The "Independents are the majority" myth.

[TwilightZone]

Sanders fans love to throw around that Gallup poll that says that 42% of the electorate identifies as independents and claim that independents are the majority of the electorate.

First, 42% is not a majority. Because math.

Second, the Gallup poll is clearly an outlier (which is, of course, why they cherry-pick it).

HuffPo's multiple-poll tracker shows that Democrats are the largest voting bloc, at roughly 35% and rising, with independents around 31% (trending downward) and the GOP literally and figuratively bringing up the rear at 28%, though their numbers are increasing, as well.

A little critical thinking (yeah, I know...) and this makes perfect sense. As people are registering to vote in the Democratic and Republican primaries as Democrats and Republicans, the number of Democrats and Republicans is increasing. The number of unaffiliated voters is decreasing, because, well, they're registering as Democrats and Republicans. A shocking concept, I know.

Of course, that causes a little problem with the theory that we should nominate Sanders because there are more independents than Democrats. The entire argument falls apart if it's simply not true. As more and more people register so they can vote and more and more Is become Ds and Rs, it becomes even less true.

An inconvenient untruth, as it were.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification

[CrowCityDem]

1. Those people also neglect that half of indies are essentially Republicans.

[BootinUp]

3. Yes, or a higher percentage being self described conservatives.

[TwilightZone]

4. Exactly. They also ignore that some polls show Is going to Hillary 51/33 against Trump.

Like this one: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-poll-hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-but-voters-view-both-unfavorably/

Sanders is only slightly better at 55/29.

Either one is a massive blowout. That pretty much negates the claim that Is are Sanders' magic wand.

[spooky3]

5. And many of the rest lean Dem.

[TwilightZone]

8. Yes, the "all independents are independent" claim is just as false.

[jmowreader]

13. Half OR MORE

In Idaho, our Independents are people who think the Constitution Party is just too damn far to the left - and in the years before the GOP closed its primaries, they were the absolute majority here. Now a few of them grudgingly register GOP so they can vote in the May general election.

You will love this. In most places that have closed GOP primaries, it's because there are enough Democrats there to tip the election. In Idaho, our Republicans closed their primary because the teabaggers and sovereign citizens managed to put a full-blown tax protester named Phil Hart, who had been in the Constitution Party before he changed his registration to GOP, on the Republican ballot - where he proceeded to win a couple of elections to the state House before the GOP finally picked someone at random out of the phone book to primary him. Hart's replacement, Ed Morse, only lasted one term before he got stomped by a teabagger named Eric Redman. Morse wasn't atrocious but his biggest selling point was he hadn't tried slickying the IRS out of $700,000.

[SunSeeker]

2. Interesting graph at the link. nt

[msongs]

6. extremeists would like us to believe 100% of all independents will vote for their guy who is losing

by 3 million votes already cast by people who actually vote

[TwilightZone]

7. Well, all independents are left of the average Democrat.

Someone actually made that claim today. I laughed.

[charlyvi]

9. That's the thing.....

That's the thing. How often do Indies actually vote. If they are young, their turnout is notoriously low especially in midterms. Independent tends to mean I do not care.

[Cary]

10. Ron Paul cultists

With their "left-right paradigm" schtick. Where have they gone?

[TwilightZone]

11. Yeah, I've been wondering that myself more and more.

From one revolution to another.

[charlyvi]

12. I think most independents are folks too embarrassed to admit they're Republicans. n/t