What a real internal memo might say
By Steven Harmon
Friday, March 19th, 2010 at 3:44 pm in Uncategorized.
Those internal memos “leaked” by campaigns, ostensibly to give a glimpse of strategic discussions among top operatives, are beginning to take on the look of glorified press releases. Take the one that Meg Whitman’s campaign sent to Jon Fleischman over at the FlashReport (and then reverbed in a blast email to reporters).
Addressed to Mike Murphy, Whitman’s chief strategist, by her public opinion consultants John McLaughlin and David Hill, the memo has absolutely no intrinsic value, no analysis that Murphy, a veteran and savvy political hack, would ever find useful.
They walk through recent poll results from Rasmussen and Field surveys, which show Whitman’s widening lead over GOP opponent Steve Poizner and the tie that she’s basically pulled into with the Democrats’ presumptive nominee, Jerry Brown:
“At this time, these media polls are very good news for Meg Whitman’s candidacy. The campaign is showing a strong early foundation for winning. We are just over two months from the Republican primary and Meg Whitman’s lead is large and growing against a very popular opponent.“Looking ahead to the general election, it is still early, but these numbers are very encouraging. To be tied with the incumbent Attorney General who is a former Governor, and is now the unchallenged Democratic candidate for Governor, again, is a truly remarkable achievement for newcomer Meg Whitman.
“Steve Poizner’s poor numbers against Meg Whitman in the primary allow him only to play a spoiler’s role trying to raise Whitman’s negatives. In the end, Steve Poizner is too far behind to win. A continuation of Poizner’s primary bid only serves to help Jerry Brown.”
(Back to their old tricks, still trying to push Poizner out!)
“Of course, the Meg Whitman for Governor campaign has a long way to go; however, we can only be encouraged by the voters’ positive reaction to Meg Whitman’s candidacy and her message.”
That’s a pep talk, not an analysis! Probably written by someone in the communications dept. Here’s the memo I would have liked to have seen, stripped of self-consciousness, crafted with a jaded eye – perhaps a memo that Murphy might write:
From: Mike Murphy
To: Whitman’s political team
cc: Meg Whitman
OK, guys, polls are showing a lot of strengths out there. The money is working. Keep it coming, Meg! We’re defining both Meg and Steve nicely: Meg as outsider businesswoman who will get the job done, Poizner as wheenie faux-conservative who you just can’t trust.
But, people, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. We have to avoid peaking too early. And with two months left in the primary, the elephant in the room is the $19 million Poizner has sitting in his campaign vault.
We thought we could draw him out with our attack ads, but he’s kept eerily, zen-like quiet, outside of maybe $800,000 worth of response buys. He said he would be firing back “very soon,” but it’s looking more and more like he’s sticking with his original game plan. And that’s to unload $19 million in the last four-five weeks of the campaign.
We have to prepare for that. Really, the best thing we could do is to continue to apply pressure for him to abandon the race. Keep the defections coming, Tucker! We need to exploit our free media friends — I know, I know, we’re in a post-print world, but sometimes you gotta use ‘em — and push the story line that he’s toast, that more Republicans are calling on him to quit, more want a unified team, etc.
If that doesn’t work, we can’t just sit there and wait for the assault. We all know what $19 million in a five-week period could do. We won’t have time to respond, or at least get the last, loudest word. Our media buys have been far less than $19 million so far– and that’s been over a 6-month period, and it’s been considered as dominant as it gets. Imagine the devastating impact of even more nasty ads in a condensed period.
Voters still don’t know e-Meg, so it’s not too late for Poizner to fill in the gaps. That’s my greatest fear. And there’s plenty of stuff out there to start weakening her image. Don’t get me started on her voting record and her Boxer donation (sorry, boss).
We need to get more bio stuff on Meg — I don’t want to come down too harshly on creative, but those 30-minute infomercials aren’t going to cut it, folks. Aren’t there more testimonials we can generate out of eBay, this time with real folks who made it big because of eBay? But we also need to send some Pershing missiles out, blast Poizner with some real H-Bombs.
Listen folks, our lead seems insurmountable. We’ve made some good inroads with voters, and it looks like we’ve got things under control. I like the inevitablity play, adjusting our sights to Brown as if we’re already in general election mode. But if we start taking Republican primary voters for granted, Poizner starts pummeling the airwaves just when voters are starting to pay attention — and our poll numbers start to drop (really, there’s only one way to go from a 63 to 19 point lead, and it’s down) — the narrative starts to shift, and things start to get uncomfortable.
Just remember. The Brooklyn Dodgers were 13 1/2 games ahead of the New York Giants in mid-August and lost the pennant in 1951. The Philadelphia Phillies had a six 1/2 game lead with 12 games to go in 1964, and lost the pennant. The Cubs led by 9 1/2 games with six weeks to go in 1969, but it was the Amazing Mets that went to the World Series that year. And don’t get me started on the 14 1/2 game lead the Red Sox blew to the Yankees in ’78!
You get the idea. Big leads are made to be blown. Let’s not blow it.
Murph.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]



March 19th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Best take on what
strategists should
tell their clients
I’ve read.
March 20th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Reason #1 why I don’t trust Steve Poizner. I was born in Brooklyn, and have been trying fo forget Ralph Branca and Bobby Thompson since I was 9. Could Whitman
and Poizner be their reincarnations?
March 20th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Thank you, Steve, for the first two paragraphs of this blog entry. I think the press should be way more transparent about where their information comes from, including evaluating its worth.
A recent ABC7 news item about Pete Stark being passed over for Chair of a congressional committee listed point by point the quotes that were sent that morning by the Republican research unit to RNC email list subscribers, but the source wasn’t acknowledged.
I’m not saying that Stark didn’t say those things, but it would have been a more informative news story to cover the way in which our elected representatives are held ransom by career muckrakers (assisted no doubt by unpaid PoliSci interns) who have all day and night to scour the Internet and other sources for something that will make a good soundbite in an attack ad.
My comment applies to issues as well–since June last year, RNC Research has sent approximately 150 emails concerning healthcare. How many of those were used in news reports without acknowledgment? (No doubt the Democrats have research units sending out similar email blasts.)
I know that news organizations no longer have the capacity to do this kind of thorough research themselves, so this information is probably a godsend to busy reporters, but I think the source should be acknowledged and evaluated.
March 20th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Steve,
You said “Those internal memos “leaked” by campaigns, ostensibly to give a glimpse of strategic discussions among top operatives, are beginning to take on the look of glorified press releases.”
And, of course, that is exactly what they are. The campaign gets to say relatively frank, mean-spirited things about the opposition that eveyone knows are being discussed with the doors closed. But this is more of a scripted reality show peek than anything like a genuine leak.
With my own inside team of life-long confidents and advisors I get pretty direct about what we’re doing, what our challenges and opportunities are and how we are going about managing this process. I really don’t expect my friends to distribute these notes but I do know they have friends too and an inside look at the day to day work should be important for other candidates as we try to transition political power back to the people. Therefore, we must never write anything down that we would need to defend to the point of saying that it was a mistake to say.
A successful political campaign against entrenched incumbents should be counter-intuitive. Run against the standard formula. Innovative. Creative yet conservative. Simply throwing money at a campaign rather than to carefully develop issues and openings indicates that the candidate would try to solve the government’s problems in a similar manner once in office. This business should not be about deploying mountains of money. Any entrepreneurial capitalist out here in Silicon Valley understands that “better, faster and cheaper” always wins the day in a competitive arena. The money simply leverages what we’ve have already figured out how to do better than the other guys.
So that’s what we want to see with a leaked internal memo. What have we learned that is new and different? And how did we play that to our advantage? How do we turn the weight and momentum of an incumbent’s strength…such as Pete Stark has after 38 years…against him in a way that he cannot resist? How do I draw him out of his defenses into a fight that he cannot win?
All of that should be defined and detailed in my memos to my team. And then someone should be able to read those notes so what we’ve learned will not be lost. As it is, our political process is failing to deliver the government we as citizens think we have been paying for. Real value for our dollars. In the business world we call this a market opportunity. Raw demand to be served.