Re: Ratifying next steps for the research process

From:robbymook@gmail.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com CC: cheryl.mills@gmail.com, hrod17@clintonemail.com, Huma@clintonemail.com Date: 2014-12-09 09:39 Subject: Re: Ratifying next steps for the research process

I think we can definitely get the first answered. I will make sure to flag. The second is a good question I will raise. The rationale section starts with groups which I think is really important. The first survey is really meant to be a lay of the land--what are people's fav/unfavs, right track/wrong track, initial head to head, etc. Very basic. Then the online panel is supposed to provide some qualitative to underpin that. We also have the qualitative Garin already did. But that may not be the right way to go and I'll ask the pollsters about that. Like I said, I'm certain the plan will change--I am many things, but a pollster is not one! > On Dec 9, 2014, at 4:28 AM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am in favor of getting going along the lines outlined. One track I think we should explore is whether and how attacks from the right strengthen and immunize her on the left. Another question I have is whether qualitative is being used enough to inform the early quantitative research. > > JP > --Sent from my iPad-- > john.podesta@gmail.com > For scheduling: eryn.sepp@gmail.com > >> On Dec 8, 2014, at 9:46 PM, robbymook@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Sure--happy to meet with her. I'd still like to get the initial assessment polls moving this week since time is ticking, though. Branding probably won't start until later Jan at the earliest. >> Any issues with me getting that moving? >> >>> On Dec 8, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Robby >>> >>> I look forward to reviewing and sharing any thoughts that may be valuable. >>> >>> My one thought from the conversation I participated in with Wendy is that her strength is in branding and marketing, using the evidence base in determining how to generate the behaviors sought in the target audience. So I think she has the capacity and creativity to drive the brand development and strategy from inception to execution. I imagine she would rely on the data that is being collected through the polling and focus groups you outline but equally as important, would likely have questions she might suggest specifically be included in the process. That's why I'm not sure she is an advisor in the sense of opining on things as they occur but instead an actual partner with the team in defining and shaping what information is needed and then how to synthesize it for the purposes at hand. >>> >>> This may make more sense once you meet her and have a thoughtful conversation about her strenghts and talents. Then i think her active engagement can be efficient and productive for the activity you have outlined. Should we arrange a time for you to meet her or at least connect with her by telephone? >>> >>> best. >>> >>> cdm >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Robert Mook <robbymook@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Madame Secretary, Cheryl, John, >>>> >>>> Attached is an updated summary of the research process and a budget. I want to emphasize that THIS WILL CHANGE because the team will have better ideas on methodology and the strategy will evolve as the project progresses. I would still assume our budget will be in the $2+ million range per my earlier memo, even though the attached budget is lower than $2 million (obviously, we are going to make this as cheap as we can without sacrificing thoroughness and quality). >>>> >>>> Below is information on the participants. Attached is (1) a revised overview of the process and (2) a budget. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if there are any objections or recommended changes, otherwise I will proceed with the plan as outlined. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> THE TEAM: >>>> Pollsters: Jef Pollock and John Anzalone >>>> >>>> Media consultant: Saul Shorr (like Jef and John, I will ask that he participate in the project, with no obligation by you or him that he work for the campaign, should you decide to run. I will offer Saul $20k plus travel costs to work with us for the next three months and attend a number of the focus groups). >>>> >>>> Advisors: I will have Wendy provide input on the instruments and methodology for the first round--then we can evaluate the degree we want to share data. I would like to talk to her before we lock this in, since I have never met her. >>>> >>>> SELF RESEARCH >>>> We don't have a thematically organized set of self research on the your accomplishments pre-State. I would like to give the pollsters full access to all raw materials on accomplishments pre 2009, especially the Senate. It's very important that we come out of this process understanding which accomplishments are most meaningful to voters. >>>> >>>> POLICY >>>> I would like to loop Dan and Jake into drafting of likely policy initiatives for testing--they have already provided me some input, but I'd like to get them on calls with the team to drill down on this in more detail, since it's so important. I know that policy is still a nascent process and will be highly iterative, but I don't think it makes sense to do the polling in isolation from the policy work itself (since the research should be supporting and informing the policy development). >>>