Why Iraq And Romney Won The Republican Debate

I watched the Republican debate via Fox News.com and took advantage of the ability to watch it with the so-called People Meter which gave a running response from two focus group's reactions to the candidates as they spoke by graphically presenting a mean number. There were two lines, one for moderates, one for conservatives.

Putting the candidates aside for a moment, what I saw was that when the message was win in Iraq, it didn't matter which candidate was saying it - the numbers for both conservatives and moderates went through the roof. And the stronger the talk, the higher the mean number. The only other issues that came close were immigration and taxes - the more talk there was of lower taxes, the higher the meter went. And moderates, as well as conservatives, wanted straight, tough talk on illegal immigration, as well.

As for the candidates, I tried to put my own responses aside and simply concentrated on the numbers as the candidates replied. And I noted it by candidate over time to get a sense of, over all, who appeared to do best and who did the worst, putting aside Ron Paul.

Rudy did not resonate consistently with the focus group, not at all. If you judge this debate by these numbers, he didn't live up to the expectations of a front runner. McCain may have excelled on Iraq and Iran, but over all, he didn't resonate well with moderates, or conservatives through much of the debate.

Based solely on my viewing the flow of the numbers from start to finish - on average, I honestly believe Romney resonated most strongly with the most people, conservative and moderate, in terms of the over all debate. His biggest weakness was on Iraq. His responses were too nuanced. If he had more of the straight talk of McCain or Hunter on that issue, my guess is he would have won the thing hands down.

Again, this is all based upon Luntz's so called People Meter, or focus group approach. I tried to take my own views out of it as much as possible and just focus on the graphics.

Comments

[tally]

well, i will say this, my biggest surprise was duncan hunter. from the few questions he got to answer, i think i really liked him. is he a leper, or do the people on the hill and in the media have their own agenda. i liked it when romney had to answer first, then i felt like i got a true answer. otherwise, it was like he just jumped on the bandwagon. he struck me as a follower, not a leader. i have to disagree with you on this one, no way he won. my main man rudy, didn't do as well as i would have liked. he better step it up. huckabee had me for a while, then he and brownback (with we the broke iraq comments) managed to offend me. ron paul sucks and fox gave him far to much time, in the usual fox tabloid drama queen style. otherwise, i thought their questions were much better than the ones given in the democrat's debate. i don't know if anybody really "won", good thing is, it's still early. i think romney and rudy lost a few points, mccain gained a few, perhaps huckabee. mean time i'm going to the duncan hunter website to check him out.

[CK MacLeod]

"Again, this is all based upon Luntz's so called People Meter, or focus group approach. I tried to take my own views out of it as much as possible and just focus on the graphics."

What's the justification for privileging the pander-meters so heavily. They tell you how a focus group, knowing its reactions are being measured, reacts in the present. They don't tell you what lasting or overall impressions are being formed, if any. Richard Nixon may very well have done better on the pander-meters than John K Kennedy, with no room to register reactions to each candidate's presence and personality on the whole.

Not that the pander-meters don't tell you anything, just that they at most tell you one thing, or one kind of thing, about a debate. We all know that Romney's a better salesman, but the fact that he strokes people better may not mean that, in the end, he's the guy they want to marry for President.

[Dan Riehl]

"What's the justification for privileging the pander-meters so heavily"

I don't feel a need to "justify" my blog posts. And why would my opinion be something so much more special than any one else's on one debate? The technology was there and it gave me an opportunity to take a look at the debate through a different lens. And that's what I opted to do.

Your points aren't out of line, you might be correct. But as long as I write this blog, how or what I post doesn't require any justification beyond my posting what I choose to post.

I told someone I watched the debate with that, whatever you think, two days from now, the winner may be considered to be someone other than who it appeared to be tonight. I wouldn't be surprised to see the MSM latch back onto McCain and make him the winner. They love building people up and also tearing them down. They've done both to McCain and may want to have a go at bringing him back to life, politically.

Time will tell.

[CK MacLeod]

Sheesh - you don't have to take it personally. It goes without saying that you can blog whatever you want to blog.

You didn't say "here's my experiment" - you titled your post "Why Iraq and Romney Won...." I'm disagreeing that registering at high levels on the pander-meters is the same as winning the debate.

Next time, I'll remember to include more flattery, or maybe I just won't bother to comment at all, if that's your preference.

[Dan Riehl]

"Next time, I'll remember to include more flattery"

COOL!! ; ) It's late and I'm tired, that's all. No offense. But I laid out precisely what I did, didn't see a need to justify it, somehow. Sorry, that's just how I read your comment.

[bnelson44]

After the debate Luntz interviews the group and more seemed to side with McCain after the debate. Interesting.

[CK MacLeod]

No big. I still dig your blog - and so handsome, too! Keep on trucking.

[Dan Riehl]

more seemed to side with McCain

Yes, I've been reading that. I wonder if it's because he closed well? For the first hour, he hardly got the meter up over 50 - 60. Seriously, it was pretty clear how flat he was doing, but he did hit it hard at the end on Iraq and gov spending. But watching the conservative meter, the guy will never convert many of them imo.

[CK MacLeod]

Well, not to belabor the point or anything, but it's possible that McCain's overall performance, and also his direct confrontation with Romney on certainty about whether the surge is working, left a stronger impression than showed up in real-time on the PMs.

In 25 years, they'll be able to plug the PMs directly into focus group participants' cerebral interface sockets, and thus measure in multiple dimensions.

[Dan Riehl]

In 25 years, they'll

Yeah, but we'll still be electing idiots with big bucks who are part of the large political machines. ; ))

[Fred Beloit]

SeeKay, did you invent that disparaging term, pander-meter? Or did one of the koskids? This is one of the elements of propaganda progressives have added as a part of progress, emotion- and agenda-laden words designed to be repeated over and over in order to slant and spin . You know, like affirmative action for discrimination against caucs, ecomomic terrorism for capitalism, hate speech for using words some don't like to hear, etc., etc.

I'm not shilling for the meter, it is just one more way to try to gauge the reaction of an audience. Just curious.

[seekeronos]

Here's the thing with "the machine" ...:

The Machine™ grooms certain people who are likely to have the broadest appeal, especially in the "overlap" between the Republican left, and the Blue-Dog Democrats, and still be able to pull the center, and not alienate the conservatives and the "evangelicals".

It's a much harder sell this time around, if only because the gears and the skids have been greased far in advance of any other presidential primary, and all the dirt-digging and obfuscation and the raining down of much "bravo sierra" by all sides as that old worthy blogger Daisy Cutter might have said in years past...

I think that none of the major candidates (Rudi, Mitt, and McBane) are capable of shooting the "full spread" needed to effectively gather the fullest spectrum of (R) faithful, much less sway too many Blue Dogs much less any (D) faithful who are disillusioned with their choices of the Silky Pony, Hitlary's Blue Hsu, or Obama Bin Madrassa.

Hunter _does_ have appeal, but certainly no where nears the star power (or IMO, staying power) of the Big Three... although, he might have success in a 2012 or much more so 2016 run if he gets picked as a VP choice. If Hunter is wise as he is in his rhetoric and is truly grounded in what he preaches, he might be able to partially or even wholly redeem the weaknesses of a Mitt presidency. McBane and Rudi are too hooked into the globalist agenda to pay their would-be VP much mind on immigration though, something which Hunter has sounded out against. Plus, "Hunter 20xx" has a kind of a ring to it. In fact, (try not to imagine the man's face) with the right marketing, a "hunter" for the highest office in the land could be made nearly sexy and glamourous. "Hunter... rawr!"

Huckabee is (IMO) slightly less appealing than Hunter, and faces the same lack of star power as Hunter. For similar reasons, he might make a good VP choice, but would face a bit of a hard time marketing himself after a McBane or Mitt presidency, unless that presidency left a suitable legacy behind it for Huckabee to work from. And the name game: short of some serious policy that makes "Huckabee" a brand name... the misfortune of having a name that reminds people of a Hanna-Barbera cartoon character or a rare South American honeybee bars him from the highest office in much the same way as having a name that rhymes with (Caspar) Weinberger or (Henry) Kissinger might have prevented the aspirations of those old worthies... there are only a few trisyllabic names that have gone on to having the title of POTUS. He has the sort of surname issues that Dennis Kuchinich has - in that when I hear Kuchinich's name, I think he's a left wing _kitchen_ implement sold on a late night infomercial. "Kuchinich: He dices, he splices, he juliennes... and makes socialist policies - can be yours for the low price of $19.99. Call now, operators are standing by!"

As for the "Fred!"... One Syllable, star power (both Hollywood as political), and popular appeal to boot.

I think from a marketing perspective... a Fred Thompson / Duncan Hunter campaign could definitely put a Hitlary/Obamallama campaign squarely on the defensive, if not on the run.

[jj]

...Obamallama....

Now who does that remind me of? LOL, nice one, seek!

[CK MacLeod]

Fred, as far as I know I DID invent the term "pander-meter," but I reject your suggestion that there's anything remotely KosKidz-like about the term. I find Luntz's approach reductive. It emphasizes and reinforces a lowest common denominator, instant gratification, unreflective and non-intellectual aspect of political discussion. I don't think we should or can eliminate the emotional, gut-level response to a politician or political statements, but I'm not sure that the pander-meters even measure that very effectively. They provide one stream of dubious data and they tend to favor the pander bears - that's about it, in my opinion.

[nowingker]

People use focus groups because they work. People use emotional arguments because they work better than intellectual ones.

It is a fact of life now in America that candidates are packaged sold like products at the national level. Presidential candidates most of all. You will stil find plenty of authentic characters at the local level, mayors, DAs, state reps who reflect their constituents, the further up the food chain you go, the more packaging you get.

[seekeronos]

"--- the further up the food chain you go, the more packaging you get. ---"

Which of course, implies that at some point, the law of diminishing returns sets in, and you wind up with someone who is completely plastic and styrofoam and glossy photos... all packaging, and utterly no substance.

Like Hitlary and her multi-billion dollar slush fund courtesy of Norman Hsu, or the Silky Pony and his 26,000 sq.ft. hacienda and SUV he'll never give up for the sake of Mother Gaea!

[LOL]

you are so out of touch with the American public, it's amusing to watch

[TheSpartan]

"This is one of the elements of propaganda progressives have added as a part of progress, emotion- and agenda-laden words designed to be repeated over and over in order to slant and spin."

This technique existed long before Kos was even a thought. Remember Newt's list of power/attack phrases?