I'm inclined to think not. I think the soccer moms fall in the 47 % described as moderate. A lot of gun owners call themselves small 'l' libertarians. The dems tried their best to nullify that issue this year. Single issue Second Amendment types didn't have a reason in an off year election. The pubbies passed that Internet gambling ban attaching it to the Port Security bill, IIRC. Another reason for small 'l' libertarians to stay home. This is in comment# 112 from its link:
"Because exit polls show there's a large chunk of the electorate that is moderate, independent-minded and turned off by partisanship. In exit polls, 47 percent of voters described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61 percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.
"On party identification, 26 percent said they're Independent, which is in line with recent elections. But this year, Independents went Democratic by a 57-39 margin. That's what gave the day to Democrats. In the 2002 midterm, by contrast, Independents went Republican in a 48-45 split."
The authors of those first three links in comment# 1 are David Boaz and David Kirby, John Derbyshire and Bruce Bartlett, respectively. I don't have any reason to doubt their scholarship for the 10 - 15 range.
The numbers in these polls don't help at all in figuring out who swung. In the 2004 presidential election, we won by 3 points. In the contested 2006 congressional races, we lost by 3 points. That's 1.75% of the voters changing their minds and voting the other way. So the fact that 47% of folks describe themselves as moderate tells you nothing about who swung.
I ran the county GOTV effort for a large swing county in a mountain state. So I talked with a lot of voters. And my phone bankers talked to a LOT of voters--like, 70-90,000.
I'm pretty sure that, at least in my neck of the woods, the profile of the vote switcher in 2006 was grumpy independents, who just wanted things to be different. They were pissed of about a variety of things--from Iraq to Christians to abortion to immigration to federal spending--but to call them libertarian is an insult to Frederick Hayek and Milton Friedman. Their idea of good governance is, when dems want a 20% tax increase, Republicans should agree to 10% and then the voters should never hear about it. Most especially, their position on, say, taxes is that politicians should not say mean things about each other on the tax issue and that they (the voters) ought not have hear about all this stuff because it annoys them. Their position on Iraq is that it annoys them they hear about it all the time and they want it (the annoyance) to go away. About as specific as it gets is "Someone ought to do something."
So, at least in the supposedly key county in a supposedly libertarian state, the 10-15% number is a pipe dream.
Look at it this way--and now I'm back to the national numbers. If 10-15% of the population were small government advocates (but not conservative christians) and another 35% are conservative christions, we would have a majority or near majority for smaller government on a wide range of issues. We aren't even close to that kind of vote for smaller government and we haven't beenn since 1980. 10-15% is pipe-dream land. The reason it is a fantasy rather than reality is that 10-15% of the population are not libertarians, if you exclude the Christians.
I SO wish you were right. Because if you were, we would be on the verge of restoring our constitutional republic. Regrettably, we are nowhere near that point. Instead we take out our frustration about the state of affairs by screaming at our closest political allies about details. The real problem is not the details. It is the fact that the majority of voters in America favor ever expanding and intrusive government.