means either wikipedia is financially bailed out so Republican Party doesn't look extremist and have a bad image or just shows time again and again that Wikipedia is not a trustful source of information 86.124.126.108 (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a soapbox Carlp941 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The populist faction isn't "far-right"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The sources that state that the populist movement in the party is "far-right" have a left-leaning bias and have no understanding of what "far-right" actually means (which is a common trend among leftists). It's an absolute disgrace that this was allowed to be put in the article. 188.2.10.93 (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources are published books studying the subject. By what basis are you deciding those are left-leaning?

Besides, our policy on sources doesn't mandate them to be unbiased as long as they're considered reliable. — Czello ^(music) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Czello For example, Associated Press is listed as one of the sources making such claims, and they have been accused of leaning left in the past 8 years.

Even if the sources aren't biased (which they are), the populist movement in the GOP isn't far-right and anyone with even the slightest understanding of political science and theory would know that. Trump is probably the most centrist Republican candidate since Nixon, so labelling the populist wing which rose under him as "far-right" demonstrates either a severe lack of knowledge on the subject or an attempt to push an obvious political agenda. I'll make an educated guess and say it's the latter.

I won't argue about policy with you, but tell me - isn't stating that a source can be both biased and reliable an oxymoron? 188.2.10.93 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question - I was talking about the published books. However in answer to your question - no, a source can be considered reliable while still having a political slant. You'll struggle to find a mainstream source that isn't, at some point, considered biased in one direction or another. They're still generally considered reliable, however. — Czello ^(music) 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Czello You think books based on studies can't be biased? Because they absolutely can and quite often are. Usually towards the agenda of the people funding the study.

A source simply can't be reliable if it's biased. Those 2 things are literally mutually exclusive. I understand Wikipedia policy says otherwise, but still, from a logical point of view that's just how it works.

Reuters is generally considered neutral and objective, so it's also not impossible to find a mainstream source that isn't biased.

Again, my point still stands, even if you disregard the sources being biased. The populist wing of the GOP isn't in any way, shape or form even remotely close to being far-right. To say otherwise is disingenuous and points to a clear political agenda.

I understand Wikipedia is left-leaning and I understand that the article won't be changed, no matter how good of an argument I (or anyone else) present(s). But I'm writing this in the hope that this will reach some people (no matter how small the number) and dismantle the Democrat propaganda that's rampant in this article. 188.2.10.93 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You are not presenting a good argument. You are preaching a sermon about alleged bias with no sourcing to back your claims. See Wikipedia:SOAPBOX. Carlp941 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying books can't be biased, I'm asking you by what reasoning are you using to say they are? Unless you think something is inherently biased if it says "far-right". — Czello ^(music) 08:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Can we move up right-wing populism to be alongside conservatism?

In the wake of Donald Trump winning the 2024 presidential election, and the sheer number of RS that say that right-wing populism is the dominant faction of the Republican Party, as well as plenty of sources documenting how the Reagan-era conservative faction of the party has lost nearly all of its influence, can we move up right-wing populism to be alongside conservatism as the party's main ideology? @Toa Nidhiki05

My personal views: I have written a lot of the section on right-wing populists in the factions section. There is too much to list here. But the key is the party's demographic base shift:

• Demographically, the Republican Party has lost its prior majority support from White voters with college degrees it had since Eisenhower and Goldwater (1950s & 1960s) to 2012. The party also has roughly 2:1 support from White voters with college degrees. Non-whites are harder to get a good read on, but in 2024 Trump won close to a majority of Hispanic voters, what appears to be a majority of Native American voters, and a significant percentage of Asian American voters. Trump won at most about 15% of African American voters.

Also I created two bar plots of the states Trump and Harris won by educational attainment. Except for New Mexico, every single state Harris won had above-average educational attainment. Trump did win four states (Utah, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and North Carolina) with above-average educational attainment, but his core strength was with below-average educational attainment states.

It appears that the key dividing line between the two parties is education. The income divide appears to have inverted, with Harris winning a majority of voters who made over $200,000 a year. Trump won 56% of voters without a college degree, and 42% of voters with a college degree. Harris won 56% of voters with a college degree, and 42% of voters without a college degree. These are mirror images of each other. The reason Trump won is 43% of voters have college degrees, and 57% don't.

Note: I am a statistician, and this data comes from the exit polls and Census data. I don't make the data, just analyze it. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)