This is a very consistent trend , as the GOP unravels. People will continue to self identify as independents. I would argue that there is a correlation in this data to self identification as well, if the polling were done.

However, its important to note that we've selected a very sharp axe to grind here with these races. The consistent strongholds that the GOP has made in the south are better indicators, in my view - and the poll that needs to run there is "Do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or Independent". The democrats tarnished brand down there will leave them wanting but if this data is correlated you may find their numbers increased - and I would argue you are likely to see a 6 to 10 percent increase in self identification from the independents.

Georgia, for example, elected (essentially) an independent to the Senate. Isakson is a moderate republican and also someone who has strong potential to back healthcare reform and break from the ranks of this dying party to join the growing majority of senators who support healthcare. Although Isakson has been known to be far right on occasion, in rhetoric his voting record is actually quite moderate.

Its important to look at trends like this from a national perspective rather than a catbird seat constructed from two races in GOP northern territory. That said, I agree with the author that there is a trendline here- if a polling firm looks for it they will likely find it.

And of course, we can also expect that if such a poll was published - the lobbyists would rush to shore up the GOP because they want both parties to be in zombie mode. Thats why they're dumping so much money into the dems right now.

And , given the strong and disintermediating effect of the blogosphere on electoral results - knocking the middlemen lobbyists out of the loop - its far more likely that 'independent' will be how the GOP - which has been suffering under the lobbyists for years - will try to sort and save those it wishes to keep when it reforms again.

Didn't H. Ross Perot validate this hypothesis back
in the 20th century?

Did the GOP brain trust in the 1970s really believe that a powerful political party could be supported indefinitely on the planks of racism and "values"?  

It must have because since then it has thrown all its weight to holding its party together by reinforcing these ideas and candidates - to the point of excluding traditional "Sibelius" vintage Republicans who have slowly bled from the party over time.

Now the GOP is learning that a strong party cannot stand on the shifting sands of its remaining base; the base demanding more obstructionism, less compromise, and more confrontation.  It is reaping the harvest that this grand 1970s strategy sowed.

It will be interesting to see whether the Doles and Romneys can bring back the old GOP to its former shape - at least to a point where a majority of Americans would actually believe the party to be able to govern effectively.

I'd love to vote for more independents, or third party candidates-- good for the system. This looks like a heck of a contest in NY.

I think the general sentiment is right, but this is a poor example since the GOP candidate is quite liberal.