Why does that make a difference?  It suggests that those asked were not necessarily registered with any political party, so it doesn't capture, I don't think, actual membership trends.

It doesn't matter much if Joe Blow considers himself a Democrat if he isn't even registered to vote.  Or if he's like me, and while registered as a Democrat, is finding it difficult to cast a vote for Democrats who aren't advocating for what I consider to be Democratic policy; I would say that I consider myself a Democrat, but if no one's going to ask me how I define "Democrat," it doesn't mean much.

As for the whole jobs thing, you haven't provided any information about the kinds of jobs for which there are openings, or information about salaries and/or hourly wage rates for those positions, and how they compare to wages for those same jobs pre-2008.

High unemployment has depressed wages.  Those fortunate enough to be going back into the job market after a period of unemployment are finding that they aren't going back at the salaries they were earning before they were laid off.  Are they happy to be working, and is it a good thing for that person to be gainfully employed?  Of course it is.  

But it doesn't tell the whole story, just as "9% unemployment" doesn't capture those who have stopped looking for work or who no longer qualify for benefits, which pretty much doubles that rate.

I think it's time you perhaps faced the truth that a lot of people no longer blindly and loyally line up behind Democratic candidates if they don't feel those candidates, or incumbents, are satisfactorily representing their interests.  It doesn't mean they are voting another party, it means they are voting third party, writing in, or choosing not to vote.

I don't care if you are a Democrat or a Republican or none of the above, those numbers are tragic. Multiply that 12,000 out by 50 states and "Houston, we have a problem."  

This problem will not be solved by cutting SS, Medicare and Medicaid. It will not be solved by cutting funding for WIC. Businesses are not refusing to hire because they think pregnant women and babies get too much free milk.

Only 48% of jobless still getting unemployment benefits

WASHINGTON -- The jobs crisis has left so many people out of work for so long that most of America's unemployed are no longer receiving unemployment benefits.

Early last year, 75 percent were receiving checks. The figure is now 48 percent -- a shift that points to a growing crisis of long-term unemployment. Nearly one-third of America's 14 million unemployed have had no job for a year or more.

Congress is expected to decide by year's end whether to continue providing emergency unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks in the hardest-hit states. If the emergency benefits expire, the proportion of the unemployed receiving aid would fall further.

The ranks of the poor would also rise. The Census Bureau says unemployment benefits kept 3.2 million people from slipping into poverty last year. It defines poverty as annual income below $22,314 for a family of four.

Yet for a growing share of the unemployed, a vote in Congress to extend the benefits to 99 weeks is irrelevant. They've had no job for more than 99 weeks. They're no longer eligible for benefits.

It's a lie, in other words.

Like the cold temperature today does not mean the long term trend is cooling.

US Gov. Spending Cuts: What's On The Table? You're On The Table

...most minimum wage earners in the U.S. can no longer the afford the basic necessities of life