Skip to comments.Frank Luntz Shares Results Of His Debate Focus Group (on H&C -- trancript)
Posted on 11/30/2007 10:05:54 AM PST by FocusNexus
FRANK LUNTZ, WWW.LUNTZ.COM: We had a lot of people participate and they are mad as hell. I have got to tell you something, in listening to what the Republicans have to say right now, they are very nervous about the future. They are not happy about the direction in Washington. And they really want a change.
LUNTZ: Thompson had several points during that debate where he really grabbed the audience's attention. But what I know your viewers want to see is the conflict. And one of the toughest conflicts was Mitt Romney verses John McCain over the issue of whether it's torture or interrogation. The topic was waterboarding.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think Mitt Romney actually won and on a couple of different instances. On the waterboarding, I think he acted very presidential in that aspect because you are not going to get the specifics and what's going to happen in a particular situation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: McCain was the sole speaker that had a question about waterboarding. And I don't have any problem with pouring water on the face of a man that planned the murder of 3,000 Americans on September 11th.
LUNTZ: ... I have got one more bit of sound for you and then we will have the give and take, and that is to let our 34 real Republican, Republican primary undecided voters, let's listen to what they had to say about the individual they thought won the debate. It was either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I thought Fred Thompson won the debate. And I was really between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Romney won it. And I think the main thing that Romney has going for him, his message is positive. He seems to be an optimist.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
“LUNTZ: Sean, nine of our 34 participants at one point supported John McCain, not one of them after they walked out of that debate was a McCain supporter. Rudy Giuliani had the most support in that room when the debate started, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney both had more supporters when the debate was over.”
FactCheck.org did their homework on the debate last night and the top tier candidates answers. They found a few nuggets:
An excuse that is almost insulting seeing that they could find the time to dig up that quote from 13 years ago but couldn't find out about Kerr's affiliations with the Democrats. I don't buy it and no one else does. Wizbang:
I had no problem believing anything that was discussed here except I felt that Romney did not have that strong of a showing (I do like Romney, but did not believe it was his best debate or presentation of himself.)
Fred may have had solid, core conservative responses but he looked deathly old, tired, and just plain without energy and charisma. Unfortunately in politics presentation of self and the showing of energy to do one of the most difficult jobs in the world has a huge impact on people's confidence in a candidate. His presence was like someone entering a nursing home or just awakening from a nap.
For a Hollywood guy I am confused he is not aware of this energy/presentation part of himself. Hollywood is ALL about externals and energy so why is he not stepping up the aerobics, red bulls, and botox lol? If ever there was an argument for Botox Fred is it. Even Nixon caved and got a makeup person.
Thanks for posting this by the way. Just some thoughts and questions. Glad to see no one walked out wanting to vote for McCain. Surprised in the first place many did.
Mitt the optimist ping!
I don’t buy Cnn’s “we didn’t know” either. If they could find all dems to pose questions at the democratic debate, how is it they couldn’t find just republicans to ask questions. Given what transpired during the democratic debate, it’s my opinion they very well knew they what they were doing with the republican debate.
Softballs for dems, gotcha’s for republicans, how much more blatant can their bias be.
I would just like to see Fred work on his presentation skills as we need a solid conservative in the office and I just don't see him appealing to people across the board energetically and he must be able to pull in more than the Democratic candidate in the end to win.
“What struck me the most about Lutz’s focus group was that they actually sounded like real conservatives”
“Fred may have had solid, core conservative responses but he looked deathly old, tired, and just plain without energy and charisma. Unfortunately in politics presentation of self and the showing of energy to do one of the most difficult jobs in the world has a huge impact on people’s confidence in a candidate. His presence was like someone entering a nursing home or just awakening from a nap.”
What a weak phony effort at a relevant post.
“So they were truly attuned to what was going on last night. Now, if you want to understand what Republicans are looking for, passion, principles, and pithy commentary. And the candidate that stood out yesterday was Fred Thompson.”
Giulini is a scrapper and a darn good debater from a technical perspective. One can easlity see him fighting hard for our country (I hope and not just his agenda!!). Love him or hate him he is making all the other candidates step up their game if they are going to take home the cake.
Have we heard from the RNC on this CNN phoney question issue?
Is there effectively still such an entity as the RNC?
Are the candidates and the RNC smart enough to not repeat this mistake?
(my answers to my questions: no, no, no)
At least mine made a point and sense. Relevance my friend is subjective. Disagree if you must, but insults are for the one that can not effectively make their point and shows weakness. You make no clear argument is a critique. Which is true in my opinion about your response to me. Calling a post phony makes no sense and neither does your response.
True. Fred had a fine debate, but he was not the intended target and he didn't say as much. Those who were the targets (because they are leading in early states) had a lot more to say and their words are much more scrutinized. As a candidate, one thing I wouldn't want at this stage in the game is indifference.
~~ snip~~ Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the citys sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to terrorize people. Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end.
~~ snip ~~ New York conveniently forgot the 1996 federal ban on sanctuary laws until a gang of five Mexicansfour of them illegalabducted and brutally raped a 42-year-old mother of two near some railroad tracks in Queens. The NYPD had already arrested three of the illegal aliens numerous times for such crimes as assault, attempted robbery, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses. The department had never notified the INS.
MAYOR GIULIANI CONVENES IMMIGRATION COALITION ON ELLIS ISLAND TO FIGHT FEDERAL ANTI-IMMIGRANT LEGISLATION
~~ snip ~~ The Immigration Coalition's first order of business will be to call on Congress and the President to repeal provisions of the recently enacted welfare and immigration laws that discriminate against immigrants. On October 11, 1996 the City of New York filed suit in United States District Court against the federal government and its provisions concerning immigrants. The City continues to press the court case.
The U.S. Attorney should be all over this n-o-w!
Just because people disagree that your candidate is strong does not mean they are somehow weak or phony. Make an argument for your candidate if you believe so strongly in him. But to attack the messenger shows your own weakness and inability to argue for what you believe. If you love Fred so much you support him more by making intelligent points that counter a person’s post.
Maybe he wants to win while being himself, and not a hollywood caractature of himself?
Fred was never put on the defensive. He was never asked about his past positions on McCain-Feingold, abortion, his C grade on immigration, his opposition to tort reform, his asbestos lobbying, his alliances with McCain, Snowe, Hagel et al... If he was leading in the early states, I bet CNN would have made sure those kinds of youtube clips were shown and directed at Fred, don’t you?
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.