Posted on 01/07/2008 12:59:04 AM PST by MitchellC
I post this question not as sour grapes but just as an observation. It seems like every time I watch one of these debates and FoxNews has one of its focus groups, the room goes from all undecided to almost ALL Romney. And something about it doesn't pass the smell test.
The reason is because the voters go from apparently undecided to making very strong statements in favor of Romney. And that's not to say Romney hasn't done well in these formats, but if you look at neutral observers on the net, the results are much more balanced. It also doesn't stand to reason that a room of supposedly undecided voters would be making such strong statements, particularly statements that seem to go right in line with Romney's campaign themes -- business experience, leadership, etc. They rarely talk about flip flops or anything like that, and are almost always critical of the other people.
Also, I have read that those interested in signing up for Luntz's focus groups do so online at his website. Given Romney's on the ground organization in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it would make sense he would have some of his supporters signing up for Luntz's focus groups, pretending to be undecided.
A case in point, someone on Fred08.com pointed out a guy who was at both tonight's focus group and one four months ago -- apparently undecided:
--------
Comment by Christopher Fischahs (248)
2008-01-07 01:28:18
http://roobaroo.net/Images/Fox_Focus_Group.jpg
Just one of many examples of people making re-appearences in Frank’s ‘undecided voter’ focus groups. The fact of the matter is that to get in these groups you sign up through his website. Most real undecided voters would never be paying any attention to something like that. The fact is people sign up for these groups already backing a candidate, mostly hoping to influence the debate.
I’m not saying everybody there was corrupted or dishonest, but some of them must have been. I doubt it was coordinated or anything, and I agree that Romney came out on top tonight, but the focus group is bs.
----
Finally, some of their anti-Fred answers seemed WAY too canned. "He needs to wake up". "He's an actor". Things like this. Remember the guy from Iowa who said "he looks tired" who was ALSO pro-Romney?
Maybe I'm just too pro-Fred but I think that Romney is stacking the focus groups.
And Huckabee???????
http://spartanspectator.blogspot.com/2007/05/mike-huckabee-traitor-to-republic.html
It was irritating enough to have Luntz continually seem to critique the style, rather than the substance, of the candidates. (”See, if you do this, . . .’ and “See, the audience is different in NH,” etc.)
How many people are there in NH, any way? Or maybe they just all look alike to Luntz.
SAJ: “I don’t mean to be dim here, but how does one arrive at the conclusion that these ‘faux-cus’ groups are necessarily stacked in favour of Mr. Romney?”
The simplest explanation is usually correct. In this case, what’s more believable? That the vast majority of these so-called undecided voters really decided, during a single debate, to support Romney, or that Romney’s team is stacking the deck? Just look at Free Republic. FRedheads dominate, but even here you have significant percentages who are supporting the other candidates.
Reason tells me if the undecided voters truly represented a normal mixture of positions, you’d see percentages for each candidate that roughly parallel the polling data. For example, you’d see a far better showing for McCain in NH.
So, I strongly suspect the fix is in. I don’t generally like Dick Morris, but he recently laughed at a journalist for thinking these campaigns are spontaneous affairs. They are not, and some candidates are clearly not above trying to take every opportunity (even dishonorable ones) to win. I’m not saying Romney is guilty, but it’s very suspicious to be sure.
See the link in post #25.
Talk about incestuous! Apparently Luntz sold his company in 2005 to Omnicom Group, the humongous advertising, PR and media-buying conglomerate.
Here’s some background on the company:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Omnicom_Group
And here on their purchase of Luntz’s firm:
http://www.mrweb.com/drno/news4290.htm
Fox News is of course in the advertising-selling business.
A little more googling shows that Luntz has a history of being sanctioned for unethical bias and misrepresentation of results in his polling, and he has also been caught commenting on candidates in the press without revealing that they have been clients of his.
Also eye opening is the questionnaire on his web site for the first level of screening for participants in his Fox News focus groups:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2bQOeRHWezhssEBctA6YCIA_3d_3d
AKSurprise: “The logic of the simplest explanation being the correct one, would mean that people did indeed find Romney was the winner.”
Not so. They went beyond simply deciding Romney won the debate. I could possibly believe that. No, nearly every one of them said they were going to vote for Romney. THAT is simply too much of a stretch, because if you are honest, you’ll admit none of the candidates, except maybe Huckabee, did poorly in the debate. I’m as partisan as they get, but I thought Rudy, Thompson, Romney and even McCain did well.
I think it is incredibly naive to think this was a spontaneous result. For one thing, Romney wouldn’t even have to stack the deck to influence the outcome. I’m assuming the focus group discussed the debate with Luntz and each other. A few well placed advocates can really swing an audience.
Plus, you ignore the very simple sign up procedure to get in the group. That’s an opportunity that is just way too simple for an unscrupulous candidate to pass up. A candidate need not even be aware of it, because a candidate’s partisans could simply decide to stack the deck themselves.
The simplest explanation for converting an entire roomful of “undecideds” into Romney votes is the group was either intentionally or unintentionally filled with partisans who either influenced others or simply had the greatest percentage in the room.
Strange that they didn’t have anything nice to say about anyone but Romney, isn’t it? I mean, as much as I dislike some of the candidates, I could easily give you some things they said in the debate that came across well.
Methinks Michelle Malkin should do one of her notorious investigations of these Fox “undecided” groups.
I have found this man to be idiotic from the beginning. It never seems like a “random” group of people.
Mitt is now reinventing himself again, to be the candidate of “change”. Maybe you will like the new Mitt Romney . . the old one was a phony.
Yeah dude, it is a conspiracy. Get real! Also, I consider Fred sleazy with all of his slutty girlfriends and trophy wife and he did absolutely nothing when he was a senator except smoke cigars and network. He never passed any meanigful legislation and he never did anything but treat congress like a party college. How in the world do you even know what he stands for? Because he tells you? He does not have a record at all
I don’t really appreciate you posting disgusting language on here. This is not DU.
Chris Wallace was clearly throwing the soft balls to Romney and McCain. He was downright hostile to Rudy and Huckabee, and pretty much ignored the crossed armed Thompson.
Wow, I see that you are such a strong conservative that you joined FR only last month so that you could bash Romney. Welcome!
I was also surprised by the overwhelming conversion to Romney. Some of the answers about Fred made me want to ask if they’d even watched the debate. There was one young lady who pointed out Fred’s grasp of the facts and his concise plans however. Additionally, there was one woman who spoke highly of Romney at least twice, and no way was she a recent Romney convert.
Unfortunately, alot of the praise or criticism of the candidates seems based in large part of stuff other than the substance of their positions. Romney is going to somehow turn Washington upside down and change everything. Either he’s full of it or he has insanely unrealistic expectations. I’m also concerned about someone who, in their quest to ‘get things done’ and on their list of accomplishments, will work “with” the Dems and make far too many compromises.
Romney towered over the others in the debate, so I tip my hat off to him.
On the other hand, he has run a very poor, negative campaign. All the other candidates dislike him for his flip flops.
I was stunned by his call for Gays to be allowed to lead the Boy Scouts a few years ago. This is a man who will say anything, do anything to become President. He may be the best of a flawed bunch. The voters will tell us tomorrow.
If he can’t win in his own backyard, where they know him best. Can you imagine George W. Bush not carrying Texas?
Luntz’s results certainly were skewed for Romney last night. His finding that 92% of “conservative” Republicans were ga-ga over Romney’s debate comments was obviously bogus.
Fox has decided that the GOP nomination contest should be between Giuliani and Romney are are promoting that result. Their credibility is rapidly approaching that of CNN.
This Kumbaya Chori includes such long-standing/now-sitting luminaries as Richard Viguerie, Frank Luntz, Andrew Breitbart, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, David Brooks, David Gergen, Bill O’Reilly and sometimes even Newt Himself. They all have ‘gone highschool’: they desperately want to sit at the cool kids’ table in the cafeteria. And those Cool Kids are the lefties in Washington, D.C., New York and L.A. itself......After an on-air declaration of an end to partisanship, at least for his own advocacy role, Frank Luntz responded to an e-mail emphasizing to him that the problem isn’t ‘too much’ partisanship, but too little of critical competent expression of our own belief-centered partisanship, by our leaders and advocates. His reply was brief and curt: I ain’t no stinkin’ partisan, not any more. This persisting view is hinted in the introduction of his recent book, “Words That Work”: September 18, 2004 was the election-year date he “did a Dick” Morris” by giving his word-crafter’s secrets to a Brentwood gathering of two dozen lefties in Arianna Huffington’s home. He brushes off any question of his motivation with “frankly, I wanted to see the inside of Arianna’s house” – after declaring his cool-kid rationale as “what I do is fundamentally nonpartisan..”...
...Notably, WTW’s index lists eighteen entries for Reagan, only one for Thatcher, sixteen for Newt, and half that number for Aaron Sorkin! JFK also scores eight, Churchill and Edmund Burke only two [as with Kafka], plus Brentwood hostess Arianna equaling a triple-citation in the introduction, and one in the body of the book. Even Sergei Eisenstein gets a single mention, equivalent to Thatcher, and a single also for Sid Caesar. Clearly Luntz has gone-Morris on us. Oh, maybe just a little. But a little is way too much...
Also excerpted and posted here at FR.
I think you came close to the answer. When IOWANS supported Huck, our jaws dropped. Now NH independents go for Romney and there are cries of "conspiracy!".
I think it's a simple matter of geography. New Hampshire Republicans (especially undecideds) would represent an entirely different political entity than other states. For instance, suppose Luntz had chosen GEORGIA Republicans to judge the debate. He may likely have gotten an entirely different response.
And from reading all the analyses, there's a general consensus that Romney did dominate the debates. I thought he won. So why should this group have been any different in their assessments? I was sorry they didn't like Fred, but have to admit they have a point. He just wasn't inspirational (and I've donated to him).
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.
