Frank Luntz' on Koch Poll: "It wasn't a poll, it was a random question, pay no attention"

[eleganz]

Frank Luntz' on Koch Poll: "It wasn't a poll, it was a random question, pay no attention"

We have another thread, linking politico claiming that Rubio won a poll conducted by Frank Luntz and Rand came in last.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467604-Rubio-wins-Koch-Straw-Poll-Rand-comes-in-Last

Seemed like many RPF members bought into it too and quickly hopped on the "Attack Frank Luntz" because Politico Reported some whacky shit from secret sources but didn't bother to ask Luntz himself. I thought it was fishy and I looked it up.


That was never the case, according to another article that actually quotes Frank Luntz on this specific issue:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-28/rand-paul-s-difficult-romance-with-kochworld

Many, including Bloomberg Politics' Michael Bender and Julie Bykowicz, had reported that Florida Senator Marco Rubio did himself the most good. Vogel and Parti reported on a "straw poll" that determined the extent of Paul's problem, conducted by Frank Luntz in a breakout session.

"Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul—who received the least enthusiastic response from donors during a Sunday night forum of prospective candidates that also featured Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz—finished last in Luntz’s poll," they reported.

"It wasn't a poll," wrote Luntz over e-mail. "It was a random question. It doesn't deserve any attention. It was only to a few people."

Luntz just asked some donors who showed up to his session who'd impressed them most. Yet the "few" apparently amounted to more than 100 people; in the wake of the event, not many people are following Luntz's distinction between an actual focus group and a quick read of the room. It doesn't change the basic truth that Paul did not blow away the donors, despite a steady campaign to portray himself as the natural choice of libertarians.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

bump

 

[Uriah]

Hmm

 

[idiom]

Dunno why rand hasn't hired Luntz yet. If only to keep him off the table, but the movement could really do with a proper wordsmith on our team.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I forgot why everyone here dislikes Luntz. Was it those Fox News focus group polls showing Ron Paul wasn't the most popular candidate in the debates in 2007?

 

[cajuncocoa]

I forgot why everyone here dislikes Luntz. Was it those Fox News focus group polls showing Ron Paul wasn't the most popular candidate in the debates in 2007?

It shouldn't surprise anyone here why Ron wouldn't win a popularity contest with Fox News viewers.

 

[specsaregood]

Dunno why rand hasn't hired Luntz yet. If only to keep him off the table, but the movement could really do with a proper wordsmith on our team.

recall this?

 

[LawnWake]

I respect Luntz. When he was interviewed on Penn & Teller's show, he was pretty much upfront about how his job is making up numbers. He didn't try to BS anyone.

 

[jllundqu]

Luntz is a tool who makes an art out of propaganda. He is no friend to this movement.

 

[LawnWake]

Luntz is a tool who makes an art out of propaganda. He is no friend to this movement.

You need people like that for successful campaigns. It's a sad reality, but that's how you win over average voters. Most people fall for sophism, so you need a good sophist to convince them to vote for our guy. There's nothing to gain from trying to only convince voters with solid voting records and intellectual honesty. We've seen it in 2008 and 2012; the media doesn't know how to sell that and most voters like bitesized nuggets of information that are said prettily.

 

[specsaregood]

Dunno why rand hasn't hired Luntz yet. If only to keep him off the table, but the movement could really do with a proper wordsmith on our team.

While it might actually be a good idea and he could be a useful tool; I fear the reaction from many of his father's supporters would be similar to him choosing Mr. Benton as a running mate.

 

[idiom]

Luntz never betrayed us, he was a weapon actively used against us. He is the best propagandist on the right. By a lot.

Why is it so terrible to use propaganda tools to craft the message of truth so that people listen to it instead of having it bounce off their heads.

The main tools he uses are selecting words based on unconscious associations, not conscious ones.

Ron Paul got all the people who will listen to rational ideas and change their minds. To get the rest you two options.

Option 1, sound compromisey - Like Rand is doing, where what he sounds like he is saying and what he does are worlds apart.

Option 2, use propaganda tools to appeal to irrational minds for your positions - Luntz.

How would you like to get an emotionally positive reaction from black people when you talk about states rights? We are talking about economic and political efficiency, but all they hear is defense of slavery and racism. The words need to change, not the concept.

How about reforming social security? Ain't nobody that wants that. Everybody wants social security to be fixed though. The messaging is wrong.

Or how about the NSA? There is not a single rational argument in support of the NSA. So why does it have such high approval ratings? Emotional appeals based on subconscious inter-connections.

Luntz is a weapon, one of the best. Why don't we want the best weapons fighting for liberty instead of against it?

 

[LawnWake]

I appreciate idealism to a degree, but there's a certain degree of idealism that I think Ron Paul supporters show by their unwillingness to use certain sophist/propagandist tools to. I would agree that I'd prefer to live in a society where sophistry and propaganda do not work. I don't think anyone is stupid, or any of that. But you can't just use any tool for any situation. It needs to be one crafted to do a particular job. And we need to approach reality the way it is: and in this reality that we live in, we have a society that is more sensitive to sophistry than to reason. And all the reason in the world won't change people's minds. If we have to adapt to people's language to create a less violent, more just world. Then I think it would be wise for us to do that.

 

[devil21]

That old canard about the Koch bros being libertarians still circulates, even in conservative circles??? I mean, the Dems have always had a woody for them as an easy meme of "big business" conservatives (while ignoring Bloomberg and Soros, of course) but I've yet to see much of anything indicating the Koch bros truly are libertarians.