twtter has about 70 million US users, out of a population of 330 million (does twitter have an age cutoff for users?). One would presume that twitter is like other services, where a small percentage of the user base is producing a larger percentage of the content.
So 'most people don't tweet' isn't really that much of a stretch.
The shocking story is that 25% of Americans tweet. As a non-tweeter, I would have assumed that number was more like 1-5%. 25% sounds pretty representative to me.
I'm annoyed by how this story seems to be jamming together unrelated things to paint a picture. Are people under the impression that twitter users are big political donors, or that twitter users don't mostly self-identify as independents? Are [capital-I]ndependents "somewhere in the middle," or is that just editorial trying to turn 42% of people into centrist charity-givers?
Most independents are not really 'in the middle', however much they may be disillusioned with existing party structures. They tend to lean one way or the other. I'm fairly liberal, but strongly anti-partisan (I've never belonged to a party). I think shrinking party affiliation is a good thing.
I agree. I also think that twitter reflects that. The vast majority of political twitter claims to be independent. Axios is doing a thing that centrists do often, which is to equivocate between independents, "swing voters" and centrists in order to make themselves a silent plurality.
So 'most people don't tweet' isn't really that much of a stretch.