Gallup Poll Offers Independents "I told ya so'

1. 83

   GA Andersonposted 6 weeks ago

   This one's for Cred. After all these years, Gallup finds the proof.
   
   Among Millennials and Gen Z voters, there are more Registered Independents than Republicans and Democrats combined: 54-56% - 27% - 27%.
   
   Told ya so. Independents and Moderates aren't extinct dinosaurs. Their kids are taking over the elections. You party guys are the ones going extinct.
   
   New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 82

      wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Doesn't surprise me at all - we've all watched as both parties had not only moved left, but as the parties themselves have both moved to the fringes.  Both are the extremes of their "group" (liberal, conservative) but the population has not followed them.   Only the "leaders" and the die hards that simply MUST be a part of the label.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         As usual, yep.
         
         We need to break the two-party stranglehold. Smerconish says it's the primary's fault. Sounds right to me.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 82

            wildernessposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            The primary election, you mean?  I'm not sure that Democrats even have one after the fiasco with Harris.  But yes, I think there are problems there.

            replyreport
         2. 84

            Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            I believe Trump was what broke (is breaking) the stranglehold...
            
            The stranglehold wasn't the TWO Party system...
            
            The stranglehold was that from the mid-90s (Clinton) until the election of Trump, there had really only been ONE party and ONE direction.
            
            The Nation was navigated toward the same goals, toward that NWO, toward that WEF utopia not of Nation states, but one world governed by International Agencies that answered not to the people... but to the people who own or run the biggest banks and institutions in the world.
            
            The EU on a Global level, only complete with Social Credit system and Digital currency and the complete oppression of free speech and liberty.
            
            Trump's recent visit to Davos exposed all this for broader public consumption, but enough had been exposed in recent years that Trump (and the likes of Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick : https://youtu.be/xn8FDqLSetU?t=325 timestamped) are more of an icing on the cake situation... the cat was already out of the bag, its the reason why Trump keeps getting elected, he is the only alternative to something far worse that the Democrats for sure, and many in DC period, would love to inflict on America if they could.
            
            I have given you some links in the past that I believe you found interesting, I think this is an excellent discussion on this moment in time related to National and International politics, it sell's itself within the first two minutes, if you aren't hooked by then, don't waste more time:
            
            The Man Warning The West: Trump Is Changing The World Behind The Scenes
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJeU72Rgjh4

            replyreport
            1. 83

               GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               Konstantin Kisin ... The name was vaguely familiar.
               
               I watched it all - 95 minutes. After the first few minutes, the confirmation bias was so strong that I grabbed my phone to fact-check some stuff before I drowned in it.
               
               Of course he's right, he agrees with me! Without any pretension of comparison, listening to him was like talking to myself. The last ten minutes really sealed the deal.
               
               Thanks for the link.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I am glad you found it interesting, I always like hearing his perspective because he has experienced life in Russia/Ukraine and life in the UK and life here in America... that broad perspective grounded in what was formerly the USSR when young, I believe gives him much better perspective on what "the West" is in the middle of losing/destroying better than most.
                  
                  I think he is also right in his trepidations, the EU and the UK are lost... they will be both irrelevant and overrun by the rest of the world, economically, industrially, demographically... I think it will happen so quickly now that it will seem like an avalanche, or dominoes being set in motion... I think it is inevitable because the leadership of the EU is so delusional and out of touch with the real world around them.
                  
                  Search: "dog sitting calmly in a burning room" see applicable Pics
                  
                  That is the EU leadership...

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Criticism of the EU leadership is a juicy issue, but I don't know enough about it to join in. Relative to the UK, their leaders are the same as ours: elected politicians. We all get the politicians we deserve.
                     
                     My enthusiasm was for his geopolitical views. I think he's right because we agree, and I think I'm right (on the changing power dynamics).
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                        You recommended Bill Maher years ago, back when he was still in good with the Left... he's sounding more Right-winger than me these days:
                        
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzobwE9dqb8

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                           Yeah, I like him, but everyone is right of Mamdani, so even Cred couldn't stretch 'Right-winger' that far.
                           
                           I think his (Mamdani's) "warmth of collectivism" quote will hurt him. It was too far and too soon. (and 'Ceo' keeps reinforcing that point with her own quotes).
                           
                           So now, Bill Maher has a chance to double-down on his communist charge — using the horse's mouth as proof.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 84

                              Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                              Getting back to the topic of this thread... and the coming election...
                              
                              When I see reports like this (link below) I believe the changes are being made, to minimize the fraud that was prevalent in the last couple of elections, at least in the 'swing states'.
                              
                              In states like CA or NY, where the political system is so corrupt, and at this point, in a state of insurrection... I don't think they are putting in such effort, as it would be like shoveling a drive way during a blizzard.
                              
                              Ballot Images Reportedly Deleted for Years in Georgia; Ballot Images Can Reveal Multiple Scans
                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCjGjN0 … WHldC88Rqw

                              replyreport
                              1. 83

                                 GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                                 Nope, you already have me chasing down a couple of newly-interested rabbit holes (Eric Li is up first). I'll wait for the headlines on this one.
                                 
                                 GA   ;-)

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 84

                                    Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                                    Li was scary in a way, because if he is right, America is already in a losing position... and unless Trump becomes the football version of Tom Brady and is able to bring his team back from 30 point deficits with less than half a game to go, we could be in trouble.

                                    replyreport
   2. 81

      Credence2posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      Independent would mean primarily not affiliated with either political party. Yet, they can lean one direction or the other from policies and ideological standpoints. Both parties are guilty of accommodating increasing extremes of left or right.
      
      You keep missing the point, I am not a “party guy”, but one who has certain political and ideological viewpoints that one party simply represents better for me than the other. While Republicans may be the equivalent of lemmings, Little Bo Peep’s sheep, in following Trump, I follow the ideals and not any one man. In regards to those principles, I spit the lukewarm and moderate from my mouth. That applies to the Democrat accommodators like Chuck Schumer and others. In these times, with the need to right the ship, moderation simply wont do.
      
      Moderates are not the driving force in politics today, and that is the only reality that I see right now.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

         "In these times, with the need to right the ship, moderation simply wont do."
         
         Yep, that's what the 2024 voters thought too.
         
         An Independent's perspective is that the Biden-era Dems got Trump elected in 2024. Trump's actions will lose the House in 2026, so you folks, and the Rs, better be looking for some moderates, because the Independents will make sure an extreme will not win in 2028.
         
         As Gallup notes, since 2011 (coincides with our time, doesn't it?) Independents have been gaining from and overshadowing both parties. Party control of the primaries is the only shield you guys have. The extremes of Biden and Trump make our vote more important than ever in 2028.
         
         As MyERsoteric might point out: 2028 looks like an apt location for one of Mr. Overton's windowns.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            "An Independent's perspective is that the Biden-era Dems got Trump elected in 2024. Trump's actions will lose the House in 2026, so you folks, and the Rs, better be looking for some moderates, because the Independents will make sure an extreme will not win in 2028." GA
            
            I hear this argument a lot, but I think it gives independents a little too much credit as a single, coordinated force. Independents didn’t “get Trump elected” in 2024 by acting in unison, they were almost evenly split. What actually happened was high party loyalty on both sides, with turnout and base enthusiasm doing most of the work. Dissatisfaction with Biden may have nudged some independents, but that’s not the same as independents choosing Trump as a bloc.
            
            As for 2026 and 2028, the idea that independents will guarantee moderates win ignores reality. Independents aren’t ideologically consistent; some lean right, some lean left, and many vote issue by issue. If that weren’t true, we wouldn’t keep seeing close, polarized elections. Extremes don’t lose just because independents exist; they lose when candidates fail to connect on real-world issues like inflation, security, and trust in institutions.
            
            I also don’t buy the assumption that Trump’s actions alone will cost Republicans the House. Midterms are usually a referendum on whoever’s in power at the time, not a moral judgment on one figure. If the economy or border situation is still rough in 2026, independents could just as easily punish Democrats again.
            
            So I agree independents matter,  they absolutely do, but they’re not referees handing out red cards to “extremes.” They’re fragmented, pragmatic, and often reactive. Any party that assumes independents will automatically save them from bad candidates or reward moderation is probably setting itself up for another surprise.

            replyreport
         2. 84

            Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            I am not at all sure about what the moderates think.... no one should assume, however, that "An Independent's perspective is that the Biden-era Dems got Trump elected in 2024. Trump's actions will lose the House in 2026,"
            
            That would assume that Trump is doing things that those moderates and independents find objectionable or outrageous.
            
            The Media may be doing their best to portray that... but I see no evidence of it in my daily activities or in any recent delving, or forays.
            
            The economy is going to be the deciding factor... people feeling safe again may be another... the fact that 5,000 migrants aren't suddenly showing up unannounced at the school gyms to live temporarily... towns not being outnumbered by migrants in a few short years.
            
            Anywho... don't count your chickens before they are hatched... I don't see a Democrat wave in the mid-terms... and I suspect it won't matter a whole lot either way unless Democrats had a super majority in both, nothing is going to slow what Trump wants to do... this isn't his first rodeo, clearly, he came prepared this time.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               Yep, my thought does require an assumption. I checked with the most authoritative Independent/Moderate mind at hand before making that prediction.
               
               Based on that introspection, I did make the assumption. It isn't about a Blue Wave; it's about a loss of the benefit of the doubt, of majority control. So now we wait*.   
               
               *Let's trade: @gaanderson1 - put that link on your calendar for 11/4/26. I'll do the same for yours. ;-)
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  This is the current map for those 2026 elections:
                  https://www.270towin.com/2026-house-election/
                  
                  If Trump later in the year, shifts his focus on elections where he can help, and if the economy is doing as well, or better... the real economy: wages, grocery bills, electric bills... or in other words, no 10% inflation in one year like Biden and the Dems gave us... I expect there will be no house majority to speak of for either side.
                  
                  And if that is the case, Trump will continue to dominate without interference from idiotic Democrats demanding he be impeached, again, and they lock up government, again, with their idiocy,
                  
                  I don't see youth, especially men, regardless of race or economic situation, aligning with what the Democrats offer... which is still only Trump hate and illegal migrant love... and nothing else of value, to most men, that they have let anyone know about.
                  
                  ...
                  
                  I have you tagged on X, be seeing you there at least, after the HP curtain comes down.

                  replyreport
2. 81

   Credence2posted 5 weeks ago

   Damn you rightwinger types, read this and weep…
   
   Since 1946, the president's party has lost seats in the House of Representatives in 18 out of 20 midterm elections, which is 90% of the time. Historically, this trend is even more consistent; dating back to the Civil War, the president's party has lost ground in the House in 38 of 41 midterms.
   
   Key Findings on Midterm Election Trends:
   
   Near-Certainty: Only in 1934, 1998, and 2002 did the president's party not lose ground in the House.
   
   Average Losses: Since 1950, the party in the White House has lost an average of 26 House seats and nearly two Senate seats in midterm elections.
   
   Impact of Approval Ratings: If a president's job approval is below 50% in the month before a midterm, their party is almost guaranteed to lose seats in the House.
   
   Exceptions: The exceptions (1934, 1998, 2002) were driven by unique circumstances, such as high approval ratings following the 9/11 attacks in 2002 or the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton.
   
   Commonly, the opposition party (the party not holding the White House) gains seats, acting as a referendum on the sitting president's performance.
   ——————
   Do you really think that a contentious jerk like Trump is really going to beat these odds?
   With certainty, anything he manages will go south, and if the economic situation does not markedly improve in the coming year that will add just that more to the odds that are already against him from the start.
   
   I would certainly want to grab a front row seat and have Trump show me how he is going to pull a rabbit out of this hat….
   We add on more ICE related fatalities and the din of disturbance around the nation, and the rumor that he recently had suffered a stroke. Perhaps he will realize that the possibility of mortality at almost 80 is not anything that he can negotiate nor buy away.
   
   As for who is aligning with who, that remains to be seen. We will get a leash on Trump one way or another. A good democratic congress would not so much as pass gas on his behalf. He can kick his high chair as a vexed toddler as he wants, to no avail, that is the definition of a “lame duck”. He will go whining to the court, perhaps moving Uncle Clearance Thomas, and Alito, tyrant in waiting, to allow him to be free to continue in his despotic path.
   
   EVERYTHING he does is annoying, now threatening Canada, an independent nation, with economic extortion if they choose to purchase goods from China or from whomever they wish.
   
   So, rightwingers, the odds are against you, and I don’t see any miracle on the horizon. It will just take a tweak or two to change the entire composition and agenda of Congress, that wont be so hard…..

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I suspect we have those exceptional circumstances in play... and they could be even more exceptional by election time.
      
      But again, as I noted, unless the Democrats have a significant majority, enough seats to keep from one or two nation loving defectors stopping the Democrat's American hating shenanigans, it won't matter.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         But, take a look and see what those unique circumstances were and I did.
         
         What all the Presidents holding office during the years in question had in common were that they each had exceptional public opinion polls not lagging ones……
         
         It will matter because Trumps initiatives will not see the light of day and he can expect endless investigations around his every move.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            I have no faith in polls, prone to being incorrect, not reflective of the real sentiment.
            
            I do, however, believe what Gus is pointing out is right, that "Independent" is trending and young people are less likely to feel a Party loyalty than decades past.
            
            I think there are far less people concerned with migrants being protected or Canada being offended than you'd imagine... far less, when it comes to the average American Citizen.
            
            What they care about is how much a Dollar can buy them and how likely they are to be able to pay their bills, get a good job, buy a home... and if Trump is delivering on that come voting time in 2026 it would take fools and fraud to get the Democrats back in the majority.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               “and if Trump is delivering on that come voting time in 2026 it would take fools and fraud to get the Democrats back in the majority.”
               
               And if he doesn’t deliver…….

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  If the economy is in the dumps, if housing is worse than ever... then I would expect things to go poorly for Republicans.
                  
                  Each state will have different issues... the economy will be the prevailing one for most of them regardless.
                  
                  We'll see how manipulatable the American people still are... after 2020 we are at the 'fool me once, shame on you stage'... if Americans fall for the lies and deceit proffered by the Anti-American Progressive Party again, well, they deserve another 25% fleecing of the dollar's value and another 10+ million migrants allowed to flow into the nation and onto government handouts.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                     The electorate is notoriously fickle, so what about your promise, Trump, to reduce the inflationary trend and patch up a sputtering economy? It is obvious that Trump lied to them about the important issue of the economy, here and now…..

                     replyreport
   2. 83

      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Predicting a 2026 wave this far out is counting chickens before they hatch. Elections have a way of humbling certainty, and so much can change between now and then. Unlike 1934, 1998, or 2002, mindsets have shifted, and the variables today are entirely different — early predictions risk ignoring that reality.
      
      In my view, Democrats have done a smashing job of making fools of themselves at every turn. From Congress to the streets.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         He has 9 months to get his \public opinion polls turned around in a totally different direction as anything below 50 percent is the kiss of death. And I don’t believe that he will ever get that level of approval. He never has. The same consistent variables that have been in operation since the Civil War up to recently are still quite valid in my opinion.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            He won two elections with those low polls. Maybe time to honestly consider that polls just do not mean much anymore.  The outcome of any elections will speak louder than polls.  This is what I have witnessed in the past 10 years.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               Trump may have won 2 elections but will that transfer to elections for the Senate and House, that is the question?
               
               Conservative types discount the value of polls only when it reveals information contrary to their position or stance. I have never seen any reticent to the use polls to buttress their position or point that they want to make.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I don’t discount polls simply because they conflict with my views, and I think that characterization is too broad to be accurate. Like many people across the political spectrum, I’ve cited polls in the past when I believed the methodology, sample, and timing made them useful. The difference now is that I’ve seen repeated failures where polls did not just miss outcomes slightly, but missed them in meaningful ways, especially in recent election cycles. That naturally leads to more skepticism, not selective disbelief.
                  
                  My concern isn’t ideological, it’s practical. Polling has struggled with turnout modeling, nonresponse bias, and social desirability effects, all of which have become more pronounced in a polarized environment. When those same weaknesses show up repeatedly, it’s reasonable to question how much predictive value a poll actually has, regardless of whether it aligns with my personal views. Being cautious about flawed tools isn’t the same thing as rejecting data outright.
                  
                  I’m also consistent in this: if a poll supports my position but comes from a source or methodology that has a poor track record, I don’t give it much weight either. Healthy skepticism cuts both ways. Questioning the reliability of polling is not a partisan reflex; it’s a response to an industry that has openly acknowledged its own limitations and errors.

                  replyreport
               2. 84

                  Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  The polls... like American Mainstream Media in general... have proven to be unreliable, going more than a decade...
                  
                  Sanders was always more popular than Clinton or Biden... election results showed that even though the polls didn't.  ... not that who is really popular or getting the votes matters in who the DNC nominates, part of the problem, the DNC represents what they wanted/planned for the whole nation... a farce of an election system where they choose who the candidates are regardless of what the voters (Citizens) want.

                  replyreport