• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Luntz Focus Group: 8 Undecideds Voting For Trump After Debate, 1 Voting For Biden

ReubenSherr

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2020
Messages
8,444
Reaction score
1,488
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Never Trumper Frank Luntz conducted a focus group of undecided voters, who watched the debate jointly last night.

8 undecided voters indicated they would now vote for Trump, after watching the debate, and only 1 indicated he/she would vote for Biden.

Among the adjectives used to describe Biden's performance last night were the words "drunk" and "senile". Whereas many participants thought Trump was "presidential" and "poised."

 
Never Trumper Frank Luntz conducted a focus group of undecided voters, who watched the debate jointly last night.

8 undecided voters indicated they would now vote for Trump, after watching the debate, and only 1 indicated he/she would vote for Biden.

Among the adjectives used to describe Biden's performance last night were the words "drunk" and "senile". Whereas many participants thought Trump was "presidential" and "poised."



Good for them, a trump coalition. Are the 8 from the same state or are the 8 votes going to be split up across America?
 
Good for them, a trump coalition. Are the 8 from the same state or are the 8 votes going to be split up across America?
The focus group members are all from different states.

We need to wait a couple days for more data. In terms of which candidate benefited from the debate.

Karl Rove, for what it's worth, believes that the debate may catapult Trump to victory.
 
Rough, angry, polarized, divided, confused etc. These are some of the words these people used to describe this country at this moment which is run by Donald Trump.
 
Not a surprise, most people calling themselves "undecided" are just Trump voters who are lying about it.

Absurdly small sample, though, so I wouldn't expect this trend to hold out nationwide.
 
The focus group members are all from different states.

We need to wait a couple days for more data. In terms of which candidate benefited from the debate.

Karl Rove, for what it's worth, believes that the debate may catapult Trump to victory.

This guy?

Karl Rove's History of Bad Advice Is Haunting the GOP
As the Republican party continues to re-evaluate itself this week, Rove's role is looking increasingly dangerous when you compare his predictions to the facts on gay marriage, the Iraq war, the 2012 election, and more.


What do you read something and just post it, because you like what the headline says. Come on now!
 
Eight whole people? That will surely swing the election.
 
Luntz has frequently contributed to Fox News as a commentator and analyst, as well as running focus groups during and after presidential debates on CBSN.[3] Luntz describes his specialty as "testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate."[4] He is also an author of business books dealing with communication strategies and public opinion.
2010 "Lie of the Year" award[edit]
Luntz was awarded the 2010 PolitiFact Lie of the Year award for his promotion of the phrase 'government takeover' to refer to healthcare reform, starting in the spring of 2009. "'Takeovers are like coups,' Luntz wrote in a 28-page memo. 'They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.'"[48] In an editorial response, the Wall Street Journal wrote that "PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and 'facts,' rather than differences of world view or principles." The editors of PolitiFact announced "We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover."[49]

Leaked tape from the University of Pennsylvania[edit]
On April 25, 2013, The American Spectator, a conservative news outlet, published a scathing article about Luntz entitled "The Problematic Frank Luntz's Stockholm Syndrome".

In fact, what Luntz has done is simply reveal the kind of thinking that goes on in the minds of too many on the right who, whether they realize it or not, have been intellectually and culturally bullied that there is some sort of 'right way'—'right' as in 'correct'—to think. Resulting in some conservatives who suffer from what might be called a political version of Stockholm Syndrome—where the captives identify with their captors.
Frank Luntz, not exactly one of my 'Go To Guys" when it comes to political consultation.
 


Frank Luntz, not exactly one of my 'Go To Guys" when it comes to political consultation.
Frank Luntz’s opinions are irrelevant.

The opinions of the focus group participants are relevant.

And Luntz seemed a bit rattled by the fact that Biden performed so poorly with the focus group.

A Fox News focus group conducted by Laura Ingraham and Raymond Arroyo arrived at similar results. 2 undecideds in their group said the debate convinced them to vote for Biden, 7 or 8 said the debate convinced them to vote for Trump.
 
Karl Rove, for what it's worth, believes that the debate may catapult Trump to victory.

Karl Rove. Wasn't he the guy who went nuts on Fox on election night, 2012 because he just KNEW that Romney had won?

Yeah. That was him.
 
Karl Rove. Wasn't he the guy who went nuts on Fox on election night, 2012 because he just KNEW that Romney had won?

Yeah. That was him.
I mean, you all seem to worship Nate Silver, who gave Trump a 28% chance of winning in 2016, so anything is possible here.

The most accurate people in the business, in terms of 2016, were Cahaly of Trafalgar and Rasmussen.
 


Frank Luntz, not exactly one of my 'Go To Guys" when it comes to political consultation.
Luntz was funded by Les Wexner, the same dark villain who funded Jeffrey Epstein's sex ring. Wexner and Luntz are die-hard Zionists- that is the only political issue they appear to care about. Luntz' appearance as a never-Trumper was probably his attempt at gaining relevancy again. He's tied into the Epstein affair via Wexner, and should probably be investigated himself.
 
Luntz was funded by Les Wexner, the same dark villain who funded Jeffrey Epstein's sex ring. Wexner and Luntz are die-hard Zionists- that is the only political issue they appear to care about. Luntz' appearance as a never-Trumper was probably his attempt at gaining relevancy again. He's tied into the Epstein affair via Wexner, and should probably be investigated himself.
Frank Luntz was not one of the focus group members.

Their opinions are not his. He seemed irritated by their criticisms of Biden.

And seemed even more irritated when two focus group members referred to Biden as "drunk" and "senile".
 
Frank Luntz’s opinions are irrelevant.

The opinions of the focus group participants are relevant.

And Luntz seemed a bit rattled by the fact that Biden performed so poorly with the focus group.

A Fox News focus group conducted by Laura Ingraham and Raymond Arroyo arrived at similar results. 2 undecideds in their group said the debate convinced them to vote for Biden, 7 or 8 said the debate convinced them to vote for Trump.
Yeah, okay, double down on making your point even less relevant by referencing a Fox News focus group conducted by Laura Ingraham and Raymond Arroyo.
Ho ho ho, ha ha ha.... keep the jokes coming!

“Liberals are kind of like herpes. Just when you think you have it beat, they come back again. There’s no cure. You can only keep it at bay.”
– Laura Ingraham, 2018 CPAC Address

 
  • Like
Reactions: jpn
I mean, you all seem to worship Nate Silver, who gave Trump a 28% chance of winning in 2016, so anything is possible here.

I mean, maybe the polls are systematically overcorrecting for 2016, which means Biden is going to win by an even greater margin than the 346 electoral votes 538 currently predicts.

But that's okay. I'll take 346.
 
Yeah, okay, double down on making your point even less relevant by referencing a Fox News focus group conducted by Laura Ingraham and Raymond Arroyo.
Ho ho ho, ha ha ha.... keep the jokes coming!
The jokes started when you all released a CNN poll of viewers' reactions to the debate.

And then followed that up with data from Morning Consult online surveys.

I honestly could not stop laughing lol.
 
Frank Luntz was not one of the focus group members.

Their opinions are not his. He seemed irritated by their criticisms of Biden.

And seemed even more irritated when two focus group members referred to Biden as "drunk" and "senile".
Luntz is a crypto Trump shill. That's my take. Someone who worked on Les Wexner's propaganda campaigns to lie to Americans about circumstances that resulted in a war is not someone who I care to listen to. He should be in prison for treason along with about several hundred others.
 
The Covid could not be heading for its third peak at a worse time for Trump and all his lickspittle Republican partners in crime.

All bow before the almighty 538, who no less a reliable source than RuebenSherr claims we all worship:
538.png
 
The Covid could not be heading for its third peak at a worse time for Trump and all his lickspittle Republican partners in crime.

All bow before the almighty 538, who no less a reliable source than RuebenSherr claims we all worship:
View attachment 67301065
The almighty 538 predicted Hillary would win lol.

I also notice that you seem glad that the Covid numbers are going up. Which is disturbing. No offense.
 
The almighty 538 predicted Hillary would win lol.

The almighty 538 predicted that Clinton had a 72% chance of winning. There's a difference.

And 2020 isn't 2016.

lol
 
I also notice that you seem glad that the Covid numbers are going up. Which is disturbing. No offense.

None taken, since we both know it is Trump who is responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, not me.

My conscience is clear--I didn't vote for the venal, incompetent swindler. Nor did I ever encourage people to ignore science, like so many Republicans have.

How about you? Do you encourage mask wearing when in close proximity to others, unlike your hero and his sycophantic enablers? No offense.
 
The almighty 538 predicted that Clinton had a 72% chance of winning. There's a difference.

And 2020 isn't 2016.

lol
We’ve got Robert Cahaly of Trafalgar, who predicted 2016 spot on, predicting another Trump win.

And Nate Silver, who gave Trump a 28% chance of winning, predicting a Biden win.

This will be interesting, no doubt.
 
None taken, since we both know it is Trump who is responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, not me.
Only 2 of the dozen members of the Fox focus group held Trump responsible for a single death.

This is a liberal talking point, not even liberals truly believe it. They are using this tragedy for political gain.
 
Only 2 of the dozen members of the Fox focus group held Trump responsible for a single death.

This is a liberal talking point, not even liberals truly believe it. They are using this tragedy for political gain.
/// not even liberals truly believe it. /// <---- You just lost the argument unless you can validate this unproven positive claim.
 
Back
Top Bottom