Record 43% of Americans are political independents 30% Dem. & 26% Reb.

[awake]

Last edited Sun Feb 28, 2016, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

"PRINCETON, N.J. -- An average 43% of Americans identified politically as independents in 2014, establishing a new high in Gallup telephone poll trends back to 1988. In terms of national identification with the two major parties, Democrats continued to hold a modest edge over Republicans, 30% to 26%."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

Whom ever we chose as our candidate this fall she or he will need to get a lot of independents to vote for them to win so keep that in mind as we decide. I feel the days of party power are behind us and lets not think that it will be easy to keep the White House with out winning a large number of independents.

UPDATED numbers
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Feb. 2016 37% independent 30% Republican and 30% Democrat

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. And a chunk of those Dems are only Dems at this point to vote for Bernie.

No Bernie nom? Watch that 30% drop down to 26% or less.

[EdwardBernays]

2. Indeed

And after Trump wins who knows.

[Zambero]

7. The GOP circular firing squad is saying the same thing

At this very moment. About how only their guy beats Hillary, about how the others are either liars, weaklings, whack jobs, and/or con men who will not be getting their votes if nominated. Is there a dictionary term for this sort of primary season posturing? I happen to believe that the overwhelming majority of Republicans will in fact rally around their candidate. Hopefully Democrats will see fit to do the same. If not we are going down and the future will not be a pretty one.

[jeff47]

9. 30% rallying does not get the job done.

Republican-leaning independents will definitely rally around the Republican. Even if it's Trump. After all, they utterly despised Romney but still mostly rallied around him.

The problem is on the Democratic side. We can't just count on "OMG TRUMP!!" to get votes. All that does is convince people to not vote for Trump. 2014, 2010, 2004, 2002 and 2000 results vs 2006, 2008 and 2012 show we have to give them policies to vote for.

[EdwardBernays]

15. Here's the thing

The guy winning on the right is supported by their base. Their base has managed to almost completely lay waste to their party in only a few months by nothing more than showing up and voting really.

The majority then followed. And the Trump movement is growing. And quick. The mainstream will get behind him and they show up to vote in many instances just to say FU to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary is not winning the true believers though. She's not winning the future, but the older voters. The base on the left is failing to fight back against their party.

The majority of voters are voting for someone they don't even trust. And a lot on the left will vote against Hillary (staying home or third party) just to say FU to her.

I'd never vote for her. I'm far from alone.

Look at DU, people are really trying to convince Sanders people to vote Hillary. Or scare them into it... It's not working. The same thing that makes them want to vote for Sanders makes them unwilling to vote for Hillary.

Hillary will lose. And she will lose because people don't trust her, largely.

[Zambero]

17. And why don't people trust Hillary?

It's hard to pin down in a few words, but suffice to day that the right-wing attack machine has done its job quite well. During the first 3 years as Obama's SOS Clinton's approval rating approached 70%. She was perceived as diligent, hard-working, and representing the best interests of the U.S. and the world. The GOP had to be concerned. Then, Benghazi, and an unrelenting barrage of false equivalencies and outright fabrications were voiced in countless Congressional hearings. The echo chamber was on fire, and the mainstream media picked it up as well. Repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth, but it certainly gets people to believe it's true with repetition after repetition. Propagandists know this to be effective, and so did the propaganda machine of the right-wing media. So the general meme of "untrustworthy" (=didn't care about our foreign diplomats, and was lying and evasive toward Congress) becomes a label, and before you know it transcends the political spectrum to include those on Hillary's left as well, glomming onto it as a convenient excuse to cut and run if she becomes the nominee. I am STILL an undecided primary voter. I perceive Hillary to be the best candidate for dealing with foreign policy matters, and Bernie for domestic issues. I was a steadfast Obama supporter during this time 8 years ago. Indeed it is a difficult choice in a very unusual election year. What is frustrating is the degree of scorched earth rhetoric originating from some folks in both campaigns. Part of being progressive is appreciating nuance. Things are seldom "black or white", and while I might not agree with every one of Hillary or Bernie's positions, I see much much good in both of them. I will not be rejecting our nominee if she or he is not 100% ideologically pure to suit my own values and beliefs. If Democrats cannot get past their differences and focus on areas of agreement, it will result in an absolute fiasco when Trump is elected President. Conservatives see the world as being stark contrasts of black and white, which is not realistic, in my view anyway. However, to their credit they tend to hold their ground. On the other hand, it is STILL possible to be realistic while recognizing various shades of gray, issue by issue, and proceed on that basis.

[EdwardBernays]

20. No

I avoided and disagreed online with people posting Clinton conspiracys for years. I actually - as a child - knew Bill socially. My dad worked for him. I actually STILL have a relative working for him to this day. I am not predisposed to believing Clinton conspiracies.

However.

I have done a lot of digging around and looking at her connections to corporations and weapons manufacturers and big pharma and lobbyists.

I'll give you an example.

Hillary had to decide on a deal between Boeing and Saudi Arabia worth 29B. That's a B.

Israel was so distraught about this deal that they said they'd publicly fight it unless State sold them weapons to counter what the Saudis were sold.

State also was saying at the time that SA was violating human rights, oppressing women, hold mass public executions, etc.

Saudi Arabia donated 25m to the Clinton Foundation. Boeing donated 10m to the Clinton Foundation. They also paid Bill 250k for a single speech.

Hillary signed off on the deal. And called it a "top priority".

Hillary's campaign chairman owns the lobbying firm that represents Saudi Arabia and Boeing.

Hillary also broke her pledge to publicly disclose the Foundations donors while at State. And used an Canadian charity owned by a large campaign contributor to obscure 1100+ donors.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Many Sanders supporters known about this stuff as do many independents. It's corrupt and dishonest and NOT how a progressive behaves. At all.

This is not grey. It's pitch black. It disgusts people and the more people that know - the number is always growing - the less support she'll have.


So no. It's not the right wing. It's not conspiracy theories. It's not mysogny or paranoia. It's looking at what is in front of your face.

I can never support someone I believe is dishonest and corrupt. I'm not alone.

[Purveyor]

27. ^^^this^^^ eom

[AtomicKitten]

32. k/r this post

[awake]

16. The point is that even if all "Democrats" vote it will not be enough to ensure a victory

[Zambero]

19. True

Same with the GOP for that matter. Both major parties are divided at the moment. The winner will be the one that successfully pulls its various factions together and shows up to vote come November. Not profound, but true nonetheless.

[TM99]

5. Exactly.

The number was 23% registered Dems last fall.

Now is up to 30% because of Sanders. I just vote early ballot. And next week, I will be returning to independent status. The Democratic Party doesn't represent me.

[TBF]

25. Yup. They push him out I go back

to being unaffiliated.

[Zambero]

3. Those numbers fluctuate wildly over time

What stays the same is that most self-professed independents actually identify with and vote for one party or the other, and are typically further to the left or further to that right than those that declare themselves to be members of a a political party. There are comparatively fewer actual middle-ground swing voters, perhaps less than half.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. It's more instructive to include leaners...

The number of voters moving between parties from election to election is not that large.

[Stallion]

29. Here Are Current Numbers and Trends

we are actually in better shape today (D 46 R 43) than we were 4 years ago today (D 45 R 45)-then it started trending back toward Democrats as election proceeded

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

[awake]

30. Those numbers include "leaning" there are still 37% independents

And with out independents leaning or not we lose

[amborin]

4. and they prefer Bernie

[Vincardog]

6. The myth is that they are in the "mythic middle" between the parties. I believe most of them are

FAR to the LEFT of either party.

[Hydra]

11. I'm one of those far left indies

So stranger things have happened.

[Vincardog]

12. And they will continue to happen

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. As am I.

Oh, I flipped registration for this primary (closed Dem primary in Oregon), but I'll flip back as soon as I'm allowed.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. Yep. That's me.

[HooptieWagon]

28. 100% correct.

[KingFlorez]

10. There are left leaning independents and right leaning independents

Independents are not a monolithic group of voters who are somehow beyond partisan politics and some sort of superior beings who have no bias whatsoever. There are independents who only vote Democratic and independents who only vote Republican. No one ever really knows which group of independents will show up, because there is no really sound method of determining that. What is known is that both parties know which independents favor them and voting lists are filled with independents. No party wins an election without independents, so this is nothing new.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. PBO lost independents in 012, albeit by a small margin, and still won the election.

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

[Vincardog]

14. "most of them" in no way implies " a monolithic group of " anything

[Kenjie]

18. I am not liking what he DNC has been up to

in this primary. I am thinking about switching to independent after this cycle. I'd switch back to vote in a future primary for someone like Elizabeth Warren. The only thing I would not look forward to is political mailers from the republicans.

[kgnu_fan]

21. People are tired of 2 party status quo, desire REAL democracy nt

[kgnu_fan]

22. Interesting....

[liberal_at_heart]

24. Much of what we are seeing from Hillary, Corporate America, and the two party system is

much like what we are seeing from evangelical Christians. A knowledge that their power is slipping away and a desperate attempt to keep that power. The worse their tactics get the more we know how much power they are losing. The future will look a lot different with less political power from the evangelical Christians, the two party system, and Corporate America.

[Vote2016]

26. Sanders (the longest serving independent in US history) crushes with independents. Hillary starts

any general election by losing historically with independents if we nominate her.

Whose fault is it if we lose that way despite all the evidence that independent voters hate Hillary and love Sanders?

[Skwmom]

31. That independent number is going up. nt

[Zorra]

33. Dem numbers will drop as the party continues to shoot itself in the face. nt