Winning Someone and Winning Over Someone

I was sitting in the doctor's office today for an appointment for my dad.  I go with him to all his appointments, which are many.  Usually it is also accompanied by medical decisions, such as tweaking a few of his medications, including his insulin intake.  I pulled up today's list of articles at Realclearpolitics while waiting, and one of them was from the New York Times, titled, "Progressives’ Urgent Question: How to Win Over Voters of Color."  I didn't immediately read the article, but my mind began weighing the difference between "winning someone" and "winning someone over."  Were those two different from each other?  I thought so.

Part of what got me thinking about this subject was the consideration of "winning over voters of color."  What does that mean?  This is the New York Times.  Are voters of color won over in a different way than voters not of color?  Again, is there a difference between winning someone and winning someone over?  The first line of the article reads:

Can progressives win broad numbers of the Black and brown voters they say their policies will benefit most?

The first sentence says "win broad numbers" in contrast to the title, which says, "win over voters of color."   I'm still suggesting that "win" and "win over" mean something different.  "Winning over" seems to relate to benefits received, so that "slogans and policies that he said threatened the lives of “Black and brown babies”" do not "win over" this constituency.  In this New York mayoral race, the author of the article explains it by saying, "Black people talk about politics in more practical and everyday terms."  Practical terms are ones that offer immediate physical benefits.

If I'm trying to win someone over, I can do that by offering benefits.  If I'm trying to win someone, I might not offer any benefits, but the truth so as to persuade someone.  I might say, "You'll suffer more and you'll lose physical benefits, especially in the short term, but you will believe and do what is true and right."  "Winning over" uses every possible advantage, profit, and reward to gain the support of someone.  It's tempting to win someone over, because you've now got them on your side, if you do.  In the above illustration, they'll vote for you, if you win them over.  They want the benefits you're promising, so you're trading their advocacy for your assistance and their welfare.

One frustration of progressives is poor people  who won't be won over by promises of short term physical advantage.  Instead, these poor ignorantly cling to their religion.  They've been won by an idea or a belief instead of being won over by a material thing.

I'm not saying that the truth alone will win someone.  A person wants to know he's loved.  For the person being won, however, the truth should reign.  He should question someone's attempt to win him over with tangible benefits.  He should embrace the persuasion of truth.  Even if heaven and earth pass away, God's Words will not pass away.  As Job said, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him" (Job 13:15).  Being slain won't win someone over, but Job was still won, because of the character and nature of God.

Evangelism isn't winning someone over.  It is winning someone.