The Republican race is all but officially decided. If you are passionate about Mike Huckabee (as I am) or John McCain, I would suggest that you vote for that person. If you are in Ohio and are not though, I have a real shrewd move for you. Vote Clinton!

I am not joking. In Ohio, you don't declare parties. You walk in on primary day and Request either a Democrat, Republican or Independent ballot (ballot issues only). With the Republican race being basically over, we can influence the Democratic race. The only way the Republicans win this year is if the Democratic Party destroys itself. The best way for them to do that is to have a crazy brokered convention.

If Obama wins Ohio or Texas, this race is over. If he wins both, I would expect Hillary to actually drop out of the race. If she split, she will move on but the superdelegates will want to wrap this up and will all flock to him to push him over the edge. If she wins both, this could be the biggest mayhem at a convention in 40 years. It destroyed the Democrats then, and it could destroy them now.

My Ohio Republican friends, just remember, a vote for Clinton in Ohio is a vote for John McCain, and it would mean more than actually voting McCain. So go do it!

The Obama campaign is trying to make the case that the superdelegates, ought not to overturn the people at a national convention. (To understand superdelegates, read my post about what is a delegate). Obama’s case is that if the people send more pledged delegates to the convention than Hillary Clinton, then these superdelegates ought to vote with a rubber stamp, in effect making Barack Obama the nominee. Obama has successfully got the media into buy into this idea that if the superdelegates flipped the delegate lead from Obama to Clinton, it would be going against the will of the people.

One needs to look at two things in order to see why this view is a tainted one. The first is to look at what the job of a political party is. It is the job of a political party to win elections. Pure and simple. It is not to stand for certain values or to hold a certain ideology. It is the job of the party to find a working coalition of values and ideologies that will move in such a way that wins the party elections. If you want to understand why the Republican party has dominated the presidency (LBJ in 1964 was the last Democrat to win a majority of the vote), it is because it has understood that in order win elections, the party must be strong and unified. In any case, it is usually the party that is unified that wins the general election. (See 2004, 1996, 1992, 1984, and especially 1980)

In that light, the second thing that needs to be looked at with superdelegates is the history behind them. The reason that superdelegates were put into the process is to further the party. They were inserted after the horrible selection of the people to nominate McGovern as their candidate. The party got together and said, we need to have a safety valve in case the people make another decision that will hurt the party, that is that the party will lose.

So, it was for the exact reason to overturn “the people” that the superdelgates were put into place. There are 795 superdelegates. Many times I hear it said that superdelegates are elected officials. While it is true that nationally elected officials are superdelegates, they are not the majority. The majority of the superdelegates are party leaders in the DNC. These are the people that are with the party through everything, and they care about the party for the long term. They are not the guys who caught Obama fever and are just now into politics.

These people, more than the average Democratic voter see a bad candidate. This is why they are given this power. To not let the superdelegates lead will be hurtful to the party over the long term. They are a good idea and they help the party over the long term. You allow the hard workers of the party a larger voice because they care the most about the party winning elections. It is a shame for the Democrats that the media will not allow them to “overturn” the people. If superdelegates did overturn the people, they probably did it for a very good reason.

I want all of you guys to shop at TJ Maxx. Why? Well, not just TJ Maxx, but the TJX Companies, of which is the first stock I have invested a significant about of money in. CNBC has become my passion. What I am doing is moving from a mutual fund to stocks. My goal is to build a portfolio of 5-7 stocks at any one type that I know like the back of my hand. I would suggest that you all get into the stock market, as it is fun, and worth doing.

Still, only do it if you can really understand the companies. Otherwise, go what I was doing before, a mutual fund. I am pumped that my first stock, TJX, had a sweet quarter and my stock has been going up big time over the last 3 days. Still, I have made nothing because I have sold none of my 32 shares. I am currently looking very heavy into Wachovia Bank (WB), and will probably buy that one soon. I am also looking at Harris Interactive (HPOL) and Corning (GLW).

Anyway, I just wanted to tell my friends about my new hobby, and I will keep you updated.

First off, Obama is a winner. He has this nomination of the nomination of the Democratic party. The only real question now, in my mind, is when will Hillary throw in the towel. If she loses Ohio and Texas, I think she will drop out shortly after. If she loses one, she will go on, but be wounded. If she wins both, she will go to the convention, yet lose it either there or some arrangement made before the convention.

No matter how you slice it, she loses. She would need to win both Ohio and Texas by at least 60/40, and that is not happening. The Clinton’s may drag their feet, but the math just does not hold up for them unless the superdelegates make a major overturn, which is not politically viable for the superdelegates.

So, why did Obama win? Superior strategy and message. Superior planning. Watching the Obama campaign work has put all other campaigns to shame in terms running their campaign. Many of my friends argue that Obama has run the best campaign. (see what we argue about at the GSPM?) I can’t dispute them, though I argue that Huckabee has in that he was so competitive with so much less money. Still, I don’t think you can go wrong going either way.

What has Obama done is frankly amazing. He is not running a political campaign, he is at the front of a movement. People in the campaign feel that them being involved, more that just your typical activists. This is what makes it a movement. He showed patience in his message. All the “experts” in the media were saying that Obama need to get off his message, and take the gloves off against Clinton. He did not, he instead stuck to his positive change tone.

Obama is winner for his great tactical moves. He has captured how to fundraise over McCain-Feingold. He made an organization that allowed him to dominate in Caucus states. He anticipated this race for the long haul, and was better prepared for it. By his great work, he will take out one of the biggest political machines of our time.

Only thing left for him now is to win he first hard general election. Easy Enough.

Some of you know who Rob Bell is. He is a great communicator who is one of the leaders of the emergent church. Bell’s Book Velvet Elvis is subtitled, “Repainting the Christian Faith.” Bell argues essentially that all we need to test everything. If he left it that this, I could agree. It is essential that every Christian believe truly in what they confess to believe in. Still, Bell takes it too far, he claims that there is room to question essential Christian Doctrines over the Christian life and still be a Christian.

So how does this tie in with the groundbreaking Surowiecki book Wisdom of Crowds.  Surowiecki’s book is subtitled Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. Surowiecki’s book is essentially as the subtitle states. Anyone who knows what a prediction market is understands the idea behind Surowiecki. Surowiecki litters his book with examples where the many are smarter than a group of experts.

Many times, he is correct. He gives an example of cars at the turn of the 20^th century. Cars did not always look like they do today. Through the market though, the Model T won out and cars now have a mold they fit into. See, Ron Bell is arguing for a Wisdom of Crowds style Gospel. He is arguing that if we all get together and discuss the bible, we will be better for it.

And I agree with that premise. There is value in the people looking at issues. Still, certain issues have been decided and confirmed by the experts that both Bell and Surowiecki seem to abhor. Bell Claims that it is healthy to look at the doctrine of the trinity and “take it out and examine it. Discuss it, probe it, question it. It flexes and it stretches” (Velvet Elvis, pg 22) He still wants the people to go back and try non Model T type cars.

I ask why. It has been established for hundreds of years (go to the Nicene Creed). It has been affirmed as essential to the Christian faith. These questions were asked, and they have answered. What Bell is trying to do is make the tent bigger. He talks about how Christians today often build a wall of bricks, and that walls are, by their nature, divisive. I agree. Jesus made it clear he was divisive. Paul writes that “(22) Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, (23) but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, (24) but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

There are essentials to the Christian faith. Christ crucified. It will be a stumbling block or foolishness to many. Still, to others, it will be their salvation through the risen Christ. The focus isn’t on doubt, and it isn’t on getting everyone’s opinion. It is about telling the truth, and letting God do his work. Sorry Surowiecki, the crowd isn’t as smart as you think, and to sit here all day and not declare absolutes based off of the crowd is neither right nor safe.

I am worried about the Democrats reading this post because if they listen, they will set the Republicans back big time. Here is the solution: Appeal to the White Evangelicals. In 2004, 23% of the electorate is self described white evangelicals. Of that group, 78% voted for George W. Bush.

Let’s look at these voters. A good percentage of them said that “Moral Values” was their top issue in 2004. So why did they vote Republican? Because they believe that the Republicans have better “moral values” They are talking about sanctity of life issues (abortion, stem cell research, ect.) and more general corruption of the culture issues (gay marriage, no prayer in schools, violence on television). If the Democrats could wise up and not shun views held by these people out of their party, they could pick up the votes to do some serious damage.

In the late 1970s, members of what is now called the Christian Right mobilized. They mobilized under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. He let these issues be front and center. He accepted them and said he would fight for them. They agreed and a coalition was formed. This voting block has been huge for the Republican party, giving big wins in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2004.

The Democrats have been suffering defeats as they feel they need to feed the far left wing of their party. In 2006, they started to wise up. You had Harold Ford of Tennessee run as a Democrat in the mold I am suggesting and he almost pulled off a huge upset. See, the Evangelicals never really cared about the other wings of the conservative movement. Where in the Bible does it suggest Supply Side Economics? Where does it suggest repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax? It don’t.

That is why the whole Mike Huckabee thing drove so many conservatives crazy. Huckabee is center-right on fiscal issues. He is center-right on Foreign policy. They don’t care that he raised a tax on roads when the roads were breaking up. They actually think it is a good thing that he allowed illegal alien residents in his state to apply for a Scholarship.

They truly believe what Mike Huckabee calls vertical politics. They want someone who takes the country up, not down. Still, as appealing as Barack Obama may sound in this regard, they will look at his liberal positions on Sanctity of Life and will probably have to hold back for voting for Barack Obama. Still, if Obama took a more moderate position like it being left up to the states, he could pick up a ton of votes.

If the Democratic Party can gain a moral compass, they can win more elections. It’s that simple.

Related Reading: Piper on Being a One Issue Voter

I sit here and write all of these things on my blog and just assume that you know what I am talking about. So what I am going to outline to you hardcore pols will see small, but I think it will help the general good. I am going to talk about what a delegate is, and how you get the nomination.

A delegate is someone that votes for a person in a party convention. Technically, it is at the party convention where the party chooses their nominee for President. Each national party allocates so many delegates to each state to the convention. In order for a person to be nominated by his or her party, he or she must get over 50% of the delegates.

Now, each state can figure out however it likes how it will allocate delegates, as long as it confines with the national party. For example the Democrats require states use proportional representation, so that delegates are given out proportionally in some way. Republicans have no such rule, so some states on the Republican side are winner take all, that is the winner of the state gets all the delegates.

The Republicans have 2,380 delegates at their national convention. Delegates can come either pledged, or unpledged. Most (1,798) of these delegates are pledged, meaning that they are bound to vote for a certain candidate on the first ballot. The rest (582) are unpledged, meaning that technically they are not bound to vote for any candidate on the first ballot. Now while this is technically true, quite often they are basically committed to a candidate. For example, Ohio makes all 88 of their delegates unpledged. Still, someone will win the Ohio primary, and it follows a Winner Take Most method, where the delegates will support the winner of the primary, though they are not legally bound to.

The Democrats are basically the same way, with one major difference. On the Democratic side, there are 4,048 delegates. Of those, they allocate 3,253 to the states for the convention. That leaves 795 of what are being called “superdelegates.” These superdelegates automatically are made delegates at the convention and can vote for whoever they want. These superdelegates are some democratic elected officials, such as US congressmen, party insiders and a few others, such as former democratic presidents.

So, right now you have these razor thin margins between Hillary and Barack. If neither one of those gets half of the 4,048 through the pledged delegates, then the superdelegates could put him or her over the top. You could have a scenario where Obama has about 1,700 and Clinton has 1,500. If Clinton could get 525 of the 895 Superdelegates, she would win the nomination, even though more of the delegates elected by the people chose Obama.

So, the last thing I want to talk about is the “brokered convention.” By definition, a convention is brokered if no candidate goes into the convention with a majority of the committed delegates. That is 1,191 on the Republican side and 2,025 on the Democratic side. At the convention, all of the delegates vote for their nominee, if no one reaches that magic number, there is no nominee on the first ballot. So then you vote again. What is the catch? Well, many of the pledged delegates become unpledged. Also, any unpledged can switch however they see fit. Why would they switch? So that they could get kickbacks of some sort. This is where the term brokered comes from. You broker a deal in order to get a nominee.

So, here is the quick summary. Delegates are the people who vote at a national party convention. You need a majority of the delegates in order to win the nomination. If that does not happen by default, you have a brokered convention, and then all hell breaks loose. It has happened in the past, the last time being on the Republican side in 1976. Above all, people need to understand that voters don’t choose a party nominee for president, delegates do.

The Congress has an approval rating of 24%. So what are they doing to help the country? They are trying to figure out if Roger Clemens used steroids. What is the point of this? There is no point, expect these people on the committee want to have their faces on the camera. The Government Reform committee has so many things they could be doing, but instead they are providing this theater. When they were looking at steroids as a whole, I was reserved, but I could make the argument that this makes sense. This attack against Roger Clemens has no grounds, unlike the previous one.

The US Congress is not stopping with individual players and steroids. RINO Arlen Spector want to look into “Spygate.” For you non football fans, spygate is the scandal where the New England Patriots was using video equipment in order to figure out the call signs of their opponents, illegally. Was this wrong? Yes. Was the penalty too lenient? I believe so, in fact I am so harsh in that I think the Patriots ought to have been given a loss in their game vs the New York Jets. That being said, Congress has no role in this ordeal. It is not the job of the Congress to enforce the rules of the NFL.

The US Congress needs stop worrying about US Sports and start worrying about the US Government. The government spends so much money foolishly and has no account for it. Instead of the government helping the people, they are hurting the people. The government reform committee ought to do what it is named after, reforming government, not going after Roger Clemens and Bill Belichick  

Barack Obama is not just winning. He is kicking butt and taking names. This epic battle between Hillary Clinton has been amazing. Obama threw a rocket first punch in Iowa. It looked like that punch would allow him to put out the knockout punch in New Hampshire. That was not the case, as Hillary bounced back in as big of a way as they come. She then dugg deep with the tag team of her husband Bill and won her only causes to date in Nevada.

Then we get to what looks to be the turning point, South Carolina. The Clintons were rolling, and it looked as if they had set expectations so that even if Obama won, it would be a loss. I bought into this theory, as did most experts. What we did not expect was a 27 point butt kicking that no even the Clinton team could spin. The Obama campaign ran a great campaign down there, and Bill Clinton overplayed the Clinton hand and that hurt them as well.

What then happened on Feb. 5^th? Superior planning by the Obama people. They really cleaned house in the caucus states. They forced Clinton to focus on California so that she would win that. The important thing to know about California is that many people resent California, especially those in the heartland where Obama was racking up the score.

So after Super Tuesday, Obama has not lost a vote of any kind. It don’t look like that will end any time soon. Obama is moving in full force. Can Hillary stop him, I don’t think so. She has to win in Ohio and Texas on March 4^th. If she does that, we have a race still. If she does not, this race will be all but over. Hillary’s strategy is quickly turning into Rudy Giulani v2.0. The first one did not work, and neither will this one.

Congrats to the campaign that has stayed on message the best that looks like they will win this nomination.

That being said, I see that Huckabee has won 2 of the 3 states on Saturday. It shows just again that the people want to have a voice. He not only won in Kansas, but kicked butt, winning over 60% of the vote. What does this tell you? Well, for one thing, people want to have a voice. They don’t want to be held silent when they have a choice.

There is an acceptance of Mike Huckabee. You don’t vote for someone you don’t like if the press is trying to make him an afterthought. Huckabee campaigned out in Kansas after Super Tuesday hard and was reward for it. Still, he won Louisiana with significantly less campaigning. Even look at Washington State. Washington State is not a Huckabee stronghold by any stretch, yet it looks like he lost by a very narrow margin.

Huckabee is a great man and a great candidate. So is John McCain, by the way. Still, people are comparing the records and choosing Mike Huckabee. I believe that Huckabee is clearly more pure on the social issues and even the economic issues. John McCain does have the edge in terms of National Security, but Huckabee would do just fine himself and McCain has been able to overuse this surge bet that he made.

John McCain still needs about 470 delegates to win the nomination. This is no small feat still. There are still about 1200 delegates out there to be captured. (according to thegreenpapers.com). Now, Huckabee needs almost 1,000 more to reach the mark that would let him walk into the convention the nominee. That, will not happen. But to suggest that McCain is guaranteed to walk into the convention with the nomination? Nonsense. That is why we keep on fighting. This is why Huckabee keeps on fighting. If he walks into the convention stopping the McCain walkthrough, it brings him great momentum. It is a cause worth fighting for and why should we do otherwise? I don't see a good reason to quit now, and neither does Mike Huckabee