Luntz Focus Group:The Debate

Some Guy

Deregulated User
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
2,419
Reaction score
421
Points
130
It would be even easier for Luntz to stack that group with people who never voted for Obama (but say they did) than it was for the debate last night to be stacked with democrats who had questions tailor made to make it easy on Obama and tough on Romney.
 

Katzndogz

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2011
Messages
65,656
Reaction score
7,471
Points
1,830
It would be even easier for Luntz to stack that group with people who never voted for Obama (but say they did) than it was for the debate last night to be stacked with democrats who had questions tailor made to make it easy on Obama and tough on Romney.
During the last debate Luntz also had a focus group of undecideds. After the debate, which was a blowout, they were still undecided. No one had changed their minds. This debate did. Most of them cited the economy and that obama felt that his policies were working and would bring in more of them.
 

AceRothstein

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
5,494
Reaction score
898
Points
245
It would be even easier for Luntz to stack that group with people who never voted for Obama (but say they did) than it was for the debate last night to be stacked with democrats who had questions tailor made to make it easy on Obama and tough on Romney.
During the last debate Luntz also had a focus group of undecideds. After the debate, which was a blowout, they were still undecided. No one had changed their minds. This debate did. Most of them cited the economy and that obama felt that his policies were working and would bring in more of them.
Seems to be a consistent theme amongst Luntz's focus groups.

Luntz's group thought Palin won the 2008 debate. I guess he had the 40 people in the country that thought Palin won that debate in his group. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKrk_6QjcNw]Frank Luntz Focus Group: Palin is Ready! - YouTube[/ame]
 

Some Guy

Deregulated User
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
2,419
Reaction score
421
Points
130
It would be even easier for Luntz to stack that group with people who never voted for Obama (but say they did) than it was for the debate last night to be stacked with democrats who had questions tailor made to make it easy on Obama and tough on Romney.
During the last debate Luntz also had a focus group of undecideds. After the debate, which was a blowout, they were still undecided. No one had changed their minds. This debate did. Most of them cited the economy and that obama felt that his policies were working and would bring in more of them.
I'm not accusing Luntz of stacking his group, just saying that it's possible. And i thought Romney was at his most effective when he was just talking honestly about the last 4 years' economic status.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,383
Reaction score
28,421
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
It would be even easier for Luntz to stack that group with people who never voted for Obama (but say they did) than it was for the debate last night to be stacked with democrats who had questions tailor made to make it easy on Obama and tough on Romney.
During the last debate Luntz also had a focus group of undecideds. After the debate, which was a blowout, they were still undecided. No one had changed their minds. This debate did. Most of them cited the economy and that obama felt that his policies were working and would bring in more of them.
I'm not accusing Luntz of stacking his group, just saying that it's possible. And i thought Romney was at his most effective when he was just talking honestly about the last 4 years' economic status.
I saw the debate....the Stormin' Mormon vs. the Lyin' Liberal, as a clear example of form vs. substance.


On form, I felt it was a draw.


But on substance, it was Romney exposing the Obama failures and broken promises....and Obama obfuscating and outright lying.....
...i.e., claiming that he said the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, when he tried as hard as he could to blame the bogus video.....
 

Cheddarmelon

Active Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
953
Reaction score
59
Points
28
so, then, they managed to find 20 odd people who are retarded.

not so hard, nowadays.
 

RDD_1210

Forms his own opinions
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
18,971
Reaction score
1,812
Points
265
During the last debate Luntz also had a focus group of undecideds. After the debate, which was a blowout, they were still undecided. No one had changed their minds. This debate did. Most of them cited the economy and that obama felt that his policies were working and would bring in more of them.
I'm not accusing Luntz of stacking his group, just saying that it's possible. And i thought Romney was at his most effective when he was just talking honestly about the last 4 years' economic status.
I saw the debate....the Stormin' Mormon vs. the Lyin' Liberal, as a clear example of form vs. substance.


On form, I felt it was a draw.


But on substance, it was Romney exposing the Obama failures and broken promises....and Obama obfuscating and outright lying.....
...i.e., claiming that he said the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, when he tried as hard as he could to blame the bogus video.....
Which part of substance that Romney provided did you like the most?
 

Cheddarmelon

Active Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
953
Reaction score
59
Points
28
so, then, they managed to find 20 odd people who are retarded.

not so hard, nowadays.




If only you had the gift of irony......
Oh, but i do.

does everyone not realize that there is no liberal media bias? Or Right wing media bias? There is only a MEDIA media bias (with the exception of Fox "news" for the right, and the newfound attempts at partisanship for MSNBC for the left)

it's all about sensationalism. Viewership. And they will blather any story that they think will get people to tune in. Close races are exciting. they WANT controversy. They want people to be up in arms.

and people give it to them, because both sides of the political spectrum are sheep. I just happen to think that one breed of sheep is a bit dumber than the other.
 

Misty

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
7,137
Reaction score
1,920
Points
245
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,383
Reaction score
28,421
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I'm not accusing Luntz of stacking his group, just saying that it's possible. And i thought Romney was at his most effective when he was just talking honestly about the last 4 years' economic status.
I saw the debate....the Stormin' Mormon vs. the Lyin' Liberal, as a clear example of form vs. substance.


On form, I felt it was a draw.


But on substance, it was Romney exposing the Obama failures and broken promises....and Obama obfuscating and outright lying.....
...i.e., claiming that he said the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, when he tried as hard as he could to blame the bogus video.....
Which part of substance that Romney provided did you like the most?

1. "On style points it was close,...as a CBS News snap poll found, 65 percent thought Romney would do a better job on the economy and only 34 percent believed Obama would – though the president scored a 37 to 30 overall win over Romney, with 33 percent believing it was a tie.

2. In turn, Romney’s most effective moment came when he laid out the administration’s unmet promises. “What you’re seeing in this country is 23 million people struggling to find a job. The president’s policies have been exercised over the last four years and they haven’t put Americans back to work.” Romney pointed out that growth had slowed year to year and the unemployment numbers looked better than reality as workers have fled the labor market – factors that voters might not understand when reading headlines.


3. Then there were two moments that (inadvertently) told us a lot Obama’s economic vision.

The first occurred when a college student named Jeremy asked for reassurances about his job prospects after graduating. Obama answered: “Number one, I want to build manufacturing jobs in this country again.” Jeremy was probably somewhat stunned to find out that his $100,000 in student loans could only land him a job working the line at a factory making government subsidized electric cars. Hey, in these unselfish, planned economies, Jeremy, you take what you’re given.

And when the candidates were asked by one of those committed undecideds to dispel any myths about themselves, Obama used it to lay out one of the least convincing arguments of the night. “I believe,” he explained, “that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known.

Yet, if a person had listened to the preceding hour (the preceding four years, actually), they would have learned that the free enterprise system wasn’t “great” enough for the health care insurance industry, retirement funds, auto and banking industries, housing markets, education, green energy, or basically any other area that his administration’s policies have touched on in four years. It would be interesting if someone – perhaps at the next Townhall debate –would ask Obama to define what the free enterprise means to him."
Harsanyi: Once again, Obama's record wins it for Romney
 

RDD_1210

Forms his own opinions
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
18,971
Reaction score
1,812
Points
265
I saw the debate....the Stormin' Mormon vs. the Lyin' Liberal, as a clear example of form vs. substance.


On form, I felt it was a draw.


But on substance, it was Romney exposing the Obama failures and broken promises....and Obama obfuscating and outright lying.....
...i.e., claiming that he said the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, when he tried as hard as he could to blame the bogus video.....
Which part of substance that Romney provided did you like the most?

1. "On style points it was close,...as a CBS News snap poll found, 65 percent thought Romney would do a better job on the economy and only 34 percent believed Obama would – though the president scored a 37 to 30 overall win over Romney, with 33 percent believing it was a tie.

2. In turn, Romney’s most effective moment came when he laid out the administration’s unmet promises. “What you’re seeing in this country is 23 million people struggling to find a job. The president’s policies have been exercised over the last four years and they haven’t put Americans back to work.” Romney pointed out that growth had slowed year to year and the unemployment numbers looked better than reality as workers have fled the labor market – factors that voters might not understand when reading headlines.


3. Then there were two moments that (inadvertently) told us a lot Obama’s economic vision.

The first occurred when a college student named Jeremy asked for reassurances about his job prospects after graduating. Obama answered: “Number one, I want to build manufacturing jobs in this country again.” Jeremy was probably somewhat stunned to find out that his $100,000 in student loans could only land him a job working the line at a factory making government subsidized electric cars. Hey, in these unselfish, planned economies, Jeremy, you take what you’re given.

And when the candidates were asked by one of those committed undecideds to dispel any myths about themselves, Obama used it to lay out one of the least convincing arguments of the night. “I believe,” he explained, “that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known.

Yet, if a person had listened to the preceding hour (the preceding four years, actually), they would have learned that the free enterprise system wasn’t “great” enough for the health care insurance industry, retirement funds, auto and banking industries, housing markets, education, green energy, or basically any other area that his administration’s policies have touched on in four years. It would be interesting if someone – perhaps at the next Townhall debate –would ask Obama to define what the free enterprise means to him."
Harsanyi: Once again, Obama's record wins it for Romney
So I asked for which substance that Romney provided that you like the most and you replied with

1. Who had better style

2. Romney pointing out faults with Obama

3. What you don't like about what Obama said.


So you don't really know what Romney is going to actually do either. Got it.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,383
Reaction score
28,421
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
so, then, they managed to find 20 odd people who are retarded.

not so hard, nowadays.




If only you had the gift of irony......
Oh, but i do.

does everyone not realize that there is no liberal media bias? Or Right wing media bias? There is only a MEDIA media bias (with the exception of Fox "news" for the right, and the newfound attempts at partisanship for MSNBC for the left)

it's all about sensationalism. Viewership. And they will blather any story that they think will get people to tune in. Close races are exciting. they WANT controversy. They want people to be up in arms.

and people give it to them, because both sides of the political spectrum are sheep. I just happen to think that one breed of sheep is a bit dumber than the other.
"...no liberal media bias..."


"Presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley not only improperly injected her opinion into the Barack Obama/Mitt Romney face-off last night, but she had her facts wrong.

Crowley then interrupted, telling Romney: “He did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror …”

Obama immediately recognized that he had an ally and spoke up loudly: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

She, justifiably, is under attack by folks who think she exceeded her job as a moderator. Predictably liberals rationalized her blunder and conservatives pointed it out."
Candy Crowley botched her moderator's job in the Obama/Romney debate | The Barbershop: Dennis Byrne, Proprietor



Wise up.
 

Cheddarmelon

Active Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
953
Reaction score
59
Points
28
If only you had the gift of irony......
Oh, but i do.

does everyone not realize that there is no liberal media bias? Or Right wing media bias? There is only a MEDIA media bias (with the exception of Fox "news" for the right, and the newfound attempts at partisanship for MSNBC for the left)

it's all about sensationalism. Viewership. And they will blather any story that they think will get people to tune in. Close races are exciting. they WANT controversy. They want people to be up in arms.

and people give it to them, because both sides of the political spectrum are sheep. I just happen to think that one breed of sheep is a bit dumber than the other.
"...no liberal media bias..."


"Presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley not only improperly injected her opinion into the Barack Obama/Mitt Romney face-off last night, but she had her facts wrong.

Crowley then interrupted, telling Romney: “He did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror …”

Obama immediately recognized that he had an ally and spoke up loudly: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

She, justifiably, is under attack by folks who think she exceeded her job as a moderator. Predictably liberals rationalized her blunder and conservatives pointed it out."
Candy Crowley botched her moderator's job in the Obama/Romney debate | The Barbershop: Dennis Byrne, Proprietor



Wise up.
Horseshit.

you can watch the video. Obama said it, even if you disagree with the interpretation of how he meant it. I think he was pretty damn weak in the statement myself, but I personally think it's a mountain out of a molehill in the first place.

but you cling to your media bias argument. It's always one of the first things the losers will do.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,383
Reaction score
28,421
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Oh, but i do.

does everyone not realize that there is no liberal media bias? Or Right wing media bias? There is only a MEDIA media bias (with the exception of Fox "news" for the right, and the newfound attempts at partisanship for MSNBC for the left)

it's all about sensationalism. Viewership. And they will blather any story that they think will get people to tune in. Close races are exciting. they WANT controversy. They want people to be up in arms.

and people give it to them, because both sides of the political spectrum are sheep. I just happen to think that one breed of sheep is a bit dumber than the other.
"...no liberal media bias..."


"Presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley not only improperly injected her opinion into the Barack Obama/Mitt Romney face-off last night, but she had her facts wrong.

Crowley then interrupted, telling Romney: “He did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror …”

Obama immediately recognized that he had an ally and spoke up loudly: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

She, justifiably, is under attack by folks who think she exceeded her job as a moderator. Predictably liberals rationalized her blunder and conservatives pointed it out."
Candy Crowley botched her moderator's job in the Obama/Romney debate | The Barbershop: Dennis Byrne, Proprietor



Wise up.
Horseshit.

you can watch the video. Obama said it, even if you disagree with the interpretation of how he meant it. I think he was pretty damn weak in the statement myself, but I personally think it's a mountain out of a molehill in the first place.

but you cling to your media bias argument. It's always one of the first things the losers will do.
Watch your language.


No, actually, he didn't.

He made a general statement referring to the original 9/11.
He then tried to pretend that he had a successful foreign policy....and therefore
had to hide the fact that al Quaeda had the ability to not only attack American
installations, but to trumpet that they wore going to do so.

He then sent Susan Rice on a half dozen venues to lie about the bogus video,
And referred to the same video six times during his UN speech....
And finally realized that the cover-up was worse than the crime, and
tried to pretend that he said it all along.


He was hoping that there were enough dim-wits that would still
worship him so much that they'd believe the prevarication.

Raise your paw.
 

Cheddarmelon

Active Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
953
Reaction score
59
Points
28
"...no liberal media bias..."


"Presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley not only improperly injected her opinion into the Barack Obama/Mitt Romney face-off last night, but she had her facts wrong.

Crowley then interrupted, telling Romney: “He did in fact, sir. So let me — let me call it an act of terror …”

Obama immediately recognized that he had an ally and spoke up loudly: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”

She, justifiably, is under attack by folks who think she exceeded her job as a moderator. Predictably liberals rationalized her blunder and conservatives pointed it out."
Candy Crowley botched her moderator's job in the Obama/Romney debate | The Barbershop: Dennis Byrne, Proprietor



Wise up.
Horseshit.

you can watch the video. Obama said it, even if you disagree with the interpretation of how he meant it. I think he was pretty damn weak in the statement myself, but I personally think it's a mountain out of a molehill in the first place.

but you cling to your media bias argument. It's always one of the first things the losers will do.
Watch your language.


No, actually, he didn't.

He made a general statement referring to the original 9/11.
He then tried to pretend that he had a successful foreign policy....and therefore
had to hide the fact that al Quaeda had the ability to not only attack American
installations, but to trumpet that they wore going to do so.

He then sent Susan Rice on a half dozen venues to lie about the bogus video,
And referred to the same video six times during his UN speech....
And finally realized that the cover-up was worse than the crime, and
tried to pretend that he said it all along.


He was hoping that there were enough dim-wits that would still
worship him so much that they'd believe the prevarication.

Raise your paw.
from my previous response: . Obama said it, even if you disagree with the interpretation of how he meant it. (I also noted that Obama handled it poorly.)
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top