The Focus Group Podcast

Episode: S5 Ep26: What Are Focus Groups for Anyway?
Date: August 16, 2025
Host: Sarah Longwell
Guest/Producer: Connor Kilgore

Episode Overview

This special FAQ episode dives deep into the nuts and bolts of The Focus Group Podcast’s approach to conducting and interpreting political focus groups. Host Sarah Longwell and producer/moderator Connor Kilgore respond to commonly asked listener questions: Why don't moderators fact-check participants? How do they structure groups for maximum authenticity? What biases and methodologies guide their work? The conversation becomes both a masterclass and a behind-the-scenes look at the practical realities and philosophical challenges of understanding American voters in the hyper-polarized era.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Don’t Focus Group Moderators “Fact-Check” Participants?

• Purpose of Focus Groups:
  Sarah stresses that their primary job is listening and learning, not correcting participants’ misunderstandings. The main objective is to thoroughly understand why people think the way they do, not to debate or persuade them in the room.
  • Sarah: "I am not trying to convince ever the 10 people in the focus group. I am trying to learn from the 10 people in the focus group so that I can try to build usually campaigns, specifically..." (02:55)
• Effect of Pushing Back:
  Correcting participants can damage the trust and vulnerable honesty required for good focus groups. Occasionally, gentle correction happens for clarity, but it's rare and fraught.
• Safe Environment:
  Allowing people to speak freely, even if they’re “wrong,” creates a unique window into authentic voter attitudes.
  • Sarah: "The creation of an environment in which the moderator is genuinely just interested in what they're saying, creates a kind of safety for them to be honest, which is the number one thing we want..." (04:55)
• Moderator Neutrality:
  The focus is learning for broader persuasion: "I want to listen and learn from 10 people so that I can try to convince 10,000 people." (03:40)
  Connor adds that participants are told there are no wrong answers—just their own views. (06:10)

2. How Do They Avoid Confirmation Bias?

• Methodological Differences:
  Sarah contrasts their work with classic political strategy focus groups, which can risk shaping findings to please clients.
  • Sarah: "We are not being paid by a campaign or anybody else. We do it for our own edification, our own learning for ourselves. And so we are trying to avoid all biases possible." (11:28)
• Selection for Variety:
  They purposefully slice groups according to differing demographics and attitudes: education, age, race, gender, political history, etc., but keep each group internally like-minded to minimize cross-attendee performative arguments.
  • Sarah: "One of the number one things we do is create a space in which... you're with a like-minded group of people, like you all voted for Trump but rate him as doing a very bad job." (12:42)
• Iterative, Continuous Learning:
  The team runs multiple groups weekly, focusing on shifts and emerging themes, rather than overinterpreting any single group’s findings.
  • Sarah: "We're very sensitive more to things that are shifts because we know what a Trump voter who's voted for him three times sounds like." (14:28)

3. How Are Participants Selected?

• Recruitment Process:
  They partner with a market research firm, using detailed screeners to find exact voting history/demographic matches.
  • Connor: "Sometimes it takes like several hundred people filling out that screener survey before we can fill a 10 person focus group." (17:01)
• Double Screening:
  They conduct secondary phone screens to ensure people are honest about their backgrounds and will mesh with the group dynamic, avoiding dominant or extreme personalities. (16:10–18:18)
• Compositional Precision:
  While they collect data on participants’ backgrounds (race, gender, religion, etc.), the chief priority is assembling people with the specific political behavior or attitude they want to study—not demographic representativeness per se.

4. Why Focus on Swing Voters or Particular Groups?

• Strategic Relevance:
  They regularly focus on “Biden to Trump” voters, non-voters, and loyal partisans to identify who is persuasion-worthy and what their decision drivers are.
  • Connor: "[The] Biden to Trump is like the main proxy we use...approximates the person who's in the very middle of the electorate...who comes the closest to deciding elections in this country." (18:40)
• Avoiding Stereotypes & “Diner Stories”:
  Sarah addresses the critique that focus group approaches are condescending (“elites from DC...going on a little mission”), clarifying her own roots in Trump country and genuine investment.
  • Sarah: "I'm from a very small town in central Pennsylvania that voted for Trump by 76% or 74%...So it's true—when I hear these voters, I don't feel like I'm studying them as much as I feel like I know this person." (19:45)
• Finding Persuadables:
  The goal is, “figuring out who is persuadable is the work that we do.” They profile the consistent characteristics and evolving identities of these segments. (20:59–22:30)

5. What Do They Learn from Focus Groups—and How Do They Analyze?

• Listening for Salience:
  The first 20 minutes of each group (open questions) yields the richest info. What people volunteer—rather than what they answer by prompt—reveals true priorities and anxieties.
  • Sarah: "What is always most interesting to me is what do people say unprompted? Right. When they're given a wide open space, what is it the thing that they reach for first..." (27:25)
• Value of Contradiction:
  Many participants express apparently contradictory beliefs (e.g., “I’m pro-life, but I believe in a woman’s right to choose”). Over time, observing these patterns yields deep insights about how voters narrate their self-perceptions and rationalize tension.
  • Sarah: "You hear tons of people say the same thing and you learn how to drill down on that..." (29:53)
  • Connor: "My favorite thing about doing this stuff is just learning the contradictory nature of people and having that constantly...reminded." (30:32)
• Not About Statistics:
  The end goal isn’t quantifying consensus but mapping the diversity and texture of beliefs, especially among those at inflection points:
  • Connor: "...not to quantify and decide what is the dominant strain of public opinion. It is to take all of the various schools of thought that come out of these groups and say, 'oh, this is what it sounds like when someone is pro life but believes in a woman's right to choose.'" (30:45)
• Adaptation:
  When the team notices that participant responses become predictable, they’ll revise question wording to probe understanding from new angles. (32:20)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Moderating Without Argument:
  • Sarah: "If you want people to be honest with you, you can't spend the time correcting them." (Paraphrased, 04:55)
• On Personal Motivation:
  • Sarah: "I am trying to figure out how to defeat the authoritarian slide in this country, which mainly means defeating Republicans..." (21:28)
• On Contradictory Voters:
  • Connor: "My favorite thing about doing this stuff is just learning the contradictory nature of people." (30:32)
• On What to Listen For:
  • Sarah: "What is always most interesting to me is what do people say unprompted?" (27:25)
• On Abortion Attitudes:
  • Sarah: "I'm pro-life, but I believe in a woman's right to choose...what they mean is...they are personally pro-life, but they do not like these things being rolled back." (29:53)

Important Segment Timestamps

• 00:00–02:01 – Introduction; purpose of the episode and overview of listener questions
• 02:01–07:32 – Why moderators don’t correct factually inaccurate statements
• 09:40–15:02 – Addressing confirmation bias and group construction
• 15:02–18:18 – Detailed screening and recruiting methodology
• 18:22–24:31 – Why swing voters and persuasion targets are the focus
• 24:31–27:09 – Interpreting findings and what gets learned from these groups
• 27:09–33:06 – Analysis: contradictions, spontaneous remarks, and listening strategies
• 33:19 – Closing remarks and preview of the show’s return post-hiatus

Tone & Language

Sarah and Connor keep a conversational, occasionally self-deprecating and meta tone, balancing transparency, strategic candor, and honest introspection. The dialogue is rich with personal anecdotes, behind-the-scenes confessions, and explanatory detail tailored for thoughtful, politically engaged listeners.

Conclusion

Listeners leave with a nuanced, practical understanding of how focus groups yield genuine insight into the American electorate—not by correcting, persuading, or quantifying, but by carefully listening and probing for salience, contradiction, and within-group logic. The hosts promise a return to regular episodes soon, armed with even more data and reflection for the 2025 political cycle.