Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    Frank Luntz: Undecideds in VP Debate Focus Group Found Kamala Harris ‘Abrasive and Condescending’

    Frank Luntz: Undecideds in VP Debate Focus Group Found Kamala Harris ‘Abrasive and Condescending’

    “if this is a battle over style and substance … this was Mike Pence’s night”

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6198582029001#sp=show-clips
    Listen to this article

    If you watched the vice presidential debate this week, you may have noticed that Kamala Harris often seemed agitated and nervous. This presented itself physically in her facial expressions, nervous laughter, and attitude.

    According to pollster and analyst Frank Luntz, this did not go over well with the undecided voters in his focus group.

    To be fair, they weren’t exactly thrilled about Vice President Pence, but they saw him as more presidential, and Luntz has concluded that Pence won the night.

    Yael Halon reports at FOX News:

    Undecided voters found Harris ‘abrasive, condescending’ in vice presidential debate: Frank Luntz

    Voters found Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris to be “abrasive and condescending” at various points throughout Wednesday’s debate with Vice President Mike Pence, pollster Frank Luntz told the Fox News reaction panel.

    “The complaint about Kamala Harris was that she was abrasive and condescending,” said Luntz, who monitored the reactions of 15 undecided voters from eight battleground states throughout the evening.

    “The complaint about Mike Pence was that he was too tired, but [he was] vice presidential, or presidential,” added Luntz, who went on to say that “if this is a battle over style and substance — which is often the case with undecided voters because they simply do not choose on policy, they also choose on persona — this was Mike Pence’s night.”

    Luntz clarified that “it’s not that Pence did so well, it’s that they [voters] felt both candidates were not answering the questions as well as they would have liked.”

    Watch the video clip below:

    Luntz made similar points about Pence on CNBC. Kevin Stankiewicz reports:

    GOP pollster: Pence beat Harris in debate not for what he said but how he said it

    GOP pollster Frank Luntz told CNBC on Thursday that his 15-person focus group of undecided voters felt Vice President Mike Pence performed better than Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris in the vice presidential debate.

    “All but two of them felt that Mike Pence won the debate,” Luntz said on “Squawk Box.” “I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that he did, and he did not because of what he talked about, but how he communicated.”

    In particular, Luntz said he believes Pence was well-received by participants because in Wednesday night’s debate in Utah, he cut a sharp contrast to how President Donald Trump performed in his brawl against Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Luntz stressed that voters are looking for more than just where candidates stand on particular issues.

    I commented about Harris’s body language during the debate:

    She doesn’t seem to realize how distracting and annoying this behavior is.

    Featured image via FOX News video.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    There are no true undecided in the country right now. The ideology of the two campaigns is simply too polarized. The only block of undecideds out there are those who have not yet decided if they are going to vote or not.

    CommoChief: Ok since you have switched topics …

    Our original comment, and to which you replied, was “Justices, who must represent all Americans, should be approved by general consensus, not on highly divisive votes.”

    CommoChief: How many Senators would indicate wide support? 50+ what number?

    A general consensus. The president’s nominations should be given deference, and the president should choose nominees that can garner support from both sides of the aisle. If the courts become just another political branch, it will undermine the integrity of equal protection and the rule of law.


       
       0 
       
       0
      CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2020 at 10:43 am

      Zach,

      Let’s try a sports analogy. The blue team is on defense backed up against the end zone. The red team has the ball 1st and goal from six inches out with three TO and 55 seconds on the clock and the lead.

      The red team is not going to be polite or nice or ‘gentlemanly’ and take a knee instead of attempting to score.

      The days of gentlemanly r conduct are over. The r will continue to play by the actual rules, but will no longer embrace the ‘unwritten’ rules of conduct the d/progressives abandoned gleefully many years ago.

      In fact to continue the analogy, if a SCOTUS Justice gets hit by a bus between now and the end of Trump’s 1st term, I fully expect them to on side kick, recover it and score again before the clock expires.

      If the d/progressives didn’t want this they should have followed these ‘civic and political norms’ when they were in charge. Demonizing r candidates and voters for the last 30 + years may have been productive short-term. It has built a near infinite well of resentment and determination among r voters to ‘run up the score’ so to speak every opportunity we have.

        CommoChief: The red team is not going to be polite or nice or ‘gentlemanly’ and take a knee instead of attempting to score.

        No, but they should play according to the rules rather than changing the rules to suit. And there are higher values than procedural rules. There are norms necessary to the functioning of democracy. Lying about why they wouldn’t even consider Garland, then lying again when considering Barrett undermines the functioning of democracy.

        CommoChief: If the d/progressives didn’t want this they should have followed these ‘civic and political norms’ when they were in charge.

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej_pVwYWoAMqFLw?format=jpg&name=large

        CommoChief: I fully expect them to on side kick, recover it and score again before the clock expires.

        So, presumably, you are okay with the Democrats increasing the size of the courts if they get the chance, as the current size is not set by rule, but by norms.


           
           0 
           
           0
          CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2020 at 12:45 pm

          Zach,

          We are ‘playing by the rules’. The written rules aka Constitution. The unwritten norms that the d/progressives abandoned long ago are no longer an impediment for us.

          Sure, pack the court if you have the votes. On the other hand be prepared to take your coming electoral loss. When that occurs you should also be prepared for judicial changes.

          What changes? As.you are doubtless aware, Congress has the power to create and therefore modify or even eliminate ‘inferior courts’. If it were me as POTUS with a r HoR and r Senate Majority I would: Ram through legislation that:

          1. Dissolved every inferior court
          2. No standing court means all judges are not judges as the court to which they were appointed no longer exists
          3. Redraw the various boundaries for the circuits to more closely reflect population
          4. Immediately appoint or re appoint judges whose judicial philosophy matched my own

          Of course this step wouldn’t have been necessary if you and other d/progressives would shut your yap about threatening to pack the SCOTUS.

          After a simple two years of a judiciary rubber stamping the changes necessary to prevent theme/progressive bloc from rising from the ashes for a generation or so maybe we could begin playing nicely.

          To continue the sports analogy. Until your blue team pulls their starting offense, gives up any pretense of attempting to make a 1st down much less scoring The red.team will continue to play with the intent to deliver maximum pain and humiliation to the blue team.

          This is the state that we have been pushed to by the blue team. You guys can lessen the intensity and duration of your well deserved pain by giving up. Offering resistance will only prolong your agony.

            CommoChief: Sure, pack the court if you have the votes.

            That would probably only serve to further undermine the court system. It turns out that much of the U.S. democracy depends on norms and the honor system.

            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej_pVwYWoAMqFLw?format=jpg&name=large


             
             0 
             
             0
            CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | October 11, 2020 at 1:53 pm

            Zach,

            You are so close to a breakthrough in understanding.

            The average citizen has already lost faith in the Judiciary, our legislature and many other institutions. That damage was intentionally done, drip by drip for short term political advantage by the d/progressive bloc; the blue team.

            For decade after decade the red team watched as our nominees and candidates were unfairly and falsely vilified. We observed the methods that the blue team used so successfully to our detriment. We begged the blue team to stop and think about the long term damage these deliberate actions were doing to our institutions and our civic norms.

            We were ignored. We were told that ‘elections have consequences’. We were told that we were ‘bitter clingers’ desperate to hold onto outmoded cultural traditions. We were told that our cultural adherence to western philosophy and Judeo Christian was passe. We were called every version of ‘ist’ in the book with some new ones thrown in. We were told that the Wall ST. oligarchs who outsourced and off shored manufacturing jobs that devastated our middle class had our best interests at heart; learn to code.

            Then a very strange thing happened. DJT ran for President. He emerged as the r nominee. Then he won election. Immediately following the incomprehensible emotional breakdown of the d/progressive bloc they regrouped. They used every tool at their disposal to thwart the will of the Citizens who elected him by blocking, slow walking, ignoring, interfering, judge shopping and creating a Russian collision myth.

            Those of us on the red team remember all of this. We may eventually offer forgiveness. That will be after the blue team confesses, willing offers repentance and serves out the penance the red team dictates.

            You and the rest of your blue team have much to answer for. Attempting to invoke the same political and cultural norms your team ignored for decades is laughable.

            The red team endured a hostile SCOTUS for decades. I am sure, if you put your mind to it, swallow your pride and accept that the shoe of 5/4 and 6/3 rulings is on the other foot you and the blue team will get through it. Just as the red team did.

            CommoChief: That damage was intentionally
            done, drip by drip for short term political advantage by the
            d/progressive bloc; the blue team.

            While both sides deserve some blame, it’s clear the Republican Party is nihilist, as exemplified in their abandonment of all their stated principles under Trump.

            CommoChief: For decade after decade the red team watched as our nominees and candidates were unfairly and falsely vilified.

            It’s usually dated to Bork, but Bork was complicit in the Saturday Night Massacre. Whatever you might think of his actions, his nomination was clearly provocative. When he said he didn’t believe in a general “right to privacy,” his nomination was doomed.

            CommoChief: The red team endured a hostile SCOTUS for decades.

            Which dates to the Brown decision.


             
             0 
             
             0
            CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | October 11, 2020 at 2:17 pm

            Zach,

            I have patiently explained the reality of the consequences the d/progressive bloc has wrought. I have shown you where the water is, if you refuse to drink that’s up to you.

            My advice is stock up on KY. On November 3rd you should simply relax, lay back and think of England. It will be less painful if you do.

            Good day.

            CommoChief: I have patiently explained the reality of the consequences

            And we patiently explained with particulars why your explanation is faulty. The Republican Party espoused certain principles, which they have abandoned in order to retain power. The Republican method is that any compromise that leads to bipartisan agreement is a lost opportunity, that any vote over 51% means they should have pushed a more reactionary stance.

            This shattering of norms undermines the ability to compromise, which is necessary for the health of democracy. What you are left with is authoritarian government with a mere decoration of democratic traditions.


             
             0 
             
             0
            CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | October 11, 2020 at 2:26 pm

            PS, it ain’t the Brown decision that’s the problem. That was a.good decision. Why do you d/progressives wallow in the Court forcing you to stop segregation?

            The real problem is Wickard v Kilburn. Now that we are about to have another Justice concerned about the text of the Constitution that particular ruling is well overdue for casting upon the ash heap.

            Once again, good day.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend