Subject: Re: Negative Narratives
From: "Begala, Paul" <[email-masked]>
To: "Stan Greenberg" <[email-masked]>, "Ana Iparraguirre" <[email-masked]>, "Jim Gerstein" <[email-masked]>, "John Podesta" <[email-masked]>, "Susan McCue" <[email-masked]>, "Tara McGuinness" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], "Zach Schwartz" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "ic2008" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:48:28 -0500

I will defer to Dr. Greenberg regarding the structure of the instrument. But I'm a dog on a bone about not having one-off lines of attack sans a master narrative. In the 2000 debate, Gore hammered Bush for not supporting Dingel-Norwood. That was true, but it lacked any context and so it was wholly ineffective - despite the fact that Patients Bill of Rights polled very well. 

The narratives I sent contain several attacks/facts which were not in the Hildebrand-Tewes research but which absolutely must be tested. It is unimaginable that we don't at least test Romney laying off 350 workers in Marion, IN when we know that issue killed his senate campaign in 1994. 

So if it is better FOR NOW to disaggregate the narratives, I can be persuaded. But the strategic goal is to have a powerful, emotional negative narrative. That may even require leaving some discrete issue attacks on the cutting room floor - even tho they may poll well. Narrative coherence is what I most want at the end of the day. 

Paul. 

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Stan Greenberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:15 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Begala, Paul; Ana Iparraguirre; Jim Gerstein; John Podesta; Susan McCue; Tara McGuinness; [email-masked]; Zach Schwartz
Cc:	ic2008
Subject:	Re: Negative Narratives

Paul,

I¹m incorporating the attacks.

On the narratives.  I think we have to arrive at three levels of
understanding for attacks.

Devastating facts, factoid, phrase < voted for 87 billion before voted
against, etc.

Developed attacks < two or three line attacks that develop a point < as in
sent his jobs overseas, or flip-flopped on an issue, etc.

Narrative. A full interpretation of the candidate, through which all passes.
Your points in these examples.  These are best tested in a focus group.  We
can test these in a poll but at best these could be half the length of what
you have written.  

They are also time consuming and frequently have to be re-read, so have to
be a readable length.  I like doing them, but usually we build to it after
we are more confident of the specific attacks.

Stan

On 12/3/07 10:31 PM, "Begala, Paul" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hey:
>  
> I am working through line edits on the poll, but the first draft ignores some
> of what I think are the most devastating hits on the GOP candidates (eg:  Mitt
> laid off hundreds of workers, invested in firms that do business in Iran; Rudy
> protected a child molesting priest, his kids won't speak to him because he
> divorced their mom on TV, etc.)  This is, of course, not the fault of GQR,
> rather, we presented them with very limited research.
>  
> Attached are potential negative narratives on Rudy and Romney (I'll get to
> Huckabee on the long flight to San Francisco tomorrow).  My belief is that
> this poll should tell us how to define the opponent; what the frame through
> which we attack him should be -- not merely which specific charges hurt the
> most.  To that end, I thought it would be useful to collect up a lot of the
> discrete, scattershot charges and try to put them into a narrative, then test
> the different narratives, and run against the guy who polls the worst.  Maybe
> the best way to go after Mitt is as a phony.  But maybe it's as a
> multimillionaire who screwed the middle class.  I don't know.  But that's what
> I hope to learn from the poll.
>  
> Will send line edits on the poll tomorrow, as well as my best efforts at
> Huckabee narratives.
>  
> All best,
>  
> Paul
>  
>  
>