No. The numbers in the primaries mean nothing.

Sure, diehard morphists will point to the numbers of Democratic voters, without mentioning that the popular vote does not win elections in the electoral college system.

The huddled masses do not elect presidents. That's a massive illusion our forefathers made sure never happens when they created the electoral college.

Come election day, the GOPers who stayed home because they were not overly enthralled with any one candidate, will be looking at the proposition of a Hillary and Barack in the White House.

Such a prospect will create a fear that no Mongol Hordes ever perpetrated upon the villages in their horse ridden paths of pillage and pluncer.

When you think of it, the numbers are a lot like the illusion created by Las Vegas that New England was a twelve point favorite over New York.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 10:34 AM ET | 02-06-2008

The numbers in the primaries DO mean something.
I believe that ever since the very close presidential race of 2000, many people have felt that their votes actually count for something. The closer a race is, the more an individual can feel empowered to make a difference.
At least, this is how I feel. I wanted to get out there and make my vote count.

Sent by Kristi | 11:11 AM ET | 02-06-2008

I am not a registered voter. I was almost convinced to give it a try this year because I believe that it is time for the United States to show the world a differnt face, it is time for change. But, alas, I did not. I am still very discouraged about how much difference my single vote actually does make, for the very reasons our blogger friend Fred Call points out. What about the electoral college? How can a single person's vote make any difference when the electoral college has the last word, and when its members have, in the past, actually voted opposite of the popular vote in their representative state. Tell me why I should get my hopes up when, to all appearances, my vote means nothing in the end?

Sent by Shanna LaCoss | 11:12 AM ET | 02-06-2008

Unfortunately, I live in Michigan and was unable to cast a meaningful vote this election year. However, if I had the opportunity, I would have voted for Obama in spite of being a "female geezer". I would have cast my vote based upon my perception that we need a "new" way to govern and Obama represents that to me. Early on, I supported Ms. Clinton but her obfuscations regarding her vote to grant Bush the power to go to war with Iraq, and her inabilty to apologize as well as what I perceive to be downright dirty campaign tactics (not to mention her uncontrollable husband)I switched my support to a young, idealistic, strong, articulate, bright, and hopeful candidate.

Sent by Barbara from Michigan | 11:12 AM ET | 02-06-2008

I'm a young voter (26) and feel that politics this year finally meanS something. I feel that there is a lot of bad information available and find myself viewing this race as a sports contest instead of a race for the presidency and leadership for the next four years. Is there any way to make the reports more analytical and remove some of the hyperbole?

I would be interested in seeing a historical comparison of past years voter turnouts in the primary and how that state voted overall in the popular vote. What does this primary mean in terms of the popular election?

Another thing I am finding very tiresome are the canned responses to voters questions by the candidates. Is there a website or newspaper that has stripped the canned responses and actually shown what the candidates stand for? I would enjoy seeing a comprehensive breakdown of the issues in a bullet list format, identifying what the candidates believe in.

Sent by Shem Stygar | 1:15 PM ET | 02-06-2008

if you look at the comments above, it represents election as a symbolic action. "I'm voting for change" "I want to make my vote count" "liberals are Mongolian(?)"

People, government is about policy, not about showing the world a different face, or abstract rhetoric like "change" or hating the fabricated ideology of your fellow countrymen. We have, for the past 50 years or so been electing our leaders as symbols. And look where we have ended up.

It's time to step back, and see things for what they really are.

Sent by Jody Sol | 1:24 PM ET | 02-06-2008

Barbara has said it so well but I will add...I too am a "female geezer" who used to be a Hillary fan. However, I have had enough frustration, feeling powerless. I see Obama igniting my generation but most of all the youth of America, and God knows we need every person, young and old to once again feel the privilege and responsibility of citizenship. Obama can unite; Hilary (and Bill) will divide. Let's move this country in a new and peaceful direction.

Sent by Julie | 1:35 PM ET | 02-06-2008

I kept away from the polls. I don't like the idea of having to state which party I am voting for. It is no one's business so I hope they change this procedure sometime soon.

I like both Obama and Clinton in their own ways so I will wait and see who the party chooses on each side...but not really thinking the Republicans will nominate someone I would vote for at this point when looking at the candidates they have running.

As far as "change", you have men who have been in the Senate for decades backing Obama and NOW they think there should be change in DC politics? What have Kerry and Kennedy for instance been doing to earn their money all these years?

Keep warm, dry, and have a safe ride home Chicago!

Sent by Jan Illinois | 1:53 PM ET | 02-06-2008

I too was frustrated by the coverage last night.

As a woman, I am so proud of Hillary Clinton.

She is truly our most qualified candidate.

I am so excited!

And it's not going backwards to elect our first woman President, who also happens to be the most qualified candidate.

She is the most qualified to help the economy, much more so than McCain and Obama.

And I am not a baby boomer, but I would be proud if I was!

And I have a Master's degree!

And I feel the Clintons who have truly done so much for this country are so unfairly treated, and have been for too long.

"I didn't just learn about 'hope' yesterday," said Maxine Waters, an African-American congresswoman from California, referring to an Obama tagline. "It is not more hope that we need - we need help, and that is why I am backing Hillary."

The media are the ones who have spun things the Clintons said so negatively when the Clintons did not mean them that way. (Love you Tom!)

I believe that sexism is even more insidious than racism. And sexism is behind too much of the 'baggage' which Hillary does not deserve.

She started organizing to help children of migrant families when she was a teenager, and she has been dedicated and working to truly help our country ever since!

Sincerely,

Lauren in Portland, Or

Sent by Lauren | 2:57 PM ET | 02-06-2008

Correct, we do not elect presidents on popular vote alone. Correct, we receive filtered truth...correct, we are smart and will figure it out, thank you very much. Correct, (this) administration is driving us to the pole in droves...I go Sunday. Never done that before.

Guess the time has come.

Sent by geeman | 8:16 AM ET | 02-09-2008

I believe that sexism is even more insidious than racism. And sexism is behind too much of the 'baggage' which Hillary does not deserve.

This is a dangerous assertion... nothing is black and white most of life is gray, yellow, orange, etc. ... there are situations where being a woman is more detrimental and situations where being Black is more detrimental... but Hillary is a White woman who has an extraordinary amount of class privilege .. i.e. being "a woman" is not the same for everyone. In the U.S. femaleness is graded on a continuous hierarchy???.
But I can hear you (feminist White women racists) all over the U.S. ??? muttering the same sentiment and feelings that you have for decades in your writings and assessments of justice???. ???Were white and we should not be treated differently (like them)??? we deserve the SAME access to power that White Men do??? I hear the indignant resistance vowing not to let them (white men) elect a Black Man over your head when a good White candidate (who JUST happens to be a woman) is available???. You want Hillary to be supported like any other candidate from the dominant group would be???. You argue that if Hillary were a man (White Man) there would be no question of her rightness as the representative of the Democratic party for President???. And this is probably true???

However your UNDER the cuff reminders to White Men that ???We are your equals and we dare you to forget it??? don???t represent progressive politics, you don???t want equity??? you want (like many others in your predicament want**) equality, (between you and white men) justice, and fairness for White women??? you want to see a White woman candidate succeed??? you???re worried about your glass ceiling???.. If Hillary were a Black woman (at the intersections of race and gender and truly a very perilous place to live) you wouldn???t be supportive and your (feminist) rhetoric would not be so strong??? If Maxine Waters were running we would be talking about her race (first) her womanhood (second) and bemoaning her imminent doom???.. you???re no better than white men in that you want what they have??? nothing more for nobody else

**sexist Black Men (who want equality for men), racist immigrants (who can barely speak English but whose usage and pronunciation of the word ni**a is fluent and demonstrative), poor White people (who want economic justice and longer extensions on their welfare benefits (most places where the populations is predominately white and poor this happens) until it starts to benefit others groups in their same predicament)???.

Sent by Frances | 10:58 AM ET | 02-09-2008

Dear Frances,

Can't begin to imagine where your rage begins and ends. So please get some help before you blow a gasket, or worse, decide to buy an AK-47...

Get a grip, you're drifting man (and here I thought I was scary).

Sent by geeman | 7:38 PM ET | 02-09-2008