The polling is in, and the Senate should push forward to pass CLARITY. Democratic voters themselves support it. After a neutral description, Democrats register a +43 net support for CLARITY. 37% of Democrats say they would be more likely to back a senator who votes to pass it, against 17% less likely. There is no Democratic base to protect by voting no, only one to satisfy by voting yes. The cross-party pull is asymmetric and cuts against the party that blocks. 47% of all voters say they would be at least somewhat likely to consider voting for a candidate outside their preferred party if that candidate supported CLARITY and their party did not. Among crypto owners that figure jumps to 72%, among voters familiar with digital assets 67%, and among voters already aware of the bill 67%. If the House and Senate split such that Democrats are seen as the obstacle, this is the mechanism that converts the issue into actual lost votes. The swing-state math is the loudest finding for Democrats. HarrisX cites prior work showing that crypto-motivated voters outnumbered the prior presidential margin of victory in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and that crypto-backed candidates won 85% of congressional races where the industry was active in 2024. Those three states are the same Blue Wall map Democrats need to recover. The bloc that decides them is engaged (92% of crypto owners said they planned to vote in 2024) and openly transactional on this issue. The dominant voter rationale for CLARITY is national security, not deregulation. 23% picked national security and the dollar's global role as the best argument for passage, the top response. 56% say digital payment systems built and controlled outside the U.S. would weaken national security. Over 40% say foreign-issued stablecoins becoming dominant would weaken the dollar's global role. This gives Democrats a frame to vote yes that does not require adopting industry talking points, namely a pro-oversight, pro-American-rules, anti-offshore-concentration posture. It is a vote for U.S. jurisdiction over a market currently dominated by foreign exchanges, eight of the top ten of which sit outside the United States. Voters have already rejected the "regulation by enforcement" posture. 60% prefer clear federal legislation even if imperfect. 57% say it is better to pass something now and improve it over time than to wait for the perfect bill. The "this bill isn't strong enough" objection that some Democrats have leaned on does not have a constituency in the data, even within the party. Independents are in the persuadable middle, not opposed. Only 10% of independents oppose CLARITY; 47% sit in neither-support-nor-oppose. Among them, 31% say they would be more likely to back a senator who votes yes. Independents will determine the 2026 House majority and several Senate seats, and on this issue they are not yet locked in either direction. Awareness is low, which means framing is up for grabs. 64% of voters have not heard of CLARITY. Whichever side describes the bill first to those voters sets its political ceiling. If Republicans pass it over Democratic opposition, Democrats inherit the framing of having blocked a bipartisan, pro-consumer-protection, pro-national-security bill that 52% of the public already supports on a neutral description. That framing risk is asymmetric and durable. The issue has midterm reach even if intensity is moderate. 52% of voters say a candidate's position on crypto regulation will be extremely or somewhat important in their 2026 vote, rising to 78% among crypto owners and 74% among voters familiar with digital assets. Only 16% call it extremely important, so it is not a top-tier driver, but it is the kind of issue that adds margin in races decided by single digits. Forward.