Replies

Actually, you're right. I didn't watch the video before I posted that, but, rather, took another poster's word on its face. I don't usually do that, and this is why.

I never believed he was a "plant", per se, though I was, and still am, suspicious that anyone would be willing to maintain that they are "undecided" if it meant getting on TV and, perhaps, helping their preferred candidate. This is especially likely considering that the focus group is self-selected; they sign up on his website. The way many of the focus group members parrot various positive and negative talking points floating around about the candidates (Fred "looks old", Mitt is "too slick") calls their neutrality into serious question in my mind.

I can't speak for many other Fred supporters, but I've never put a great deal of stock in Frank Luntz, his methodology, or his focus groups. They can be informative, but only when the points they make are well-reasoned, or when they seem truly spontaneous. I have not, however, thought their responses were ever truly representative of the "average voter".

It’s actually a shame that we can’t count on Freepers to at least report the facts on things like this.

Videos aren’t easily accessable by everyone during the day, so it’s especially important when something is a video report that the contents of the video be described accurately.

I believe luntz tries to keep his people “undecided”, I also think that’s kind of a stupid focus group, since it means it’s people who haven’t figured out how to do research and make decisions, and now they are going to be measured by how much one debate can correct that deficiency.

However, if you can really get undecideds, I think the reaction plots are very helpful, because it shows how the message and tone of the candidates is perceived by people who don’t have a preconceived bias.