Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Become a member

Become a member

Nearly Half of Americans Identify as Politically Independent

Nearly half of Americans now identify as political independents rather than members of either major party, according to a new CNN poll, marking the highest level of partisan independence recorded by the network in more than a decade.

Get today's headlines by email image.png

The survey found that 47% of Americans consider themselves independents, an increase of roughly 10 percentage points since the period following President Donald Trump's first term. The figure is close to the previous high of 48% recorded in CNN polling during 2015.

Shift Away From Party Labels

Democrats and Republicans divide the rest of the population almost evenly. The poll found that 27% of Americans identify as Democrats and 26% as Republicans.

Many independents, however, still lean toward one of the two major parties. When those partisan leanings are taken into account, 39% align more closely with Democrats, 37% with Republicans, and 25% say they do not lean toward either side.

Even when respondents who initially expressed no preference were asked to choose a side, the electorate remained closely divided, underscoring the narrow political balance in the United States.

CNN's polling shows neither party has maintained a significant advantage in overall identification since 2021, when Democrats held a six-point lead. Since then, the gap between the two parties has remained at about one percentage point each year.

Registered Voters Show GOP Decline

Among registered voters, Democrats now hold a slight edge. The poll found that 31% identify as Democrats, compared with 28% who identify as Republicans, while 41% say they belong to neither party.

That represents a notable change from 2024, when 34% of registered voters identified as Republicans, 31% as Democrats and 35% as independents.

The findings suggest Republicans have lost some ground among voters since last year's election cycle, potentially adding to concerns for the party ahead of the midterm elections as Trump's approval ratings have weakened.

Younger Voters Driving Independence

Several demographic groups have moved away from Republican identification since 2024, including younger voters, men and White voters without college degrees.

Among voters under 45, only 17% now identify as Republicans, down from 26% in 2024. Democratic identification among that group has remained largely unchanged at 33%, while half now say they do not belong to either party.

Similar trends were observed among men, particularly younger men, and among White voters without college degrees, with many shifting toward independent status rather than switching directly to the Democratic Party.

Independents Less Engaged Politically

The poll also highlights key differences between independents and partisan voters.

Independents tend to be younger, with 63% under the age of 50, compared with 52% of Democrats and 38% of Republicans. They are also more likely than Republicans to live in urban areas, though less likely than Democrats to do so.

Income levels among independents are generally lower, with nearly half reporting annual household earnings below $50,000.

Politically, independents appear less engaged than partisans. Only 67% are registered to vote, compared with more than 80% of Democrats and Republicans. Just one-quarter say they regularly seek out political news.

Poll Methodology

The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS between May 7 and May 31 among 2,480 adults nationwide using online and telephone interviews. Participants were selected through address-based sampling and random cellphone number sampling. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.

Join the discussion? Create account. orange.png

Already a member? haveyr-say.png


image.png
Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 17 June 2026

User Feedback

Recommended Comments

JimHuaHin Platinum Member

JimHuaHin

Advanced Member

Not surprised, this seems to be a trend in most democracies, possibly accelerated as big business has increased its influence of major political parties.

WDSmart Platinum Member

WDSmart

Advanced Member

"Republican" generally means "conservative."
"Democrat" generally means "liberal.
"Independent" generally means "middle road," and you can go both ways.

I usually describe myself as "Democrat," but I am much, much farther left than they usually are. I guess "Socialist" would be a better tag for me, but Socialist candidates rarely make it to a ballot, and even if they do, they are unelectable. So, I usually vote for the candidate from the party that comes the closest to what I'd want - "Democrat."

Tug Star Member

Tug

Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

"Republican" generally means "conservative."
"Democrat" generally means "liberal.
"Independent" generally means "middle road," and you can go both ways.

I usually describe myself as "Democrat," but I am much, much farther left than they usually are. I guess "Socialist" would be a better tag for me, but Socialist candidates rarely make it to a ballot, and even if they do, they are unelectable. So, I usually vote for the candidate from the party that comes the closest to what I'd want - "Democrat."

I wholeheartedly agree most folks are centrist law abiding and decent.i also think many decent republicans want to distance themselves from the trump &hit show.

Front Row Advanced Member

Front Row

Member

For voter registrations many declare themselves as undeclared or independent for a variety of reasons. Personally, I don’t want all the spam and the begging from the DNC or GOP National Committees.

atpeace Platinum Member

atpeace

Advanced Member

Many like myself no longer have many candidates that we respect or trust. I wish independent thinkers could get elected but that is a tough battle and few take that route. Sad really and politicians are a good reflection of societies in today's hostile screaming world. The problem is the people :)

maxx58 Senior Member

maxx58

Member

Of course, because there is only one party -- the uniparty.

Both are subservient to Israel.

animalmagic Gold Member

animalmagic

Advanced Member

Wouldn't it be nice if only half of US Congressmen could honestly declare they were financially independent?

AustinRacing Platinum Member

AustinRacing

Advanced Member

….and the other half are clueless about politics and probably couldn’t name the three branches of government. 🫢

novacova Diamond Member

novacova

Advanced Member

Most folks like to falsely identify themselves as moderate because they don’t want to be publicly associated with the extremest elements of their ideology. Though it all comes out in an anonymous forum that they can hide behind.

wombat Platinum Member

wombat

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

"Republican" generally means "conservative."
"Democrat" generally means "liberal.
"Independent" generally means "middle road," and you can go both ways.

During the Vietnam police action I would've been described as a dove (left wing) and the establishment as a hawk (right wing)
I now find myself in a situation where the opinions that I had during Vietnam haven't changed and I would be called a right wing radical....
and I wonder why I'm confused at times

mfd101 Platinum Member

mfd101

Advanced Member

In principle it's a good thing: Make the politicians actually work for your vote with rational & well-thought-through policy proposals.

Well, we can always hope.

Presnock Platinum Member

Presnock

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

"Republican" generally means "conservative."
"Democrat" generally means "liberal.
"Independent" generally means "middle road," and you can go both ways.

I usually describe myself as "Democrat," but I am much, much farther left than they usually are. I guess "Socialist" would be a better tag for me, but Socialist candidates rarely make it to a ballot, and even if they do, they are unelectable. So, I usually vote for the candidate from the party that comes the closest to what I'd want - "Democrat."

Meanwhile I am the opposite of your leanings. I originally registered as Republican as anti-democrat policies with too many people wanting the government to GIVE them too much without them taking the time to earn whatever. I grew up in a lower middle class family. Couldn't afford college so went into the military. Did four years of that, more than 2 in VN but learned that being non-college at that time meant a lesser than great paying job so went into government service and due to foreign-language skills ended up having a great career. It took a lot of hard and dedicated work but family enjoyed moving from country to country around the world and was great for daughters' educations. However, after seeing Nixon being so crooked, I jumped from Republican to Independent but even so, the more politicians I see and read about, the more disappointed in their honesty to the US Constitutional laws against corruption and the Congress can't even come up with a valid anti-insider trading bill so we sure know where they stand on corruption within politics. Once they get in, they love the possible life-long career with insider trading enabling many to get rich which is impossible with just a government salary. Today, we even have a president who is the worse insider trading politician in the history of the US and who is more corrupt than any previous president. I worry for the future of the US and its citizens for sure with this administration. Best of luck to all reading this and hope they enjoy life in what is still consider to be a Paradise.

wwest5829 Platinum Member

wwest5829

Advanced Member
2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

"Republican" generally means "conservative."
"Democrat" generally means "liberal.
"Independent" generally means "middle road," and you can go both ways.

I usually describe myself as "Democrat," but I am much, much farther left than they usually are. I guess "Socialist" would be a better tag for me, but Socialist candidates rarely make it to a ballot, and even if they do, they are unelectable. So, I usually vote for the candidate from the party that comes the closest to what I'd want - "Democrat."

Agreed. My "Bernie 2016" sticker remains on my CV-R back window here in Chiang Mai. The great irony is that the working middle class, leaning right or left are demanding the same thing ... relief from the economic squeeze with is documented as increasing steadily over the last half century.

wwest5829 Platinum Member

wwest5829

Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Tug said:

I wholeheartedly agree most folks are centrist law abiding and decent.i also think many decent republicans want to distance themselves from the trump &hit show.

2 hours ago, Tug said:

I wholeheartedly agree most folks are centrist law abiding and decent.i also think many decent republicans want to distance themselves from the trump &hit show.

I hope ... we will see in November.

wwest5829 Platinum Member

wwest5829

Advanced Member
2 hours ago, maxx58 said:

Of course, because there is only one party -- the uniparty.

Both are subservient to Israel.

In the USA corrupt political system, subservient to the money interests required campaign contributions to get elected (this includes the tie to Israel).

wwest5829 Platinum Member

wwest5829

Advanced Member
2 hours ago, novacova said:

Most folks like to falsely identify themselves as moderate because they don’t want to be publicly associated with the extremest elements of their ideology. Though it all comes out in an anonymous forum that they can hide behind.

Here too I find irony. It was either the support for or "compromise" on policies/actions by both Republicans/Democrats which resulted in their traditional parties being rejected in favor of trump who was perceived as giving voice to the frustration/anger. As the underlying income/wealth gap has not been addressed, I think the madness will continue.

Real Name Hidden Silver Member

Real Name Hidden

Advanced Member

There needs to be a critically realigning election, like 1860, 1896, 1932, ...we're long overdue.

retayl Advanced Member

retayl

Member

Sadly a huge number of these “independents” allowed USA to descend into the embarrassment it is now, by not voting!

MikeandDow Ruby Member

MikeandDow

Advanced Member

As a non Yank looking in all you have with the 2 party system is corrupt or corrupt. you have

Limited Voter Choice and Representation

Severe Polarization

Legislative Gridlock

Policy Seesaw

Stifled Innovation

The two-party system dates back to the 1790s, is it not about time for a change !!

fredwiggy Star Member

fredwiggy

Advanced Member

Been there since the beginning, as trusting either side would just show the truth. Both sides make mistakes, and both sides have helped.

fredwiggy Star Member

fredwiggy

Advanced Member
28 minutes ago, retayl said:

Sadly a huge number of these “independents” allowed USA to descend into the embarrassment it is now, by not voting!

Can you really blame them, seeing what both sides was offering?

retayl Advanced Member

retayl

Member
5 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Can you really blame them, seeing what both sides was offering?

A fair point, but the lesser of 2 evils, whilst not ideal has to be better than the current situation.

fredwiggy Star Member

fredwiggy

Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, retayl said:

A fair point, but the lesser of 2 evils, whilst not ideal has to be better than the current situation.

We'll never know. I saw good and bad on both sides, as I have since Kennedy, but the polarization isn't good for anyone.

MikeandDow Ruby Member

MikeandDow

Advanced Member
4 hours ago, retayl said:

Sadly a huge number of these “independents” allowed USA to descend into the embarrassment it is now, by not voting!

Trump’s presidency did not occur in a vacuum. In a democracy, leadership is not merely the product of those who cast votes for a candidate, but the culmination of societal forces, historical inequities, and collective inaction.

While it is tempting to place blame solely on the individuals who supported Trump at the polls, the reality is far more complicated. By examining voter apathy, entrenched inequities, the modern media landscape, and outdated institutional structures, it becomes evident that each American plays some role in the broader public responsibility for enabling Trump’s rise, and for the subsequent damage wrought by his administration.

At the heart of any democracy lies a social contract. Citizens agree to remain informed, vote, and hold their leaders accountable. In return, they expect fair representation and a government that addresses the public’s needs.

Over the years, that unwritten pact has frayed. Millions of Americans did not vote in the 2016 election. Some absences were due to frustration with the political system, others out of a sense of futility, or more notably the fruition of years of disenfranchisement campaigns designed to keep voters from the polls.

The combination of widespread disengagement and disillusionment created a vacuum that allowed a smaller, more energized faction of the electorate to determine the country’s trajectory. That vacuum was not filled overnight.

Democratic engagement in the United States has been on a downward trend for decades, with midterm elections often drawing only a fraction of eligible voters. Community-level activism waned in many parts of the country, allowing local issues to fester unchecked.

By the time Trump began his campaign, he was able to tap into simmering resentments and cynicism about “the establishment.” For every American who saw through his rhetoric, there may have been a neighbor, coworker, or relative who — facing a lack of consistent information and feeling ignored by mainstream politics — opted to believe his promises.

Even those who recognized Trump’s shortcomings should bear some responsibility if they did not work hard enough to enfranchise the disenfranchised, or work to promote reforms that encourage fairer voting practices.

an awareness of how an entire society can enable such a presidency is essential to preventing its recurrence. Accountability can begin in everyday spaces.

TedG Ruby Member

TedG

Advanced Member
1 hour ago, MikeandDow said:

Trump’s presidency did not occur in a vacuum. In a democracy, leadership is not merely the product of those who cast votes for a candidate, but the culmination of societal forces, historical inequities, and collective inaction.

While it is tempting to place blame solely on the individuals who supported Trump at the polls, the reality is far more complicated. By examining voter apathy, entrenched inequities, the modern media landscape, and outdated institutional structures, it becomes evident that each American plays some role in the broader public responsibility for enabling Trump’s rise, and for the subsequent damage wrought by his administration.

At the heart of any democracy lies a social contract. Citizens agree to remain informed, vote, and hold their leaders accountable. In return, they expect fair representation and a government that addresses the public’s needs.

Over the years, that unwritten pact has frayed. Millions of Americans did not vote in the 2016 election. Some absences were due to frustration with the political system, others out of a sense of futility, or more notably the fruition of years of disenfranchisement campaigns designed to keep voters from the polls.

The combination of widespread disengagement and disillusionment created a vacuum that allowed a smaller, more energized faction of the electorate to determine the country’s trajectory. That vacuum was not filled overnight.

Democratic engagement in the United States has been on a downward trend for decades, with midterm elections often drawing only a fraction of eligible voters. Community-level activism waned in many parts of the country, allowing local issues to fester unchecked.

By the time Trump began his campaign, he was able to tap into simmering resentments and cynicism about “the establishment.” For every American who saw through his rhetoric, there may have been a neighbor, coworker, or relative who — facing a lack of consistent information and feeling ignored by mainstream politics — opted to believe his promises.

Even those who recognized Trump’s shortcomings should bear some responsibility if they did not work hard enough to enfranchise the disenfranchised, or work to promote reforms that encourage fairer voting practices.

an awareness of how an entire society can enable such a presidency is essential to preventing its recurrence. Accountability can begin in everyday spaces.

Are you plagiarizing other people's work without going credit? Oh yes you are.

https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/editorial/broken-social-contract-americans-share-blame-trumps-presidency-wreckage/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

TedG Ruby Member

TedG

Advanced Member

@MikeandDow A downvote means you disagree. Do you disagree with my assessment that you plagiarized someone's work?

TedG Ruby Member

TedG

Advanced Member
8 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Here too I find irony. It was either the support for or "compromise" on policies/actions by both Republicans/Democrats which resulted in their traditional parties being rejected in favor of trump who was perceived as giving voice to the frustration/anger. As the underlying income/wealth gap has not been addressed, I think the madness will continue.

Can you please cite an example of which polices led to this?

Hanuman2547 Gold Member

Hanuman2547

Advanced Member

No surprise there. Who would want to be associated with either of those two clown shows!

Roadsternut Gold Member

Roadsternut

Advanced Member
7 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

As a non Yank looking in all you have with the 2 party system is corrupt or corrupt. you have

Limited Voter Choice and Representation

Severe Polarization

Legislative Gridlock

Policy Seesaw

Stifled Innovation

The two-party system dates back to the 1790s, is it not about time for a change !!

But its not a 2-party "system". Two parties dominate who is in government, and the names of those parties change over the years. But every US election, there are always lots of candidates, from all walks of life. Bit no one votes for them. There was Ross Perot, but he never really had a chance. British politics are often described as "2 party politics", but again, there are lots of parties you can vote for.

Germany has baked in coalition politics, and mostly very stable governments, which have been middle of the ideological road to the point of dullness. Italy, famously, gained a reputation of unstable, shortlived government, due to coalition, essentially in a state of permanent paralysis. In Israel, what seems unusual, very small minority parties seem to have unusual influence on policy, when usually in coalitions, those minority partners find their influence is limited to less important areas.

The UK doesn't have much history of coalitions; and generally, people agree, they were needed for the particular circumstances at the time, but you wouldn't want to make a habit of it. The National Government stewarded the country through the Great Depression and WW2, and the Coalition of 2010, which I think was need to get the UK out of a pickle that was not really of its own making. And, I think there should have been a National government during Brexit, because Brexit was not a question that split on party lines. We had an ideological Brexit, rather than a pragmatic Brexit, resulting in a terrible deal.

MikeandDow Ruby Member

MikeandDow

Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

But its not a 2-party "system". Two parties dominate who is in government, and the names of those parties change over the years. But every US election, there are always lots of candidates, from all walks of life. Bit no one votes for them. There was Ross Perot, but he never really had a chance. British politics are often described as "2 party politics", but again, there are lots of parties you can vote for.

Germany has baked in coalition politics, and mostly very stable governments, which have been middle of the ideological road to the point of dullness. Italy, famously, gained a reputation of unstable, shortlived government, due to coalition, essentially in a state of permanent paralysis. In Israel, what seems unusual, very small minority parties seem to have unusual influence on policy, when usually in coalitions, those minority partners find their influence is limited to less important areas.

The UK doesn't have much history of coalitions; and generally, people agree, they were needed for the particular circumstances at the time, but you wouldn't want to make a habit of it. The National Government stewarded the country through the Great Depression and WW2, and the Coalition of 2010, which I think was need to get the UK out of a pickle that was not really of its own making. And, I think there should have been a National government during Brexit, because Brexit was not a question that split on party lines. We had an ideological Brexit, rather than a pragmatic Brexit, resulting in a terrible deal.

Well i have a diffrent understanding

A political party is defined as ‘any group, no matter how loosely organised, seeking to elect governmental office-holders under a given label’

The UK is officially a multi-party system, though it has historically operated as a two-party system in practice due to its voting mechanics.

While multiple parties run and win seats, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have monopolized power and alternated forming governments for over a century. However, the traditional two-party dynamic is experiencing unprecedented fragmentation.

The United States operates under a de-facto two-party system, dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. While smaller "third" parties exist (such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party), the two major parties have won every presidential election since 1852 and hold almost all seats in Congress

The point i amtrying to get over is Limited Representation and is a very old system and to make matters worse the yanks throw in the Electoral college which Disenfranchises voters and can lead to Popular vote conflicts: which can lead to a president being elected who actually lost the national popular vote

Create an account or sign in to comment

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.