What I sent to all my Liberal "Friends" about tommorow and the election. Thoughts?

Pray all you want, I’m sure the Almighty will not mind. But I’ve come to my concluding numbers by logic and hard facts. If Obama is so popular and so assured of victory, why are so many Dem politicians avoiding him like the plague. Why is enthusiasm to vote higher with GOP’rs higher than Dems, yet not reflected in the final numbers.

Even if you assume a D+7 turnout rather than a R+1/D+1 turnout, you cannot discount a Romney Indy advantage of anywhere from +8 to +22 in recent polls. You also cannot discount the fact that Obama has bled 10%-13% of Dem voters as well.

One other thing. Why with all the LSM talk of Obama’s momentum is the fact that even Dem pollsters see that the House is unlikely to turn to Dem rule and that they may lose seats.

Prayer doesn’t hurt. I’m praying too. Heck, I thought McCain would win. But I was thinking with my heart and not with my head. But the facts and figures just point to the logical conclusion that Romney will win this in a walk.

Actually, when you talk to a "Liberal," you should focus on the priorities of that individual "Liberal!" You may not be able to convert him or her, but you can alter the enthusiasm level--a first step, which might just take away an Obama vote, tomorrow, either directly or by lessening the likelihood that the "Liberal" will help others to get out the vote.

For example, you are talking with a person who wants to support Obama because he wants to spend more on education, health-care, or something of the sort. Turn the attacks on Romney, over his record in Massachusetts, to advantage. Make your pitch on the inefficiency of having the Federal Bureaucracy intrude on concerns, traditionally handled at the State level--handled efficiently by Romney at the State level.

Even someone who likes more Government in our daily lives, can understand how wasteful--even with an eye at his, not your priorities--it is to add a very, very expensive layer of additional bureaucracy--moreover one which adds too many cooks to the preparation, calling up another point.

Put you argument in a non-aggressive, simply questioning what works best mode. In a certain percentage of cases, if you are able to gently introduce doubt, that doubt will grow, after you have gone on to work on someone else.

I have picked only one type of issue. But the method is adaptable to anything important to your target. For one taken in by the ACLU, for example, ask if he is comfortable with the way Home Land Security is being developed. Ask the "Liberal" if this is not disturbing, if even with a "saintly soul' (assuming that for the immediate purpose of reaching someone who may be that delusional) like Ms. Napolitano, he is comfortable with having a new agency with the potential role & fire power of a Gestapo? Again, put it in the form of a concerned question--without pushing your own opinion of the answer, in any sense aggressively.

William Flax

I applaud your efforts and know how frustrating it is to shed some much needed light. I’ve considered doing something similar with my few remaining lefty friends, but decided that after months and months of attempting to share the truth with them, they just exhaust me!

The only success I’ve had was during the WI mess, the behavior of the union thugs definately aided in showing them the reality of things.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.