I agree....but it won't happen....because it won't change anything.
Do we honestly think a half black half latino inner city "voter" is going to "buy" an arguement about "free market economics"???
Do we honestly think a young soccer mom with three kids who voted for the stain last time because "he is so dreeeeemmy" is going to change her mind because of an ad about "free market economics"??
Do we honestly think the father of four with an ill wife who is hanging on financially by a thread is going to change his mind and vote for "the rich" (rino, conservative, tea party, republican) who they believe will put a quick end to their government benefits because of an ad on "free market economics"???
How about the other blacks, inner city voters, illegals, under or unemployed, socialists/communists, and assorted free-loaders (moochers)....think they'll change their minds listening to some old white rich guy telling them about "free market economics"???
No! But a great thought...great message. And just like Limbaugh, the ads would preach to the choir and change no voter's mind at all.
Last election, the popular vote was (approximately) 69.5 million for the stain, and 59.9 million for the rino.
Given the current crop of rino candidates, the economy, and the very effective message from the stain's camp all about "the rich" and fear.... the 2012 turnout will be: 72.2 million for the stain, and 60.4 million for whatever rino winds up being the nominee.
I’d be preaching to that thirty percent who can be swayed by a well-thought out argument. Obviously, political ads can only be effective with a small percentage. The Dems will always get their third, and Pubbies will always get their third. It’s the other third, (indys, whomever) that I want to persuade.