<p>Yes, Frank Luntz manipulates polls to show the results Republicans want. Republicans want Obama to be the Democratic candidate. Look him up- it is no secret. I am not saying that Obama isn’t a good candidate- I plan to vote for him. I am saying that you shouldn’t take Luntz polls seriously.</p>
<p>Didn’t Luntz say Thompson was the winner of one debate right before Thompson was trounced?</p>
<p>“Yes, Frank Luntz manipulates polls to show the results Republicans want.”</p>
<p>How did he manipulate the poll? Did he convince ~50 individuals to lie on national TV?</p>
<p>"
How did he manipulate the poll? Did he bring in ~50 individuals to lie on national TV?"</p>
<p>No, but he may have brought in people that weren’t exactly as “undecided” as they’d like to make them appear to have been.</p>
<p>Also, the type of people that Fox News will bring in lean more to the right, people who apparently like Obama more and are more likely to hate Hillary more.</p>
<p>So…</p>
<p>He chooses the focus group. They are not randomly chosen, you know.
Seriously- read up on him- he’s not impartial. That’s why he’s the favorite pollster of Faux News!</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>So he jeopardizes his entire reputation and livelihood by rigging polls? Okay, I can understand that ;)</p>
<p>Frank Luntz is not independent. He’s been helping Republican candidates craft their message for years.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>No pollster is independent. That hardly equates to not having integrity.
Celinda Lake is a highly respected pollster and has been crafting policy for the Demarcates for yrs. But I would never accuse her of rigging polls. Besides being a Smith grad 
she has the utmost integrity </p>
<p>Personally, I didn’t care who won the debate.</p>
<p>I was impressed with both of them. I especially liked the fact that they stopped sniping and started a real discussion.</p>
<p>See, for example, Luntz’ Republican Playbook:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001185.php#1185[/url]”>http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001185.php#1185</a></p>
<p>“Frank Luntz is the Framing Lord of the American right-wing. For years he has spearheaded the effort to frame the issues and create a language to be used by Republican operatives in the fight for policy and ideological supremacy.”
<a href=“http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001179.php[/url]”>http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001179.php</a></p>
<p>I don’t disagree with the above statement. But nowhere on the Politicalstrategy.org website does it accuse that he riggs polls or is dishonest. Framing issues and rigging polls are two separate issues.</p>
<p>Celinda Lake provides the same service to the Democratic party. Is she dishonest too?</p>
<p><a href=“lakesnellperry.com - This website is for sale! - lakesnellperry Resources and Information.”>lakesnellperry.com;
<p>I was taken aback by how civil and constructive the debate tonight was.</p>
<p>A couple of things hit me:</p>
<p>1) It looked like someone sat them both down and told them to stop fighting each other and talk about the issues.</p>
<p>2) In comparison to the Republican debate of last night, they mentioned the other party maybe twice. They talked substantively about the issues, and about their vision for America.</p>
<p>When I watch these debates, the Republicans come across as a bunch of angry old men, squabbling with each other about their own little pet issues. Clinton and Obama looked like real leaders, making their case for their own visions of the America of tomorrow.</p>
<p>Unless the tone of the Republicans changes, I’ll go right ahead and say that the Democratic candidates are being far better leaders, and will win the election.</p>
<p>Hillary cackled very loudly and nervously. I think it was when Wolf asked her how she would handle Bill if she won, when she couldn’t even handle him during the campaign. I think she said she would lock him in the basement.</p>
<p>Oh wait. That was a dream. I fell asleep after the first ten times she said that she “would be ready to be president as of Day One”. If she says that one more time I think I will scream…:eek:</p>
<p>(.although Obama countered that one very well. He questioned her judgment as of Day One. 
)</p>
<p>I was impressed with both of them tonight. Go Dems!!</p>
<p>As someone who leans to the right, the one candidate that I thought the Republicans should be concerned with was Edwards. He screwed up his message, but I think that it was a message that actually would have resonated with the American people if he said it the right (correct) way.</p>
<p>This isn’t wishful thinking. I really don’t think that either Clinton or Obama have a prayer of winning in November against McCain…and I say that as someone who is not a big fan of McCain.</p>
<p>They behaved? Oh, man! I skipped the debate tonight because, after watching the Republicans snipe at one another the other night, I just didn’t have the heart to watch Clinton and Obama bicker like children. I knew I could come here and get an intelligent and broad-ranging report on the debates. Now, I’m watching the re-run on CNN, even as I type this post. </p>
<p>Wow, they are virtually holding hands and singing Kumbaya:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL and agreed!</p>
<p>And as I said elsewhere, if she is the nominee, she is going to rue the day she ever claimed she was the better candidate based upon experience because of what McCain will do with that. I like Obama’s new rejoinder: what matters is who is RIGHT on Day One. </p>
<p>I am also sick of her talking about her 35 years of experience. She is basically saying that her experience started when she graduated from Yale Law School and that everything she has done since then counts as presidential experience which is absurd. A lot of that time she was just a lawyer in a Little Rock law firm (and getting into trouble over billing records, as I recall). She had never held an elected office until 2000. I’m certainly not saying Obama has longer experience–how could he, he is 15 years her junior–but her claims are just flimsy.</p>
<p>That being said, she is intelligent, extremely well-spoken, and so well-versed on the issues. I still don’t think she should be president, but to have a prominent place in the Obama administration ;)…absolutely. Especially if she divorces Bill first.</p>