Demographic info from Jan 2015:
In U.S., New Record 43% Are Political Independents
It says that Democrats represent 30% of the electorate, Republicans represent 26% of the electorate, and Independents represent 43% of the electorate. The 30% that identify as Democrats is the lowest it's been since Gallup started tracking the info in 1988.
Of the Independents, they looked at "leanings." 17% of Independents leaned Republican, 15% leaned Democratic, with the remaining 11% not expressing a leaning to either party.
Edited to add the direct quote from the article:
Although independents claim no outright allegiance to either major party, it is well-known that they are not necessarily neutral when it comes to politics. When pressed, most independents will say they lean to one of the two major parties. For example, last year an average of 17% of Americans who initially identified as independents subsequently said they "leaned" Republican, 15% were independents who leaned Democratic, with the remaining 11% not expressing a leaning to either party.
Since partisan leaners often share similar attitudes to those who identify with a party outright, the relative proportions of identifiers plus leaners gives a sense of the relative electoral strength of the two political parties, since voting decisions almost always come down to a choice of the two major-party candidates. In 2014, an average 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they were Democratic-leaning independents, while 42% identified as Republicans or were Republican-leaning independents.
h/t to
Nova Land for commenting:
It seems pretty clear to me that it's not that 17% of independents lean Republican, it's that 17% of the people polled call themselves independent but lean Republican. The actual figure for independents who lean Republican is 40%.
Similarly, it's not 15% of the independents who lean Democratic -- it's 35% of independents who lean Democratic.
And it's not 11% of independents who expressed no leaning -- it's 25%.
Add those 3 figures up -- 40 + 35 + 25 -- and you do get 100%. Add the figures in the diary -- 17 + 15 + 11 -- and you get only 43%.
I hope I've made the nature of the error clear. The poll found that 17% of the total polled population called itself independent but leans Republican. The diary misrepresents that as being 17% of independents. It's an easy error to make. But it is an error, and a significant one.
I hope nobody reading this diary copies and passes along the incorrect figures.
With regards to the declining number of Democrats and Republicans and the rise of Independents, the article also noted that:
The decline in identification with both parties in recent years comes as dissatisfaction with government has emerged as one of the most important problems facing the country, according to Americans. This is likely due to the partisan gridlock that has come from divided party control of the federal government. Trust in the government to handle problems more generally is the lowest Gallup has measured to date, and Americans' favorable ratings of both parties are at or near historical lows. Thus, the rise in U.S. political independence likely flows from the high level of frustration with the government and the political parties that control it.
Short video on the subject:
This is why I think Bernie has a good chance to get some Republican crossover votes - especially from Independents who lean Republican, but are disgusted with the current Republican "values" and thus do not identify as "hard-core" Republicans. I think Bernie does have some Republican values - the kinds of old school values that Dwight Eisenhower had before our government was hijacked and taken over by the corporations.
Eisenhower wasn't perfect by any means, but he did have some of the same values that Bernie has.
He got the Interstate Highway system started and that provided a lot of new jobs and at least our tax dollars were being invested in our own country. Bernie wants to do something similar by restoring our infrastructure.
From the Miller Center
During the campaign of 1952, Eisenhower criticized the statist or big government programs of Truman's Fair Deal, yet he did not share the extreme views of some Republican conservatives. These "Old Guard" Republicans talked about eliminating not just Fair Deal but also New Deal programs and rolling back government regulation of the economy. Eisenhower favored a more moderate course, one that he called Modern Republicanism, which preserved individual freedom and the market economy yet insured that government would provide necessary assistance to workers who had lost their jobs or to the ill or aged, who through no fault of their own, could not provide for themselves.
As President, Eisenhower thought that government should provide some additional benefits to the American people. He signed legislation that expanded Social Security, increased the minimum wage, and created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He also supported government construction of low-income housing but favored more limited spending than had Truman. He intended to lead the country "down the middle of the road between the unfettered power of concentrated wealth . . . and the unbridled power of statism or partisan interests."
Some of those things sound like things Bernie wants to accomplish.
Eisenhower also wrote a letter to his brother, Edgar in 1954.
Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
You could change H. L. Hunt to the Koch Brothers and add businessmen from the banking, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and it could be a letter Bernie wrote himself.
Not only do I think Bernie could get some of the Independents-who-lean-Republican vote, but I think he can get some of the Independents-who-lean-Democratic votes as well.
Last November, when he was still deciding whether or not to run for president, he said that Americans are growing tired of the two-party system.
Bernie Sanders: Americans rejected two-party system in midterms
November 18, 2014
Independent senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont argued Monday that the low voter turnout in the midterm elections reflected widespread negative opinions about both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
"What I think really happened is about 64 percent of the American people rejected the two-party system," Sanders said on Comedy Central's "Colbert Report."
Although he is running on the Democratic ticket - so as to not split the vote - he's always been an Independent while in Congress. Some may criticize him for it, but if Americans really are tired of the two-party system, it may benefit him.
Congress is still a two-party system, but hey - you have to start somewhere.
And h/t to Pivotalguy
I'm so glad to see that my question about demographics a couple of days ago ended up prompting you to turn your answer into a diary.