Gallup has the breakdown on its website, which includes the little-acknowledged fact that independents overwhelmingly want a third party and always have:

Interestingly, the poll also includes a potential barometer of ideological identification across the country. When asked to identify themselves by political party, 72 percent of self-styled independents called for a third party, compared to just 33 percent of Democrats. But when asked to identify themselves by general ideology, support for a third party among moderates dropped to 52 percent, while support among liberals rose to 51 percent.

Support for a third party held steady at 52 percent across self-identified Republicans and conservatives, suggesting that very few independents identified as conservative, while more than one in four independents identified as liberal.

If a quarter of independents consider themselves liberal and the rest are strictly moderate, it could move the 2012 presidential election in a number of directions. That bloc of liberal-but-not-Democrat voters could end up being a lock for President Obama, leaving it to the Republican candidate — already working with a smaller base than that held by the Democratic party — to fight for every last moderate’s vote. This would all but ensure an Obama victory unless more than two-thirds of non-party-affiliated moderates vote Republican.

Or the growing number of independent liberals disillusioned with the Obama administration over issues like the detention of Bradley Manning and the perpetuation of Bush-era anti-terrorism tactics could just stay home on election day, bolstering Republicans’ chances. Similarly, for the same reasons, staunch liberals may come out in support of a third-party candidate, to the detriment of the Democratic Party — though some have argued that the vote-siphoning effect of third parties is greatly exaggerated.

It’s simply too early to tell. But that large number of liberal and moderate independents fed up with the entire two-party system may very well end up deciding the election. Both parties would do well to start courting them, and soon.

From the PPP blog post:

Sharron Angle is getting 9% with liberals and 80% with conservatives, down just slightly from the 12% and 82% [former GOP candidate Sue] Lowden was getting with those groups. But where Lowden trailed Reid only 51-41 with moderate voters, Angle is facing a 64-28 deficit. The price of nominating Angle for Nevada Republicans appears to be 26 points with moderate voters.

Obviously we don’t know how the full results of this poll yet so there’s no way to directly compare it to other recent polls. But the firms to show Reid improving against Angle fall across the political spectrum. A poll commissioned by the liberal Patriot Majority PAC last week showed Reid leading Angle 44-40 percent, while the latest poll from conservative Rasmussen Reports had Angle barely leading at 46-43 percent — his best showing all year in that poll. A Mason-Dixon poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal showed Reid leading 44-37 percent.

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are expected to soon release further details of their cap-and-trade-less climate bill, possibly as soon as tomorrow. And Kate Sheppard reports that moderates seem to be warming to the legislation.

“There were some interesting things that were discussed in there and like everything else in the United States Senate, the devil is in the details,” [GOP Sen. George] Voinovich told reporters after the meeting. He also noted that without final language, it’s still hard to say whether he could endorse it. “There is more meat that has got to be put on the bones.” [Dem Sen. Max] Baucus called the new effort “refreshing,” while [Dem Sen. Debbie] Stabenow also showed enthusiasm.

Tennessee Republican Bob Corker, who has supported an approach in which the majority of proceeds from the sale of carbon permits are returned to taxpayers in the form of a dividend, told Greenwire: “I think all of those things are very positive steps and give me the sense that people here in Congress are getting the message that the American people want us to be transparent about all things we do, including cap and trade.

What’s noteworthy here is that the trio is aiming to line up 60 votes before introducing the legislation; Sheppard writes that “the anticipation among bill-watchers is that they won’t release the legislation until they’ve got 60 senators signed on.” This stands in pretty sharp contrast to the process up to this point. In the House, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) drafted a relatively aggressive bill that had no real chance of passing in its original form. Only after coal and farm interests whittled it down with a series of compromises and amendments was it able to squeak by.

Likewise in the Senate: Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced an even more aggressive bill than the one passed by the House, knowing full well that it couldn’t get 60 votes. But unlike in the House, the compromise process never really got off the ground — hence the recent decision by Kerry to abandon that bill and work with Graham and Lieberman to start from scratch.

This time around, they’re employing a markedly different strategy that will yield a markedly different bill. And the biggest difference could be that the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill has a real shot at passing.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who now might draw a challenge from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said the party needs to rethink its entire approach to governing.

Whether or not Pence runs, this is the sort of thing the GOP needs — credible threats against incumbent Democrats to scare them into voting down their party’s agenda. Bayh, who’s never lacking for a platform to trash his party for not governing in a “moderate” enough way, is a good target for this.

“So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we’ll come after you,” Steele continued.

“You’re gonna find yourself in a very tough hole if you’re arguing for the president’s stimulus plan or Nancy Pelosi’s health plan. There’s no justification for growing the size of government the way this administration and this Congress wants to do it.”

It’s not surprising that Steele and the Republican Party would try to harness the Tea Party movement for an electoral advantage, but the events in the NY-23 special election should make clear that’s a risky proposition. In a moderate Republican district in upstate New York that had not elected a Democrat since the 1870s, a Tea Party-backed, Club for Growth-funded conservative succeeded in forcing a moderate Republican out of the race, only to lose to a moderate Democrat.

It’s no secret that Republicans representing “moderate to slightly liberal districts” tend to be moderate because in many cases a hard-line conservative running in the district would lose to a moderate Democrat. And once elected, moderates in these districts need to continue to appeal to moderate voters in order to get reelected, often by occasionally working with the other party. Granted, the number of moderate Republicans in Congress who Steele is talking about “coming after” — presumably through primary challenges from the right — is small. But the effect of a strategy like the one Steele is threatening would very likely be to drive remaining moderates out of the party — either through primary losses or party-switching à la Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) — and thereby shrink the GOP caucus even further in the name of ideological purity.

It’s particularly noteworthy since TWI asked Steele about this very issue yesterday, and he responded that winning is more important than maintaining ideological purity. “I don’t see a victory in losing seats,” he said. “I’m not in the business of division and subtraction. I’m in the business of multiplication and addition. I want more Republicans going to Congress.”

(Via Ben Smith)

It’s a moderate’s world on Capitol Hill right now, and the latest evidence arrived yesterday when the Democratic sponsors of a controversial labor-friendly proposal dropped the bill’s central tenet: A provision allowing unions to organize by getting a simple majority of workers to sign cards in support. Under current law, workers organize unions by secret ballot. The Democrats’ proposal would have given workers the additional option of a public ballot, making it easier to unionize.

The so-called “card check” bill — supported by President Obama — has been labor’s biggest legislative priority this year, prompting a fierce battle with business groups that have spent bill millions to kill the measure. Moderate Democrats like Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) have come out squarely in opposition to the bill, making the party’s 60-member majority irrelevant. Yesterday, those moderates won an enormous concession with the removal of the card-check provision. From The New York Times:

In its place, several Senate and labor officials said, the revised bill would require shorter unionization campaigns and faster elections.

While disappointed with the failure of card check, union leaders argued this would still be an important victory because it would give companies less time to press workers to vote against unionizing.

The move might have changed the support dynamics on Capitol Hill, but it hasn’t changed the lobbying dynamics. Indeed, labor groups are still supporting the underlying bill — the Employee Free Choice Act — while many businesses are still opposing it. The Workforce Fairness Institute, a business group formed to fight EFCA, just shot out an email announcing its continued opposition based on language that forces government arbitration when workers and employers can’t agree on a union contract.

“The most damaging aspect of the bill — the binding arbitration provision, will remain intact,” the group rued.

With Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) suffering poor health, there’s no guarantee that even the diluted proposal can win 60 Senate votes.

I spent the weekend poring over the CNN exit polls from last Tuesday’s election and converting the state-by-state data for a number of demographics into my own hypothetical electoral maps.

The result is a set of maps that visualize the outcome of an election decided exclusively by the following age groups, genders, income groups, political affiliations, etc.:

Voters age 65 and older:

White voters: (A “black voters” map would be a sea of blue.)

Men:

Women:

Self-described political moderates:

Registered independents:

College graduates:

Voters earning under $50,000 per year:

Voters earning over $50,000 per year:

Voters who are “worried about economic conditions”:

Voters whose “most important issue” was the economy:

Voters whose “most important issue” was the war in Iraq:

(Note: These maps were created with the handy tool at 270towin.com.)