NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Pollster Frank Luntz has some ’splainin’ to do writes Michelle Malkin, who has a post with video about one Granite State gentleman who’s shown up in more than one Luntz focus group.New Hampshire’s a sm…

Maybe it not so much indicates recognition as it does the ability to read? ;)

He kind of looks like the Ponytail Guy from the 1992 town hall meeting to me.

ChartreuseDragon on January 7, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Holy cow, you’re so right! Haha!

20 people in a room don’t becoming Mitt lovers in the span of 2 hours. It just seemed so fishy.

froghat on January 7, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Maybe, but also consider it is on the eve of the primary there. That debate might have been the last thing they were waiting for before deciding.

Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Yeah but it’s still weird. I mean none of the guys said anything that would really persuade anyone to vote for them. So when one guy gets that much attention during the 2nd most boring debate . . . Unless this is the first time they’ve ever heard them speak . . cept for that one guy :)

I just wonder if there was chatter in the jury box is all.

- The Cat

The whole Fox forum was skewed and manufactured as a duke-out between Mitt, Mike and Mc.

jimmer on January 7, 2008 at 10:39 AM

I agree that the contrast between the ABC forum and the FNC forum was pronounced in this way. Gibson was pretty impartial and gave every participant a nice, long response time for each of the main categories of questioning. He did it as fairly as I’ve seen it done. Wallace clearly focused his time on Mike, Mitt, and Mack, in hopes of provoking some good explosive rhetoric. He pretty much said so himself afterwards in his debriefing with Brit Hume. Wallace went into the debate with the deliberate intent to sideline Rudy and Fred and try to fan some fire with the perceived frontrunners in NH. No wonder they left Ron Paul out. I’m sure they tried to find a reasonable way to leave Fred and Rudy out, too, but couldn’t quite justify it with any polling data they could find. When he said at the beginning, “One of the five men at this table will be the next Republican nominee,” I’m sure he was thinking, “Well, one of three of these men will be the next Republican nominee….”

I’m not going to go so far as to say there was intentional foul play here, but there did seem to be something fishy about Luntz’s focus groups that I couldn’t quite put my finger on.

Yoosaion on January 7, 2008 at 9:33 AM

They were too much in agreement. It seems unusual to have so many agree on stuff like this when all the candidates in both debates actually did very well. I thought the participants were parroting the media narrative a bit too closely, and nobody seemed to be still distressed about a hard decision still to be made. They all decided, definitively and permanently, after just that debate apparently.

I’m not willing to call foul play either, as it is plausible that this might happen. But that’s what I found to be “fishy.”

.you will eventually see that when you finally look at how weak Mitt is (although Mitt has great hair)

right2bright on January 7, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Lets see if I have this right……Mitt campaigns and gains support and he’s weak….Fred doesn’t campaign and has huge support, but when he actually starts to campaign, he starts on a downward spiral and he’s the eventual nominee.

Is that what you’re saying?

Sugar Land on January 7, 2008 at 9:02 AM

Heck who doesn’t love free punch and cookies

Where were these complaints when Fred was the guy the Luntz groups loved?
csdeven on January 7, 2008 at 9:39 AM

About the only time Luntz’s analysis supported Fred, is when he took apart Mitt and Rudy on there weak immigration stands. Mitt and Rudy were so weak that it was a matter of non-support for their poor leadership skills, and were duly impressed by Freds leadership.
Sometimes, even the most bias have to give into logic….you will eventually see that when you finally look at how weak Mitt is (although Mitt has great hair)

Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Great point.

Geez, I musta’ missed THAT one.

Ex-tex on January 7, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Don’t we all usually forget the good and remember the bad? I remember because I was surprised by it.

20 people in a room don’t becoming Mitt lovers in the span of 2 hours. It just seemed so fishy.

froghat on January 7, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Maybe, but also consider it is on the eve of the primary there. That debate might have been the last thing they were waiting for before deciding.

Nothing wrong with pudding. The whole primary election thing is likely only his ticket to more delicious pudding. I’ll wager the fellow is a butterscotch man.

Nothing to see here… move along.

P.S. Can’t wait for tomorrow to be over so the parking lots filled with out of state plates ( Mostly NY ) will be gone. I live on the NH line, and do all my daily chores in Salem.

SHAME the way I was treated. Real shame.

In the first clip, he’s promoting McCain. In the second, he’s promoting Romney

Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard.

For example, they all loved Mitt. What if this guy that travels and isnt from NH would have said “Well I really think Fred did better than what everyone else said” we would be saying that he truely represents the nations since he isnt from NH. I dont know, move on nothing to see here.

It’s also not the first time the Clinton machine has been spotted shipping its crowds in from outside. It’s one of their oldest tricks.

It’s Politics 101. You always contain the crowd in as tight an area as possible so it seems that the candidate is really popular. Failing that you ship supporters in to augment the locals. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Hillary plants were told to scream and shout and act like they were happy beyond belief. Gotta be pretty demoralizing to be a Clinton supporter this week.