Posted on 03/21/2012 6:34:48 AM PDT by george76
Do Wavering Obama Voters Think the Man They Voted For Is Naïve?
How do you persuade someone who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 to vote for the Republican option in 2012?
...
a lot of Obama voters must be persuaded that they made the wrong choice in 2008, and that it isn’t their fault.
Monday I spoke to a smart political mind who had been watching focus groups of wavering Obama voters in swing states, and he said that one word that those voters kept coming back to, again and again, was “naïve.” (The term was to describe the president, not themselves.) Those who voted for Obama won’t call him stupid, and certainly don’t accept that he’s evil. But they have seen grandiose promises on the stimulus fail to materialize, Obamacare touted as the answer to all their health care needs and turn out to be nothing of the sort, pledges of amazing imminent advances in alternative energy, and so on.
...
If we’re seeking to persuade Obama voters that it’s okay to vote for someone else this time, perhaps we need to reinforce that notion that he just doesn’t quite understand how things work in the real world — that he understands the theories of job creation, but not the practice. He talks about a future of algae-powered cars while rejecting pipelines.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The policies that he is dogmatically sticking to are not working to accomplish the goals that his supporters think that every sane individual would have, yet he keeps doing them.
A few possibilities, though there may be others -
he’s naive, he’s stupid, or
his goals are not the same as those of a sane (non-communist) individual.
He’s not naive or stupid. He’s doing exactly what he and Ayers and Dohrn planned on doing years ago...............
Actually, the word they’re looking for is knave.
“He’s not naive or stupid. He’s doing exactly what he and Ayers and Dohrn planned on doing years ago..........”
That is certainly one way to think of it.
On the other hand, a lot of us have never seen such an instance of cluelessness in our lives. The Cretin-in-Chief is most like an idiot-savant of liberal arts....brilliant (like certain dictators that come to mind)...in saying words with no meanings.
But clueless in all real intellectual matters.
After all, if one is a socialist/communist, one is in the came class as flat-earthers and global warming alarmists.
Perfect.
They only nativity is the voters.
I “naive” connects with wavering Obama voters, make it a Republican talking point. Let it stick. It may be too hard to convince them that Obama knows what he’s doing and he’s doing this things intentionally.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
http://www.hark.com/clips/fsjhlcrmmb-reagan-liberals-know-so-much-that-isnt-so
or at least not vote at all.
Evil yes, Naive is an over statement he is a bumbling idiot.
He is deliberately wrecking the economy, the societal values of America and the nation.
It is a Democrat value to conceal the truth in order to manipulate the public, as this author is suggesting.
Our responsibility is to tell the truth. What happens to that information is out of our hands.
Exactly.
From Romans 1:18,
the unrighteous suppress the truth
Obama isnt a native either.
0 will still have his Kos kids, but the vast majority of independents need to conclude that Naive 0 just can’t get the job done
OTOH, he could be the greatest con-artist since Barnum.............
But you won't win over former ObaMao voters by speaking the harsh truth. If selling them on the naive or stupid line gets them to change their votes, then we'll have the chance to educate them on reality economics.
You got it...and that is sort of what the article says. It will be nigh impossible to convince the beloved independent swing voters (ie, those that elected obama) that he is evil.
(Though of course around here, we know that he is).
But it is certainly very possible to convince those voters that he is just naive (”he means well, after all...”).
Yes, it wants to make us puke. But we are unlikely to get a thorough national repudiation of obamanomics. We might be able to push him out of office, though. And no repudiation is possible unless he is out of office...Ergo...
I agree with all of this article, except for the cleverly crafted sentence that suggests that the majority of voters who seem him as naive (but not evil) are probably right.
They are NOT right; but, we have to, alas, wage a campaign as if they were.
(Then again....IF we had a competent, capable, ethical conservative who could articulate consistently a true national repudiation of obama and all things ayers, that would actually sell, I think....problem is, we simply don’t have such a candidate and likely never will).
In order to understand them, you have to understand their motivations.
Your standard sheeperal clings to the lie of “I’m a good person” or “I’m a superior person”. Everything they believe, support, and do is with the goal of affirming this lie. They are not interested in examining an issue beyond the point where this goal is satisfied.
Any discussion of how the policy/issue/person they support is not “good” is taken as a personal attack, because it strikes at their sense of goodness or superiority.
This is why it is so difficult to discuss issues with sheeperals. You think you’re discussing the best policy to accomplish a stated goal. They feel attacked when you deride their pet policy.
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.