TwilightZone
TwilightZone's JournalMost independents lean toward a party. The current split is 43/46 R/D
Most independents lean one way or the other. Very few are truly independent or non-partisan. The percentage of true independents is rarely more than single digits.
The 43% are essentially Republicans who just choose to register or identify as independents. Also, many states don't have party registration.
So, the percentage of Republicans is higher than 1/3. It's more like 44% (math below). That partly explains why Trump's approval rating is consistently higher than the percentage of people who ID as Republicans.
Example, using Gallup's numbers.
Republicans: 25%
Democrats: 27%
Independents: 45%
Independent leaners:
Republicans: 43%
Democrats: 46%
Total Republicans, plus leaners: 25% + (0.45 x 0.43) = 44.3%
Total Democrats, plus leaners: 27% + (0.45 x 0.46) = 47.7%
Total true Independents: the remaining 8%.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Primary turnout is not indicative of general election turnout.
Never has been. Never will be. The myth that wouldn't die.
Before 2008, the record for Democratic turnout in the primaries was in 1988. Dukakis got hammered in November.
Democratic turnout in the 1992 primaries dropped significantly, by more than two million votes. Clinton won easily.
Article from 2016 explaining many of the reasons why there is zero correlation:
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/272381-the-truth-about-primary-voter-turnout/
That is quite the mystery, eh?
The number of people on DU who hate-watch cable news and then complain about the same things over and over and over and over and over again makes me shake my head.
They apparently enjoy being miserable. There are enough negative things in the world without intentionally searching them out, watching them incessantly, and then beating a dead horse.
The best part is that they act surprised/shocked/outraged about something the 100th time it happens even though the first 99 were exactly the same and they saw every one of them.
There once...
There once was a bigot named Trump
Who usually smelled like a rump.
Voters rebelled
Repelled by the smell
The next step is jail for the schlump.
There isn't going to be a Civil War.
The fearmongering about it is really tiresome. Trump's supporters stopped showing up at January 6th-type rallies as soon as the feds starting busting some of the seditious idiots for January 6th. Most of the Proud Boy, etc., leaders are either in prison or in hiding, afraid some 16-year-old is going to identify them on video from January 6th.
They thought it was all fun and games until they discovered that there were ramifications. There will always be some isolated individuals or small groups that will raise hell, but the claim that there's going to be some mass uprising on the scale of the CW is ridiculous, because for the most part, they're a bunch of bigoted cowards who are terrified of everything, including consequences.
Party affiliation is self-determined.
Anyone who wants to be a Democrat can be a Democrat. There isn't a separate thing called a "Real" Democrat.
Democrats are nearly as varied as humans are. Some day, we'll figure that out.
We need all of them, not just the ones who agree with us on every issue, and we need Democrats who appeal to their potential constituents, not to some generalized concept of what we think every Democrat should be.
Inspired by Elizabeth Warren, thoughts on "Dividing the party"
In light of Elizabeth Warren calling out some Sanders supporters* on Rachel Maddow's show this evening, some thoughts on division.
Dividing the party is a common refrain on DU, usually said in the context of some action that is sure to further "divide the party".
Here's the thing. To one candidate, there's one Democratic Party. To the other, it's, well...complicated.
To Joe Biden (and probably a solid majority of Dems), it's just the Democratic Party. Sometimes disorganized, sometimes frustrating, certainly, but one single entity. The big tent. Most of the other candidates see it the same way. Us vs. them simply means Dems vs. GOP/Trump. Pretty simple. One unified target. Want legislation passed? Here's your party.
To Bernie Sanders, it's not so simple. He identifies as an Independent most of the time, and his view of the party basically boils down to us and them, but in a different scope. "Us" is Sanders, like-minded candidates, and their various supporters. "Them" is, on a rotating basis, all other Democrats, the Democratic establishment, incumbent Democrats, "corporate Democrats" and/or whatever other vague labels are used to differentiate and divide. And, currently, Elizabeth Warren. The key word here is divide.
Some of his supporters seem to see things in a similar fashion. One side, Bernie's movement. The other, everyone else. Bernie's supporters are us. Bernie's "haters" are them. And that's just on the left/liberal/progressive/Democratic side.
The GOP is also a "them", but it's often lumped together with the Dem "them".
If one's worldview is already us vs. them in the context of the Democratic Party, what else is there to divide? One could assert that the division has little to do with party boundaries (a correct assertion), but it's a little disingenuous for those who created and nourished the clear separation in the first place to accuse others of fostering that division.
On a related note, who is more likely to unify the party - the candidate who already sees it as one party or the candidate whose entire political career and current strategy is based on the insistence that a division exists, probably always has, and probably always will?
*https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287637395
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Fri Oct 1, 2004, 10:32 PM
Number of posts: 25,454