I tried to tell people when Luntz had the same thing happen in the last debate focus group. Same type of issue, different guy this time. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ 

I haven't been keeping up with these focus groups, but isn't it possible that all the people are the same, point being to keep track of how their opinions change during the debate cycle?

Unlikely I guess, but an idea. You would think these guys would be smart enough to not use the same guy twice if they were trying to pull something. 

So, the same guy showing up in two focus groups means... what, exactly? Presumably, there is value in seeing how one voter's views may have shifted over a four-month period. Unless he was planted for a particular reason, I don't see what the scandal is.

We talked about this on the live chat last night.  It seemed as though the focus group had watched a different debate than we did.  Our consensus was that Fred and Mitt had done well.  The Luntz focus group had nothing good to say about Fred, and some stated that they didn't understand what he said.  One lady commented that he had no opinion on health care.  Well, that's because he wasn't asked a question about health care.  Something is rotten in Denmark with this Fred Luntz guy.  Any online sleuths want to take him on? 

Faciem durum cacantis habes

About 2 or 3 Republican debates ago (may have been the one just after the "reporterette from hell" moderated debate), I saw a whole room full of supposedly "randomly" selected Republicans(???) go nearly unanimously in favor of Huckabee.  This had Luntz almost beside himself with excitement, as he got a number of them to state that they had been for a different candidate prior to that debate.  And this was sometime following the Fred Thompson refusal to participate in a kindergarten exercise and the rest of the candidates (some of whom had already raised their hands) following Fred's lead.  I told Mrs. nofate then that I did not believe that Luntz was credible anymore, not sure if he is being used/snookered, or if there is a hidden agenda there, but whatever it is, like any other pollster/poll, I think it is worth what we are paying for it.

On the subject of Fred, if you want to hear him without the noise of the media interfering, check this, this, this, or this, out.  I'm still waiting to hear the departure from conservative thought that I've heard with consistency from McCain, Huckabee, Paul, and to some lesser extent from Romney and Giuliani.  I'm still trying to listen to everything the candidates have to say on their own without the TV soundbite format, and as an avid Rush listener, for a politician, Fred doesn't stray far from the fold.  He has very well thought out positions on a wide range of issues, and is very well read and historically knowledgeable.  I also like the fact that he is not pitting one segment of society against another in order to gain votes, he is, in my view, truly running on the issues.  It's unfortunate that, for whatever reason, his acting experience does not seem to be helping in translating his political acumen to the TV viewing audience.  As has often been pointed out, Lincoln would never be elected in the TV world as we know it now. 

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

Like everyone else here, Ive seen god knows how many Luntz focus groups, and Ive come to a conclusion. They mean nothing. If your an undecided voter, your much more prone to group-think, and thats basically what happens. Most just agree with whatever he says. If he says raise your hand if you like so and so, most wont until they see someone else raising their hand. Luntz goes off some ratings system that I believe just shows if people are changing the channel or not. Root assumption is if you change the channel you arent interested in what is being said. But that may or may not be the case. In defense of Luntz though, I dont think this is a plant.

They are useless, but not because of manipulation on the part of Fox or Frank Luntz. 

They are useless because they are tainted by the most influential personalities in the room. 

You see, no one wants to look stupid.  So a lot of people will go along with the flow to avoid looking stupid on TV. 

It's a herd/lemmings mentality.  Someone with half a brain starts making positive noises during one of the candidates comments.  (hmmm...yeah....good....head nod...etc..)  Then others, seeking to be as wise as the first guy, start doing the same thing.  Before long, everyone is trying to be first to grunt, nod, chortle, etc. to said candidates responses. 

It's like yawning in a movie theatre. 

Rather than a focus group in one room, these people should all be put into separate viewing areas because it is too easy to manipulate a group in a single viewing room. 

Another example: If you watched the focus group ABC had for the Democrats, there was a big contingent of Obama fans, but in one corner, there was all Clinton fans.  ABC concentrated on the Obama fans, of course, because there were more of them.  But it's very likely that there was one Clinton fan in that corner that was a Type A personality.

The true measure of the effectiveness of the debators will show up in the polls about a week later.   Both Fred and Huck got 4 to 5 points from the Des Moines Register debates.   Honestly, I think most normal people turn off the debate either before it's over or right after it's over.  It's only junkies like us that watch the crap afterwards.  :) 

Let me see, same state, months apart. I don't see anything wrong with that.

On top of that, Chuck appears to be as indecive as nearly every other republican.