Posted on 09/28/2016 5:36:50 AM PDT by MNDude
In a live post-debate "Kelly File," Frank Luntz talked to a focus group of Republican voters.
The group expressed their dissatisfaction with the performance of Donald Trump.
Overall, Luntz noted that the majority of the group had a positive view of Trump going in, but that was not the case by the end of the two-hour debate.
Luntz said that his reaction meters showed a very negative response to Trump refusing to rule out a third-party run.
When asked which candidates surprised them, the voters pointed to Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.foxnews.com ...
From August 6, 2015
Luntz Brand Snake Oil might have sold in the pre internet age but his methods and findings have always been bogus. In addition, he is guilty as anyone of turning politics into Buzzword Bingo as practiced by Obama and Hillary in their otherwise meaningless, interminable speeches.
Like others at Fox, his relevance and influence is vastly overstated.
And if you happen to be a prospective Luntz dial twister, salvage what’s left of your dignity and refuse to participate.
What’s the point ?
Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson???
ROFLMAO! I don’t know about Luntz’s focus voter group but they’re stupider than dolts.
Fortunately, the polls disagree with them.
With Trump being the Republican Presidential nominee, isn’t it a little late to be asking people about: “Trump refusing to rule out a third-party run.”
Point is that these focus groups don’t mean a thing! It’s funny looking back at them. Their opinion usually coincides with the narrative the media is trying to make.
What did the Luntz group of have to say about the CURRENT/LAST debate? (Not this one from long ago...)
Luntz is not a very likeable guy but I thought his after event groups were always pretty professional and right on the money- almost one of the best in the business.
Why post a year-old story? Maybe there’s a good reason, but I don’t get it.
I should have noticed that was last year.
Still my reaction is on point. It could be any debate, heck it could have been Monday night - and Luntz’s panel would still invariably get it wrong.
They’re not a true representation of voting demographics and that’s his fundamental weakness.
What’s the purpose of posting this story from over a year ago? At first glance, I thought this was about the debate held earlier this week and I’m sure I’m not alone.
Discrepancy between focus groups and post-debate polls.
Luntzes Dunces...love it.
Would you like to play the role of a non-political "undecided voter" who coverts to a dedicated democrat and Hillary supporter over the course of a 90 minute debate?
Then you could appear on national TV and star in a "Frank Luntz" theatrical production!
Scripts available upon request. Many roles available. Choose the one that best suits your acting talents:
- The handwringing soccer mom who thinks Trump is too angry and worries about him being a poor role model for her precious children.
- The old, retired grandmother who is turned off because of the way Trump "talks down" to Hillary.
- The urban college kid of questionable sexuality who goes from thinking Hillary is old and boring to Hip and Cool over the course of the debate.
- The sassy black women who "ain't gonna vote for no man that questions Obama's birthplace"
- The well dressed, articulate Hispanic/Muslim who doesn't understand why Trump hates him/her.
- The "ringer" - the one token participant who ends up supporting Trump. Old, overweight men referred, uses course language, may refer to Hillary as a b-tch, a strong southern accent a plus, makeup and wardrobe will provide Swastika tattoos and confederate flag shirt.
How are Kelly’s ratings?
Generally, I find his groups interesting, but I clearly remember in 2012 how much his “independents” loved Romney. Obviously, the group’s opinion had little predictive value.
It’s never been more obvious that so much news we see on tv is just a tv show.
Luntz focus groups would provide more value if the people going in did not know they were going to be on TV and also weren’t in a communal arrangement. Both things skew results. Also they skew selection. The people who are going to make themselves available for a focus group on a debate night will not necessarily be representative. There is also regional considerations. Also there are more considerations in debates than sheer performance. People judge and weigh things differently.
I personally didn’t think Trump had the best time of it however Hillary while she succeeded in unloading the worst of her arsenal of anti-Trumpness she did not really offer anything that would shift an undecided voter to her camp. Trump also did get his message out even though he clearly was restrained in attacking her. I think that was by design. If I had been coaching Trump I’d have advised that he NOT focus on body slamming Clinton in the first debate but merely making it through it more as a learning experience. The key thing I’d advise Trump after his performance is that he NOT elaborate on side issues like the birther thing. He should’ve simply said I’ve addressed this issue many times and moved on while pointing out that Clinton originally questioned Pres Obama’s birthplace. Trump’s cringe worthy moment was when he invoked Sean Hannity’s name in defense of whether he was for the Iraq war or not. Personally I would’ve told him to deal with it by saying “I never supported the idea of invading Iraq. I thought it was a bad idea but I did support the troops once the invasion began as did everyone”.
While the focus may have been on Trump’s awkward moments. Clinton and her jokeresque Cheshire cat look and mannerisms only magnified the sense that she is an malevolent figure. Trump while awkward appeared all too human which is really his strength. As a left winger put it in an effort to deride him “Trump doesn’t even know how to talk. He sounds like any guy on the street not a president”. Trump I believe very well likely helped himself by not being dead set on winning and understanding that his first engagement with Clinton was not going to be his last. Trump learns quickly and in the next two engagements he will not let her off so easily. He lowered expectations which is actually good. Clinton by appearing to win upped her expectations which makes the road ahead much harder. Her team already is in full on gloat mode and nothing is easier to defeat than an arrogant leftist with their nose pointed toward the sky.
Never heard of them. The 10,000 people at yesterday’s rally probably never heard of them either.
Thus was from a year ago.
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.