PBS and Tavis Smiley invited Republican pollster Frank Luntz on to conduct a focus group on the Democratic debate that occurred Thursday night. As everyone predicted, Luntz was biased.
1: The pre-forum and post-forum polls on the Covenant for Black America site say that Barack Obama was the crowd favorite. They say that Clinton was not. In fact, the percentage for Clinton went from 19% before the debate to 12% after the debate. How then can your focus group be overwhelmingly in support of Clinton having won the debate? Your polls and your focus group completely contradict each other! Could it be that you have a shiesty focus group facilitator?
2: The media spin has been that Hillary Clinton’s HIV soundbite was the highest rated moment in the debate. I’m not denying her that moment, however it wasn’t the sum total of the debate. Luntz slipped up as he was talking in the focus group and said of that moment, “This was the highest rate, the second highest rated, moment…” What the heck was the first highest moment? That’s sketchy to me that you wouldn’t mention it and instead hone in on this Clinton moment. (Just read that Kucinich actually got the highest moment. See point #7.)
3A: Luntz begins the focus group conversation by saying “Barack Obama walked in here having all your votes…” Any reputable focus group knows that you don’t prime an audience like that. The first question you ask references no candidate so that you can elicit a natural inductive response from the audience.
3B: Even if what you said were true, why would you have a focus group where the majority of people overwhelmingly supported one particular candidate anyway? That’s a little shady and it doesn’t make sense.
4. Luntz is wrong to say that the black vote belonged to Obama and Clinton has been grabbing it. Don’t you see the difference between that language and framing it as the Clintons have the black vote and Obama needs to grab it (seeing that the Clintons have been around longer and the Clintons have higher name recognition among black voters and Obama just hopped on the scene 6 months ago) OR saying that the black vote is up for grabs and Clinton and Obama have to fight for it? You can’t frame it as the black vote was Obama’s. The black vote was never Obama’s and Frank Luntz is wrong to use that to frame his focus group.
5. Luntz asked what researchers call “leading questions.” You can’t ask whether they thought Clinton had more substance and specifics and ask for an answer. Instead you ask, which candidate do you believe had more substance and specifics? Any social psych 101 student can tell you that you get totally different responses simply based on how you ask the question.
6. I found it interesting that many of the non-blacks in the focus group were moderate or non-Hillary Clinton supporters. This would then create a dynamic of everytime they said something and Luntz would ask if they agreed, all the black people would say in unison, “No.” You can’t racially stack a focus group like that. A reputable focus group would not have it such that the racial demographics are correlated with the political demographics.
7. Poor Kucinich. He also got shafted by Luntz’s biased questioning. The Post-Debate poll for the entire audience showed that he actually did well because the percentage of people for him increased. The reactions from the crowd as he spoke also bore this out. However, this rarely came up in Luntz’s focus group. When one guy did bring it up Luntz quickly shifted from it. He took it back to the ‘Clinton taking Obama’s black vote’ story line.
8. Luntz held a previous focus group with a completely unbelievable result. Watch this. “Video: Frank Luntz Focus Group Shows NH Democrats Want Democrats to Hold Debate on Fox News” In a focus group of NH Democrats, 30 out of 32 people in the group said that they want the Democrats to hold a debate on Fox News. What??? You know good and well Luntz did some serious priming and working of words to get that response.
9. Frank Luntz’s analysis and predictions from the 2nd NH Democratic Debate were wrong. Watch this. “Video: Frank Luntz Focus Group Shows Obama Is Surprise Loser and John Edwards Surprise Winner at 2nd Democratic Debate” Luntz predicted based on his focus group that John Edwards’ NH polling numbers would go up. However, Edwards NH polling numbers went down 6 points after this debate! Obama could not have been too big of a “surprise loser” since his NH polling numbers remained the same.
Frank Luntz hasn’t spent his years working as a consultant for the Republican party for nothing. He knows they want Hillary and not Obama since the Republicans say they can more easily win against her. This focus group didn’t read to me like anything but a sophisticated (but shameless for those who know research methodology) effort toward that end. Oh yes, believe me Frank Luntz really does know the “words that work” and I’m sorry to say but he worked them on Tavis and that focus group.
June 30, 2007 at 6:51 am
Thanks for this. I’m glad folks are analyzing what and how Luntz did this focus group.
June 30, 2007 at 9:27 am
That totally rocked.
June 30, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I agree with much of what you said. However, you should know that the polls on the Covenant for Black America site were internet polls that anyone could vote in, not just audience members. So you probably can’t use those to contradict Luntz’s results. I do agree with everything else. It looks like Luntz came in with the agenda of boosting Hillary, the weaker general election candidate.
June 30, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Thanks for the comments guys. Rick, thanks for the information behind that poll and how it was done because I was looking for that. My understanding based on Tavis’s comments on his show was that this was an electronic audience poll that they used at the event. I’m happy to put Point #1 up for debate given your new information. I’d still argue that it still makes everything look a little sketchy though given the reactions I have seen from from black media and people who attended about how candidates did. That Clinton went from 19% to 12% even in an internet poll just flies in the face of the overwhelming support for her in Luntz’s focus group. I understand that internet polls are the least reliable poll one can do though so I’ll leave the jury out on point #1.
June 30, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I was a member of the focus group.
You have questions about the process? Ask away.
And, yes. The guy who conducted the focus group is a Republican — but the process was entirely fair. The results he reported were accurate. I was one of the folks who cake in and, forced to pick a candidate I supported at the outset, I grudgingly chose Obama. (He’s appealing, but he hasn’t really DONE anything. I like the brutha, but I don’t see much there in terms of a track record of accomplishment or experience.)
I haven’t particularly cared for Clinton’s track record on the Iraq war, but I respect her record. And by the end of the eveining, I came away far more impressed with Clinton than Obama. She simply handled herself well. And she was forceful. Obama was, indeed, flat and uninspiring.
June 30, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Your item 6 isn’t entirely accurate. To the audience wathing Tavis Smiley, I can see how it may have appeared that way. But the fact is the facilitator, Luntz, was premising and framing his questions based on our interactions with him in the focus group. The assumptions which may have seemed loaded questions to you were actually rephrasing outcomes that became apparent in the focus group. That’s what he was paid to do: elicit our responses in the focus group and then bring those results to the Tavis’ show.
June 30, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I’m crunching a deadline and haven’t thoroughly read the initial post — nor have I read any of the others. My whole week has sucked — and attending the forum and the taping one after the other, I didn’t get hime until well after midnight, and I’ve been behind in my deadlines all week, so I’m still playing catch-up.
But, again, if you have any questions about the process, ask away, and I’ll do my best to answer your questions.
But let me say this: the process was entirely fair, and Luntz’s report of the findings of the group were completely accurate. I and the other participants had a great time.
Before we began the process, Luntz told the focus group he asked if any of the candidates would come to Ira Aldridge Theater (where the focus group was held, next to Cramton Auditorium) to meet the members of the focus group. He said the Secret Service agent responded, “No (expletive deleted) way.”
Still, when we were done and before we went to Cramton to do the Tavis Smiley show, Joe Biden and Barack Obama dropped by to meet us and shake hands. Regardless of their politics, class acts — both of them.
And we got paid a crisp $100 bill for our efforts.
Not a bad evening. I enjoyed myself. Peace.
Oh, yeah. FYI I’m black. African-American — as in my ancestors survived the Middle Passage. Not “African-American” in the way the term commonly is used to describe Obama. While I don’t argue with people who call him and other (recent) continental Africans and their progeny “African-American,” I don’t use the term, personally. It confuses matters. The term “African-American” was conceived and utilized as an alternative moniker for those peoples who used to be called the “American Negro,” as well as Caribbean-Americans. All of us have a common historical and cultural past in many regards stemming from the experience of slavery.
Obama does not. Yep, he’s still a brutha; he’s cool wit’ me — but to me he is a Kenyan-American.
July 1, 2007 at 12:30 am
IKnowWhoIAm,
Thank you for offering to share about what happened! I did have some questions since they didn’t fully explain how the entire thing went down. I’m happy to have you disabuse me of my skepticism.
1: During the focus group, did you guys give equal time to discussing the highest rated moment of the night (Kucinich’s point about Darfur) versus discussing the second highest rated moment of the night (Clinton’s point on HIV)?
2: How were you selected to be in the group?
3: What language did they use in “forcing you” as you said to choose a candidate in the beginning? Was it your impression that everybody in the group was overwhelmingly for Barack but as Luntz explained Hillary is coming in and taking a part of that vote?
4: Did you get a sense of where Obama’s impromptu clarification on his HIV Testing rated in terms of highest moments of the night? What was the focus group’s reaction to it?
July 1, 2007 at 1:34 am
Re: Obama not having a track record of accomplishment
Despite the media spin, Obama has held elected office longer than both Clinton and Edwards. He served 8 years in the Illinois Senate. Believe me, he didn’t rack up a 70%+ approval rating in Illinois by not having a track record of accomplishment. You can search my archives for details on his accomplishments on health care, death penalty, racial profiling, tax breaks for working families, the environment, etc. While Obama has only been in the U.S. Senate for 3 years, he’s already sponsored more bills, co-sponsored more bills, and had more successfully enacted sponsored bills than Edwards had in his entire 5 years.
July 1, 2007 at 2:59 am
1. Frankly, I don’t recall if we specifically discussed Kucinich’s comment on Darfur. I’m a Darfur advocate and activist — and I don’t recall what he said. I believe I recall him saying something about the U.S. and uilateral pressure, and I frowned, because what we need is U.S. involvement in multilateral pressure. Bush’s Plan B, while neecssary, the economic sanctions don’t really accomplish much as some people might think, because Khartoum isn’t conducting much of its trade in dollars.
We did, however discuss Kucinich’s performance overall. He was the candidate who most surprised people — and in a favorable way, a point which Luntz DID bring out during the Tavis Smiley recap of the focus group.
2. The highest-rated moment of the night with our group was Hillary Clinton’s comment about black women and HIV-AIDS. The people in the focus group exploded into verbal comments (you know how we do: call and response :p) and applause was when the kids who raised money to get to the debates stood up (we applauded) and with Clinton, wd applaued and expressed our agreement verbally and enthusiastically.
I gave her a 100 on that one (highest score on the PeopleMeter). And while I responded favorably to comments by virtually every single candidate at one point or another in the evening (80’s and above), I believe I responded most favorably and repeatedly to remarks by Clinton.
Luntz’s mis-speak was probably due to the fact that the crew was a problem with the video clips. When we were doing the taping, there was no sound coming from the screen, so no one could actually tell for sure what was being shown. Luntz actually had to tell us which clip he was speaking about. It was confusing/annoying for him AND those of us onstage. In the final veresion, they probably cut in the proper footage, but we weren’t actually necessarily looking at it the right footage during the taping itself. It’s true that Clinton’s comment was the highest-rated moment of the night — at least as far as our group was concernd. And people in the audience actually stood up and cheered her remarks. And I believe it was actually the only time that significant numbers of the Cramton audience gave anyone a standing ovation (except for the kids).
2. I don’t recall how I got on the e-mail list, but I’ve been getting e-mails from Luntz’s outfit for some time. When I first started getting them, I’d respond to the questionnaire asking the same old demographic info: age, income, education, ethnicity, political bent, party affiliation, how I voted in the last election — the usual sort of thing. But I was never selected, so I stopped responding. But when this last one came up, it sounded interesting, so I responded. And — surprise — I was selected.
3. Let me explain “forced.” The questionnaire simply asked if I were to vote right then, for whom would I vote. There was no “undecided” option, so I had to pick someone. I chose Obama. I figured I’d give the brutha the benefit of the doubt.
4. I thought his response was charming, and I rated it about an 80 (100 being the max). Members of the group didn’t really comment on his response — just on Biden bringing Obama into the matter. People thought it was inappropriate — and perhaps it was — but I didn’t mind it so much. One commented it was “classic Biden.” (Foot-in-mouth disease.)
Let me say this. In the focus group I made the observation that Obama doesn’t come from the African-American oral tradition. Black folks are accustomed to orators and raconteurs. Previous black presidential candidates had not only substance (very important!), but fire and passion and eloquence as well: Shirley Chisholm,Dick Gregory, Jessie Jackson (whose oratorical style earned him the Secret Service code name “Rolling Thunder”) and Al Sharpton. When someone takes the podium in front of an African-American audience,you betta bring it — especially if you’re black.
Obama didn’t do that. It’s not his style. He didn’t grow up with that; he’s the son of a Kenyan man, and he was raised by a white woman. His style Thursday night was relatively quiet and thoughtful. That’s okay, but it’s not going to get people — especially black people — out of their seats. It’s not going to get you 100’s on the People Meter. And, I daresay, it won’t get people up out of their ennui, off their butts and to the polls.
Luntz did a good job of characterizing Clinton’s demeanor and style. She would start out quietly and gradually became more and more forceful in a response, emphasizing her point forcefully. She came off as strong and decisive. (Translation: her plain-speak and style of delivery was closer to the African-Americank oral tradition — and simply good oratory generally — than was Obama’s. The brutha could seriously stand a lesson or two from the pulpit.)
Obama, I believe, is a visionary. And that’s a good thing. But, IMHO, he’s got to do better at communicating that vision, really connecting with people and INSPIRING them. He needs to work on his delivery.
I wanted him to do well Thursday, but, frankly, the guy didn’t move me that much. I wasn’t very impressed.
But that was one night — not the entire election. (duh ;p) And it’s a long road to the primary.
While the majority of people thought Clinton won the debate, only a few (if I recall correctly) in the room who came in supporting Obama (or other candidates) said they might consider switching their vote.
And Gravel? I gave him high marks on his comments about the War on Drugs. The first couple of times. Then I started to wonder if he had anything else to say. (Too, when one mentions such a thing, one must also include mention of prevention and treatment, which he did not. It comes off as irresponsible, otherwise.) And when he finally DID have something else to say, he questioned the morals of his colleagues on the stage. Dunno if it came across to those at home, but you should have heard the collective, “Oooh” from the audience. And didja notice at the end when the candidates were shaking one another’s hands? NO ONE approached Gravel. It was like he’d set off a stink bomb in the joint.
Hilarious. The man reminded me at times of Ross Perot’s running mate. ;p
July 1, 2007 at 3:11 am
About Obama’s record: thanks for the info. Looks like I have some reading to do. And Obama. perhaps, needs to do a better job at getting the word out. Peace.
July 1, 2007 at 4:21 am
In reply to not knowing about his record.
This is a long campaign. And all these advertising dollars do amount to something. I think he will hit primary states as they come as he has in Iowa showing people his record. And stopping by the bruthas website wouldn’t hurt. We dont actually know Hillary Clinton’s record. Besides voting for the war and being Bill’s wife.
But apparently thats enough for a lot of people, no wonder bush got elected twice.
Oh and a placating sound byte that had it come from Obama made him look like Sharpton, doesn’t make you ‘down’ in my eyes. It’s about time we stop letting the dems take us for granted, cause Obama hasn’t
July 1, 2007 at 4:40 am
Dear IKnowWhoIAm,
Thank you so much for sharing more about what happened. I’m a skeptic, so I probably would have had to have been there myself to watch the whole thing go down to be totally convinced–from the process of selecting members of the group all the way to the videotaping.
There was a news article that said Kucinich had the highest rated comment of the night by the electronic voting machines, however all the attention went to Clinton’s HIV comment in the focus group discussion. I just found that to be very sketchy. The Democrat and Chronicle reported: “The top score: Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio hit the mid-90s when he asserted that if Sudan had a large supply of oil, the United States would be occupying it, ending the Darfur crisis.”
It’s not that I don’t think Hillary did a “good,” if you will, overall job. She did have the overall highest score on the electronic machines–in the 70s and 80s. It’s just that I believe the interpretation of her performance was overstretched and the interpretation of other candidates’ performances, especially Kucinich and Edwards, were downplayed. I believe there was a ceiling effect for Obama. If at the beginning everybody was for him as the favorite, he really had little where else to go but to stay the same or go down in people’s views of his performance. If you’re not already the favorite you have more leeway in terms of being able to exceed expecations, remain the same, or go down. That’s why you’d want a focus group where initially there is no overwhelming favorite.
Also, Luntz saying that Obama had the black vote and now Clinton is going and grabbing a part of it was overhype IMO. Especially since as you’re saying nobody was changing their votes from Obama to her. Luntz didn’t explain much about why she wasn’t convincing people to change their votes. Could it be they thought it was absolutely true but also pandering and soundbitish? I did see one woman in the audience give a “Puhlease.” look while some of the people (led by CBC members who have already endorsed Clinton?) were standing in ovation.
And yes, I agree with you about Obama needing to get the word out about his track record. I think he will begin to a bit more now that summer is ending and the TV ads race is about to begin.
Thanks again!
July 1, 2007 at 6:25 am
Well, that’s interesting. I could have been mistaken. There was considerable anti-war and, by extension, anti-Bush, sentiment in the group as well — as you might well imagine.
And also keep in mind that we were instructed to react to what the candidates said, not to whoever said it. So, if that’s what Luntz and the press reported, then I’d have to say it was probably correct. It’s not hard for me to believe. It was a long day, so my memory might be faulty on that score (no pun intended). ;p
About the business of Obama having the black vote and Hillary making inroads — again, Luntz was extrapolating from the experience of the focus group. That’s what he was there for, and that’s why the focus group was conducted. Of course, you can disagree with what the focus group experience meant, and they are certainly not scientific. But as a snapshot in time of a particular group of people selected as a cross-section of Democratic voters (half of us characterizing ourselves as “liberal”, half as “conservative”) the findings as reported were accurate — including, I’m assuming, the bit about Kucinich and the spike. I would caution, however, about reading too much into that. People were reacting to the COMMENT, as we were instructed, rather than the speaker. And I don’t know anyone who isn’t fed up with the war and furious about the lies that got us there “Democracy?” “Al-Qaeda?” “GWoT?”
My left foot! It was oil, oil, oil.
And now we’re in deep s*** — with no exit strategy and no end in sight. What’s good for the goose (Iraq) is good for the gander (U.S.). Looks like it’s LONG past time for a regime change. ;p
July 1, 2007 at 6:35 am
The “Oh, please” woman you’re referring to — up front with the bad teeth — she came in a rapid Richards supporter. And she clearly just can’t stand Clinton, to the point of real animus, which I found/find distasteful.. I think she was among the most rabidly in the camp of a particular candidate. So, again, I wouldn’t read too much into that. I hope I’m not being unfair, but she struck me as the kind of person who would’ve kept her PeopleMeter at 50 or lower for the other candidates until Richards spoke. She acted as though she had come there on a mission.
IMO, Richards didn’t seem focused and was one of the blandest up there. He was saying, “We need needles,” when speaking about HIV-AIDS — when he clearly meant to say “needle exchange programs.” He didn’t seem as focused as he could have been. And his entire response to that particular question seemed premised on IV drug use as the sole vector of transmission in the African-American community.
He just wasn’t a big hit with me.
July 1, 2007 at 6:37 am
Typos! Of course, I meant she came in a RABID Richards supporter. ;p
July 1, 2007 at 6:53 am
AJ –
We’re a long way from the primaries, and trust me. I’ll get around to doing some more reading on Obama’s record. VoterWatch (or whatever they call themselves) wasn’t terribly helpful when it came to Obama’s record.
If you don’t know Ciinton’s record on the issues, then perhaps you need to do some reading as well. There’s plenty out there.
And you’re absolutely right about Bush. He stole the first election, and the American voting public, stupid enough to put him within stealing distance of the White House the first time, elected the moron the second go ’round! Precisely why I don’t have much respect for the American voting public. They’re abysmally ignorant/misinformed, yet highly opinionated and intelectually lazy.
And that business about a “placating sound bite” — I must be reading it incorrectly, because it makes no sense to me. BUT since you have no clue who I am or what I’ve done, and I don’t know you from doo-doo, whether I’m “down” in your eyes couldn’t be more irrelevant to this discussion — or my life.
Translation: AJ, dear, take your attitude and stick it where the sun don’t shine. lol
July 1, 2007 at 7:06 am
AJ –
Just read your comment again. Finally got it. (Sorry, but the lack of punctuation threw me off.)
My response?
What I already (and actually) said.
July 1, 2007 at 12:55 pm
This is Frank Luntz. I find your remarks incredible. I have repeatedly praised Obama’s message, presentation and passion. Just go do a search and you’ll find more than half a dozen comments. But because he didn’t do as well as Clinton in this debate — which virtually every professional observer agrees — you say I’m biased. Are you telling me he’s perfect, that he always outdoes his opponents in every appearance? No one does.
I was critical of much of Clinton’s performances up to this point, and so I am called biased. But now that I affirm her success in this debate … I’m biased.
Truth is, there is nothing I can do to please people like you. If my analysis is pro-Clinton, you’ll attack. If it’s anti-Clinton, you’ll attack.
I think that’s really sad.
July 1, 2007 at 1:06 pm
This is Frank Luntz again.
One more thing. If you go to the Gannett website and read Chuck Raasch’s article — he’s one of the most respected reporters in America and he watched my session live — you’ll see that we did record Kucinich as having the highest single response of the evening (it was his answer to Darfur, not the voting machines). That was a major part of my press release I put out after the event, and you’ll find it on my website tomorrow. But we didn’t have time to talk about it during the show.
Frankly, the fact that 27 people of the 33 said Clinton won and only 2 chose Kucinich was a reason why we didn’t get to it on the show. But again, it is in the press release and is being mentioned in some articles.
But I’m sure this explanation is insufficient to people who only accept their point of view. The funny thing is, I know Congressman Kucinich and if you actually met and asked him, he’d have a very positive reaction to me.
Imagine that.
July 1, 2007 at 2:03 pm
LOL.
There you have it. Striaght from the horse’s mouth.
I stand corrected. It seems my memory WAS faulty on the group’s response to Kucinich. I’m happy to give the guy his due. I thought he gave some good answers during the evening, to which I responded positively.
I appreciate the poster’s wilingness to listen and be open to people who were actually there. The focus group’s responses were reported accurately and honestly. And Obama’s supporters wouild do well to critically analyze the results of the focus group, rather than the facilitator/pollster. I have to believe there are some truths there can be extrapolated to the larger voting public — and to the advantage of the candidates, if their handlers, strategists and supporters will take a pause from their rah-rah posturing and conspiracy theories and take a lesson.
Peace.
July 1, 2007 at 2:06 pm
By the way, Frank.
You’re a good man. I enjoyed the evening.
I sent an e-mail about the “people of color” thing — FYI.
July 1, 2007 at 2:12 pm
IKnowWhoIAm: I noticed the Richardson woman to whom you’re referring in the focus group. The “Puhlease” woman I noticed was actually another woman in the general audience they panned too while everyone was clapping about Clinton’s remark. For the record, it is NOT my position that Obama “won” the debate. I’m happy that we’re having a conversation beyond the question of “who won” to what candidates actually said, how well the candidates answered relative to others on each individual question, and how the audience interpreted what the candidates were saying on substantive issues. I think moving to that level of discourse on debates is healthy for democracy.
Mr. Luntz: Thanks for your comments. Here is my burning question for you–After your NH Democratic Debate focus group you said, “I’ll tell you something. You’re going to see John Edwards’ polling numbers go up in the next few days based on his performance in NH.” Yet his polling numbers went down 6 points. What went wrong in your NH focus group and how do you account for the inaccuracy?
July 6, 2007 at 5:03 pm
[...] The third debate general consensus among pundits and a focus group was that Clinton won, although I believe the extent to which she beat the others in the third debate was overstretched and the performances [...]
July 8, 2007 at 9:20 am
[...] that I still don’t believe the Tavis Smiley focus group and Eddie Glaude’s summary of it in this audio clip. Listening [...]