Talk:New Democrat Coalition

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Proportional Strength

Things change in politics but basic math is always important. At this time (July 31, 2009) the strongest caucus numerically is the 83 member Congressional Progressive Caucus. The opening claim that the New Democrat Coalition is the strongest in numbers is now incorrect. It is down to 52 members, while the Progressives have now overtaken the NDC with 79 voting Representatives along with the 4 others. This is now a highly suspect article. I would personally make this change but am a total newbie and don't see how without reading up. Could someone else adjust this opening paragragh to match the current numbers? This makes a huge difference as we watch the horse-trading with the Healthcare Reform and people look for this basic information.

"Pro-growth"

Can we please clarify more clearly exactly what being "pro-growth" means? Are other groups "anti-growth" or "pro-stagnation"? I think not, just as no Senator is pro-crime and no Representative is anti-children. Should we say, rather, fiscally moderate, somewhat more lenient towards corporate interests, pro free trade, or the like? - Jersyko talk 03:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Merge proposal

What do you think about merging this article with New Democrats? --Checco 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; the merged article should be at the official name of the group. —Nightstallion 11:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The name of this article should be the name of the article after the merge. --Checco 12:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge. "New Democrat" is a label claimed by several different groups to describe their political platform. The New Democrat Coalitions in the House and Senate are just two of these groups. The Democratic Leadership Council and NDN (formerly known as the New Democrat Network) are two others. If any of these groups doesn't justify an article of their own, I could see them being merged as a section into the New Democrat article, but the New Democrat article itself should not be merged into the article for any of these groups. -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Democratic Institute

Greg Greene here, w/ the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). I often edit under a personal handle (you can see my contributions here), but since this has to do with work, let me opt for transparency by using an Institute account.

Let me flag two quick errors in the head of the article; I may correct them later, if no one objects.

The Institute has no direct or formal affiliation with the Democratic National Committee, contra the statement that the party "does permit its affiliated organizations" to join and participate in party internationals.
The parenthetical reference to the Institute's affiliation with the Liberal International paints an incomplete picture; we also affiliate with the Socialist International and Centrist Democrat International.

The cleanest solution, as I see it, is to delete the parenthetical phrase just above the contents box. If a better alternative comes to mind, please let me know. Thanks much--
NDIPublicAffairs (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one appears to object, let me go ahead and make the change I outlined above. If anyone has feedback, criticism or a suggestion, feel free to leave it here or on my talk page. Thanks-- NDIPublicAffairs (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Republicans

Absent, perhaps conspicuously so, is NDC's willingness to work with Republicans, particularly Republicans who will work with NDC. Such bipartisan stances must exist. How may the article be improved to clarify such cooperation if it exists? Rammer (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Democrat Coalition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060217100159/http://www.house.gov/adamsmith/NDC/ndc.html to http://www.house.gov/adamsmith/NDC/ndc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Center-left"?

Oh, please. Stop with the false equivalence, stop pretending that the left and right are equal in America! Even our own New Democrats Template lists "center-right politics" as one of their ideologies. Center-left would be social democracy, or at the very least progressive liberalism. We don't need to be politically correct. Jerrytheman9 (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we do need to stick to what the sources say. The one cited says "The New Democrat Coalition, a group of center-left House Democrats who have taken up immigration reform as a key issue" [1]. Alexander Levian (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Democrat Coalition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by User talk:Toa Nidhiki05

This user is a self proclaimed conservative and cannot accept facts about political organisations he does not like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxblanco (talk • contribs) 13:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You (guessing you are at least one of the IPs involved here as well) have repeatedly removed reliable sources and long-standing content and replaced it with inaccurate material. I’ve opened up a request for page protection to stop this for the time being, but I would highly advise you to cease your disruptive editing here. Toa Nidhiki05 13:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"NewDem Action Fund" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect NewDem Action Fund has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 12 § NewDem Action Fund until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]