I have lived in states where registered independents could vote in party primaries. You just, obviously, couldn't vote in more than one primary.

I am a registered Independent. We're allowed to vote in the South Carolina primaries.

I voted for the forces of good.

I understand that. I mean why do it in states that don't have open primaries?

I registered as an Independent in Arizona because at the time I didn't realize that it wasn't an open primary state.

That was five years ago and I'm going to get around to changing that one of these days.

But seriously, I have never changed it because I work for state government and am not interested in being identified as a member or a supporter of any political party. Bad for the career.

I was registered Republican my whole life until last election cycle, when I changed my registration to Libertarian. I did it solely as a protest, though. Since leaving there at 19, I've never lived in a state that was a 'swing' state in an election year and as a result, it makes it easier for me to vote my conscious except in close races or situations where I have a strong preference one way or another.

I don't think it's worthwhile to vote for the "major" party candidates solely to "have a say" because in the end, if you're willing to sacrifice your ideas because of a flawed system and to have token participation, then really, you're agreeing with the idea that the system ought to be the way it is and the people with the most money and influence ought to get to dominate the landscape.

If fewer people with convictions thought "screw this, I'm going to vote the way I want to vote rather than believing I can't impact anything," especially in local races, more 'change' would happen organically as a result.

But as it stands now, people are either willing to stand pat, participate nominally or not at all and it's in part responsible for why we're in a lot of the situations we are from top to bottom politically.

Now that I'm moving from here, I'll change my registration again before this November when I re-register to vote, but...it'll probably be to Republican again, rather than independent.

Mostly because I used to be and depending on where I am, I figure it's more useful to be involved locally in a party even if you disagree with the federal issues than to just sit out if you're close on things. But where I live now, I had little use for the partisan yokels who ran things and so, I just wanted no parts of working with any of them.

These shouldn't be taken too seriously, but Drudge has exit polls for 14 states on their website- Obama ahead in 9 of them, Clinton in 5. They have him with 75% in Georgia so we'll see how accurate it is now that Georgia poll numbers start coming in.

Obama is now the projected winner of Georgia. Republicans too close to call.

Ummmm if race is playing no part in the Dems race, why is everyone so concerned about whether white male voters would vote for him?

I don't think anyone cares except the media.

There has just been a huge shift in the Intrade share prices for the Democratic nomination. Obama shares are now trading at 58.8 and Clinton shares are trading at 42.0.

As a registered independent since the 1980 election, it is a matter of principle and continued distaste for big-machine, party politics. I have not and will not register as a R or D to vote in the primaries, no matter how much the machines want me to do so.

I'm trying to remember what the GA polls had shown. Early results has Obama up by +37%. (I know, probably just one precinct in downtown Atlanta)

McCain wins Illinois and New Jersey. Romney wins Massachussetts. John McCain wins Connecticut.

Huckabee won Alabama. Georgia too close to call between Huckabee and McCain.

Barack Obama has won Illinois. Hillary Clinton has won Oklahoma.

So I just saw the only 1 minute of Super Tuesday coverage I have seen all day. CBS taught me (because their own words came out sounding like this) that Obama won Georgia because he is black and lots of black people voted today, and the it's pretty shocking that white men would vote for Obama over Clinton.

I think I have seen CBS national news once or twice in the last couple years, and now I know why. Is the rest of the coverage so brilliant and racist sounding?

The Exit Polls have Romney winning Mass -- surprised that they're so convincing he'd be projected to win!

Hillary Clinton has won Tennessee.

CNN has it "too close to call."

I saw it on MSNBC.

I have also learned that Clinton is winning because women are voting for her.

Tennessee has been bouncing all over the place. Saw at one point it was 76-16 Clinton over Edwards, then 45-40 Obama over Clinton, then 49-40 Clinton over Obama...

Yay small sample size.

I saw this also. My question is how do they have enough information to declare her the winner when she is only up by 4% with less then one percent of the vote in?

I wouldn't trust exit polls today.

Exit polls...

Exit polling I guess. Maybe it showed her with a big lead. I'm not sure how they called it so early when it's so close, but they did. The obvious ones like Obama in Georgia make sense, but Tennesee didn't when it was still fairly close. But MSNBC reported it so it must be true.

Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee have won Arkansas.

Georgia got a lot more interesting! Went from 38-33-25 (Huckabee-McCain-Romney) to 34-31-31!!

It's now 52-47 Obama over Hillary on intrade.

John McCain has won Delaware.

Mass is going to be too close to call, I think. Obama has steadily held on to a small (but notable) lead in CT...

CNN is now calling Tennessee for Clinton.

Have there been any surprises yet?

I find Clinton projecting to win OK telling on a couple of fronts. Sort of like winning Utah.

No surprises yet. Hillary has a 10% lead in Missouri.

Huckabee winning a Southern state other than Arkansas.

Huckabee winning Georgia and sweeping the south would be a surprise. Obama pulling off upsets in Mass. or N.J. would be as well, but Clinton is leading both at the moment.

Obama is opening up the lead in CT... what were the polls going into today, there?

So, what does that mean, Huckabee winning some southern states? Does that mean McCain wins this thing easily, or does it make it a race?

Race with whom? Huckabee? Hardly.

McCain is prone to gaffes, so who knows. If Romney is able to take a good chunk of the California delegates and keep McCain far from the magic number, Huckabee might have time to organize. The most likely result of a Huckabee Southern sweep would be for him to pledge support to McCain in exchange for VP consideration. Huckabee will never have the money to flat-out beat McCain.

The rcp average had it 42-38 Hillary in connecticut polls.

New Jersey, Massachussets, and Missouri aren't even close. Hillary is leading them all by double digits.

Then it would depend upon CA. :(

The delegate splits will make this interesting for the Democrats. Apparently in a couple of states (Mass. at least) it's possible that the winner of the popular vote could actually end up with less delegates. In other states, big wins in popular votes won't necessarily mean big wins in delegates. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Hillary Clinton declared projected winner in Massachussetts.

I think Huckabee would be more likely than Romney to get the VP nod.

McCain needs somebody to inspire the conservative wing of the GOP to vote in November unless Hillary gets the nod.

Hillary Clinton has won New York.

In looking at the early Kansas results, it probably says that all of the Dems are concentrated in Lawrence.

Barack Obama has won Delaware.

Hillary Clinton has taken back the lead on intrade.

Fox News projects Hillary Clinton the winner of New Jersey.

One thing to keep in mind is that big cities tend to report late. I would expect some of these large Clinton margins (like in Mass, NJ, MO) to come down a bit as the night wears on. Whether it will be enough for Obama to take the lead, we'll see.