Skip to main content

View Diary: Faux News Frank Luntz caught using the same person for "focus group" (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think this is true (17+ / 0-)

    The video says these were from 2 different states, but never says what state the first one is from.

    But a simple search of the date (Sept 5, 2007) shows that it was the day of the Republican debate in New Hampshire, which is where the 2nd focus group was conducted.

    So it's just false that these were from 2 different states.  You really need that in order to say it's an "actor" and not just the same undecided voter.

    •  2 different states deleted. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth, jnhobbs, leonard145b

      Good looking out.

      "The blood of our nation's youth, all too often, is spilt as if it can wipe away the policy sins of the Congress and the President." ~Ron Paul, 11/1998

      by Jason43 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:23:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Links, please? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Natural Anthem, leonard145b

      let's drill down and get all the proof.

      Plant is still a plant.

      skiddly bop doo wow!

      by skiddlybop on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:23:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good eye.... n/t (0+ / 0-)

      " Freedom is about authority "...Rudy Giuliani

      by jnhobbs on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:26:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, this appears to be a load of BS (9+ / 0-)

      That YouTube video made some extraordinary claims -- most notably "paid actor" -- without a shred of evidence to back it up.

      Extraodrinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

      From viewing that video on YouTube, I don't even see "ordinary" evidence.  It doesn't strike me as the least bit odd that the same undecided voter a few months ago would be undecided a few months later.

      There is no there there.  Unless there's real evidence, this does not belong on the rec list.

      •  actually the opposite (4+ / 0-)

        Though I did think it was a large group fpr a focus group. And there may be have been some selection bias based on their screening questions.

        But it's totally appropraite - even better - to observe the same people over time and see how they react to events and candidates.
        Better than bringing in new people, where you don't have any baseline and you don't know what you're measuring.

        I don't see any evidence to support the 'paid actor' claim at all.

        There's been a lot of claims thrown around dkos lately and we need to be careful about what we are doing, no matter which side we're on. It's understandable because we're all worked up and the stakes are so high. But we need to get it right.
        Or we'll hurt the site and hurt what we care about imho.

        •  The paid actor part seems bogus. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annalivia

          But, using the same participants over is OK if you are up front about it.

          And, it would make sense to define, for methodological purposes, r what an "undecided" voter is, and how these people were selected. That is the researcher's job.

          The thing about undecideds, is that they go stale once they start forming opinions and stating them publicly on a national TV broadcast.

          And mixing people with prior experience with new ones would really taint the study.

          •  right (0+ / 0-)

            in principle there's nothing wrong with using the same person more than once, and depending on your objective it may be better. You need to be upfront, yes.
            And it depends on your field of research and your research question. Qualitative research is important, and often discounted by other researchers. But if done well it captures beliefs and behaviors that quantitive cannot reach.

            Undecideds go stale but they don't always admit they are forming opinions. Sometimes that's because they are being paid. Sometimes the undecideds themselves don't realize they are forming opinions or at least reaching conclusions.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (142)
  • Community (69)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Elections (37)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Climate Change (30)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (29)
  • Science (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Media (21)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Spam (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (18)
  • White House (15)
  • International (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site