Data from the Pew Research Center shows independents are now the biggest partisan group in the

[insta8er]

United States.

Polling and voter registration numbers from across the country show the number of self-identified independents is growing faster than the number of Democrats or Republicans - and that growth seems likely to continue.

Data from the Pew Research Center shows independents are now the biggest partisan group in the United States. The percentage of people self-identifying as independent was 39% in 2014. The number for Democrats is 32% and for Republicans it is 23%.

Just 10 years ago, 31% of Americans identified as independents, in between Democrats at 33% and Republicans at 29%. And, perhaps more notable, that current 39% represents the highest measure of independents in 75 years, according to Pew.

If you look at voter registrations in states around the country, you can see the growth trend there as well.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nerdscreen-rise-independents-n386911

[onecaliberal]

1. And even though millions of them were disenfranchised in the Primary, they WILL vote in the general

and it wont be for her.

[insta8er]

2. That's because they are not PURE enough, and would only use the democrats.

[pampango]

6. You know independents could not vote in the republican primaries either in closed primary

states? It was not just the Democratic primary that they could not vote in. Does that mean they will not vote for HIM either?

[frazzled]

3. Perhaps, then, it's time ...

for them to form their own political party (or parties) and run their own candidates for office. Then perhaps they could begin the hard work of setting out their platforms and policy positions rather than simply carping about how the two current major political parties are failing them. It would force people into actually making choices about party rather than slinging mud, and then see how these new parties fare in delivering on their promises. It might help to unlock the grid in which we currently exist.

[Jitter65]

4. That!! nt

[Raster]

7. please... the same old 'third party dodge'...

...the electoral mechanics are completely stacked against ANY challenges to the two-party system, AND especially stacked against anything that would challenge the current two parties in power.

It would behove EVERYONE to abandon the "party uber alles" mentality, as it leads directly to the current state of electoral jingoism entrenched today.

[azurnoir]

8. Do you really think belonging to a political party would end the mud slinging where were you in '08?

cause if you do then

[RobertEarl]

5. The largest block

And they do a fair bit of thinking, too. They look around and see that the two big parties have sold out and they want no part of that.

If a candidate can't win a majority of indie votes, they can hardly win a GE.

[Garrett78]

9. I'm sure many Tea Party types self-identify as "independent."

"Independents" aren't all "unbiased, issue-focused voters" like some romanticize them to be. Many of them are ignorant extremists.

Obama lost the "independent" vote in nearly every single swing state, including Ohio by double digits, yet he won in an electoral college landslide. Clinton is likely to do the same.

[RobertEarl]

10. Bull

Obama won a majority of independents in swing states.

Teabaggers tho, like Clinton, so she has that.

[Garrett78]

11. No, he didn't.

Look it up. He won the independent vote in North Carolina, tied in Florida and lost the independent vote in every other swing state. Including the crucial state of Ohio.

I'm quite certain Tea Party types don't like Clinton.

Anyway, the larger point is that self-identified "independents" aren't the pure souls you and some others make them out to be. Not even close.

[RobertEarl]

14. Yes he did

You saying so is not true.

Pretty much par for your course.

[Garrett78]

16. The power of Google.

There are articles all over the web about how Obama lost the "independent" vote in 2012. Rather than look them up, you insist on clinging to your preconceived notion. Oh well.

Here's one of those many articles: "Overselling the importance of independent voters"

From a US News & World Report article: "Obama garnered less of the independent vote in 2012 than 2008 in eight of the nine battleground states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. Obama won more of the independent vote in just one battleground state, North Carolina; the only swing state Obama lost to the GOP nominee."

Here's another article about independents worth reading: "Just How Independent Are Independent Voters?"

And yet another: "Romney Won Independents, But Not The Election"

[uponit7771]

19. +1, They don't like math, facts, polls... and THEY are supposed to be progressives!!?!?

[bettyellen]

12. Tea baggers like Clinton? Now you are just making shit up. Shameful.

[reformist2]

13. The old parties are dying but still control the nominees. A decent third party could fill the vacuum

A decent third party could get a third major candidate nominated and put on the national stage for the general election, not just once every blue moon, but every election.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

18. The Greens should be filling that function on the Left

For whatever reason they are not.

If the Republicans lose this election, I think the Tea Party may actually split. They would likely never win the WH, but they could hold a substantial block of House seats for years.

[Skwmom]

15. These numbers are from 2014? It has grown since then (even though some temporarily registered

to vote in the Democratic or Republican primary).

[Algernon Moncrieff]

17. Non sequitur: An independent is, by definition, non-partisan

Therefore they cannot be a partisan group. They can be a voting block or segment, but they are not a partisan group. I realize that this offends the sensibilities of those who want to participate in the Democratic Party without actually sullying their hands by becoming members.