Fascinating Discussion About C-SPAN Focus Group of Likely Voters

[kentuck]

Brian Lamb had a reporter on to discuss a focus group from the Philadelphia area. Several reporters were behind a hidden window observing Peter Hart asking questions of a cross section of voters.
Out of 12 voters chosen for the group, only one could name as many as six of the Democratic candidates from their pictures. One person could not name even one! Most could name 3 or 4. These were all voters. What does this portend for the election in 2004?

Several callers made the point that they were shocked that there were so many "uninformed" voters in America. None even mentioned the Wilson spy story. The scary part of the whole story was that this is the majority of America that is uninformed. Almost two-thirds raised their hands when asked how many got their news from television? The others said they read the newspapers. One did say that he/she got his news fromt he Internet. Obviously, none were reading or watching very closely.

The truth to be gleaned from the group was that our media is failing in their mission to inform the population. Intentional or not, they are failing. The reporter guest commented that many voters vote from impressions only. There is no depth of analysis on the issues. He used Arnold as an example. Even though he refused to answer questions from the press, he did run ads showing a huge wrecking ball falling on an automobile, as proof that he would get rid of the car tax. It was that simplified.

The scary part and the challenge for the Democrats is to find a way to inform the public. During the show, the host showed a cover of one of the weekly magazines, with the main story about "A NASCAR NATION." Do most voters know more about race cars than they do about the issues? But I think the Democrats should keep the heat on the media for not informing the American public. The reporter said that until the more than two-thirds that still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 drops to one-third, it is likely tha George Bush will win the next election. That is our challenge.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. Man, Those People Were Morons!

They knew NOTHING! They couldn't add 2+2 either. 12 idiots in the same room proudly displaying their ignorance and inability to analyze information.

A depressing site!
The Professor

[kentuck]

3. Professor, I fear this is the norm...

They will get an impression from a TV ad teh day before the election and they will go and vote on that impression. They do not care, or they do not have the time to care, or they think it does not matter.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. I Wouldn't Dispute That, At All, Kentuck

That's why it's depressing! Not only uninformed, but stupid to boot!
The Professor

[janekat]

26. Uh-oh be careful...You'll be called an "elitist" snob like I was

the other day.

[realFedUp]

2. I was stunned when one or two couldn't name any of the Dem candidates

Now that is really uninformed IMO.

[librechik]

6. Brian is really drooling over that segment

over and over and over. Oh, look how bad the Dems are doing! What a shame <snicker> What do you think of that Dick?

dang liberal media

[bearfartinthewoods]

10. any mention of a weekend repeat???????

[bicentennial_baby]

4. Oh man, I saw that

I was flipping thru the channels last night, and that focus group was on. Yikes!

The best was when they rated their support of Bush on a scale of 1-10, and then were asked what they thought Bush needed to do better at. This one woman said that *'s rating was a 10, and that he did'nt need to improve a thing...Then she goes "Well, he went to Yale, so he's obviously smart enought to be president" :puke:

[KittyWampus]

8. I Also Watched The Focus Group-They Weren't All "Stupid"

One woman who had a child in school said she was a Republican who was going to be voting for ANY Democrat for President.

She mentioned how her County was heavy Republican and that there were Republicans running for School Board who were just using it as stepping stone to higher political office- they had NO regard for the children's welfare.

This woman gave Junoir a "2" and was quite convinced she wouldn't be voting for him again.

[kainah]

24. I agree, cryingshame

I watched the whole focus group today and I don't think, as a group, they were any less informed than what I would expect to find in a fairly random group of people. I thought it was extremely interesting and showed how much "benefit of the doubt" a lot of people are willing to give * and also how much doubt there is out there.

I saw a little of the C-SPAN Washington Journal segment and that reporter, who wrote a piece for this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer on the focus group, and Brian Lamb seemed to be spinning it against the dems.

What I heard from those people is that, about 2 of them are brain-dead, forget about 'em, die-hard pugs, that 1 (the student) believes he wants to be a bushite but some things gnaw at him, about 4 of them had very serious doubts but, for now, they don't know of an alternative, with the rest convinced there has to be an alternative.

You should be able to find this on-line. It's well worth watching if you want to get beyond "they're so stupid." Yeah, I'm surprised they couldn't identify more of the Dem candidates but, before I judge that, I'd like to see them have pix of 9 cabinet members and see how many they know.

[kodi]

7. it shows that direct democracy is NOT the way to run a country

i can not understand how an adult can be so ignorant about the world around them.

those folks were a bunch of comfortable numbnuts

[ShimokitaJer]

9. I wonder how they find these "focus groups" in the first place

Do they just run down to the mall and ask people to come in? Do they call people at home and ask them to participate? Do they screen people for certain biases like they do for jury selection? How were these twelve "chosen?"

How many of you have enough free time in your daily schedule to take a few hours to participate in this kind of focus group? How many of you are out of your workplace often enough to be located by these interviewers?

A poll's results are only as valid as its response pool and a focus group's opinions are only as valid as its members' representativeness. Twelve people? Give me a fuckin' break.

[kentuck]

11. That question was asked....

All were registered voters. There were 3 Independents in the lot and the others split between Dems and Repubs. They were from a voting district that was also evenly split between the two major Parties. Whether or not they were representative of that district is debatable but I am inclined to think they probably are - much like the rest of the nation.

[ShimokitaJer]

14. I don't deny they attempted to balance party loyalty

I am questioning the criteria they looked at in choosing to identify this group as "representative." Did they choose to focus on race? or economic class? Did they try to find people of various ages or fields of work?

My point is that even polls conducted with a very large sampling and the most stringent polling techniques are prone to error. There is no way a group of twelve people can be considered representative of the voting population of a district, much less a city, much less a state, much less our country.

I personally think the American people are uneducated about politics, but focus groups are a lousy way to determine that fact. The fact that their ignorance was used to support the idea that the Democratic candidates have a recognition problem is even more problematic. If those same twelve people were asked to name any Republican senator I doubt they would be able to do so... and I doubt that would be taken as evidence that the Republican party was in trouble.

[Wapsie B]

13. Exactly.

If this focus group were rigged how would anyone find out? Something just smells rotten here. This is better than a dozen attack ads. Get together a "balanced" focus group and deflate the Democratic base. Brilliant.

[Yupster]

16. I have been in two focus groups

I got called at home out of the blue both times. Each time they said I was chosen for demographic reasons, and I got about 100 bucks (?) each time to spend half a day at a hotel.

One was to watch tv commercials for some safety campaign thing the state was doing.

The second was more interesting. It was a group of lawyers who were filing a suit for some telephone workers who were fired. They wanted to run their arguments by some sample juries, so that's what we were. We listened to the lawyers who came in and made formal arguments in business suits and then we gave our opinions. It was pretty interesting. They didn't have a case, and we told them that, but there was one very stupid woman who might have gotten them a hung jury in our group. I didn't know lawyers did this kind of thing till I participated in it.

[HFishbine]

22. I participated in one

To evaluate marketing ideas for a sugarless gum. Want to know how I got "selected?"

A friend at work had a friend who worked at the research company and told me I could make an extra $50 for an hour of my time. All I had to do was say yes and she made the call. Apparently, she also participated in several herself each week. The point being that this company, at least, didn't do any kind of screening, it was just first-come, first-in.

[kainah]

25. They would have been prescreened

and they probably got paid a modest amount for their time. I've been asked to do things like this in the past ... one focus group for a political campaign and once to serve on a mock jury before a trial. (I've also been polled & audited -- twice -- by the IRS. I think these things have a higher chance of happening if you live in sparsely populated areas.) But, in both those circumstances, I received modest payment. $50, if memory serves. But I was happy to do it because I thought both experiences were very interesting and educational. I don't think you would have a hard time finding people willing to do it and, with good scientific technique, you should be able to find a good, representative cross-section. Both Peter Hart and the Annenberg Center, which sponsored it, are enormously reputable and I believe it was a very balanced panel.

[loyalsister]

12. Not surprising

Not everyone is a political junkie. People have busy lives to attend to. I think that people will pay closer attention to the candidates as the local campaigns get going.

"The reporter said that until the more than two-thirds that still believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 drops to one-third, it is likely that George Bush will win the next election. That is our challenge."
This I agree with. They worked that propaganda artfully. The worst part of it is that they have gotten away with telling people they didn't do it on purpose. The poor dumb pres. couldn't have done it on purpose.
It's much like the "partial birth abortion" bill. The very fact that they have gotten away with using that name speaks volumes. They have been better at simplifying and propagandizing. It's all in the language. We need to get better at reducing the language so that it is mutually understood by more people. It's got to be more memorable so that it sells better.

[SavageWombat]

15. Wait for the real election season

I don't think anyone, outside of big primary states, cares about the primary race. In states like Kansas, for example, we have no say in who gets picked; so it's irrelevant.

When a Democratic candidate is actually chosen, you'll see a lot more people become familiar with him very quickly.

[Yupster]

17. Every election

you'll hear people say they wish there were better choices to vote for for president. Ask them if they voted in the primaries and they'll say, "what are that?"

[janekat]

28. LOL!!

n/t

[corarose]

18. Have you ever been to a focus group?

The way that they pick you is to pre-screen you.

I can bet the farm that they wanted a certain type of person for that group to further black box voting vote stealing.

I would be suspicious about anything that they show on cable even C-Span.

[otohara]

33. Once I Did A Focus Group - GMO Foods

I was the only woman in our group who knew about frankenfoods. The commercials were flags, farmers, children being cured of blindness. Yuck, looked like Bush commercials - it was in 2000

[spooky3]

19. is this a dupe?

See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=582309

[cally]

20. Must see TV for political junkies

I think these are normal voters, uninformed but not stupid. Many had heard information but had not applied it yet to form opinions on candidates. I saw so many openings for a good Democratic candidate. We can take on * on so many issues. I think many of us here could have persuaded every one of these voters to vote Dem

[librechik]

21. I agree--they were just uninformed--Huge opportunity here for

independent media if we could figure how to get to them.We'd have to go "around the filter" like Bush says. But they don't do internet, for the most part.

Leaflet campaigns anyone?

[kentuck]

23. Perhaps we need to simplify our message?

:shrug:

[janekat]

30. I think so.

n/t

[janekat]

27. used to run focus groups and also used to poll people THIS is not unusual

trust me... this is NOT an isolated case. THESE are average Americuns.

[janekat]

29. For focus groups and polling you are supposed to pick people

"randomly." One out of every 100 names out of the phone book or something. If it is NOT done randomly - you'd be "ripped apart." No reputable marketing company would do a focus group or poll that wan't done randomly - you'd be a "laughing stock."

[kainah]

31. polls might be random, focus groups are not

I don't think you're right, janekat. When you put together a focus group, you want people who are likely to represent their larger communities. So you don't want to go out on the street and just grab 12 people. After all, if you grabbed me or any DUer and the people who are near us, chances are you've just gotten a pretty heavy dose of far left ideology. Instead, you very carefully screen -- as Hart did -- to make sure you have 12 people who represent the breakdown of the community. You don't select people for their opinions on the issues you are discussing but you do select them to be representative of their demographic.

[Gloria]

32. This group was not "rigged" but the spin probably was!! Peter Hart

is a long time Dem pollster. (In fact,when I worked at Gallup in the late 70's, my fellow study director went to work in DC for Hart--he was up and coming and had a fabulous reputation even then).

This info was being collected for the Annenberg Institue at the U of P...the woman who heads it often on TV and often criticizing the media. This may be part of another study on how poorly people are informed.
And if Hart is still working for the Dems, this info should get back to them, as well. I did hear some "right wing radio" spin comments being repeated, which just goes to show you how they create images that stick.

After watching the whole thing, I was amazed that only 1, 2 at most said they were definitely voting for Bush in 2004. The rest were on the fence, not ready to commit at all to him. The economy really came to the fore at the end.