This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Quinnipiac Push Back

From:re47@hillaryclinton.com To: hdr29@hrcoffice.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, ha16@hillaryclinton.com Date: 2015-07-22 13:31 Subject: Quinnipiac Push Back

Talking points on Quinnipiac below. Ø As a general rule, we put very little stock in public polls because they rarely employ an accurate model of the electorate. They allow demographics and party ID to swing markedly without making corrections, which leads to inaccurate and inconsistent polling. Ø This is not the first time Quinnipiac polls in swing states have produced data that is out of step with actual results. o In 2012, their final Colorado poll showed Mitt Romney winning that state by a point. In reality, President Obama won Colorado by 5 points. o Similarly, in Virginia, they underestimated President Obama’s margin of victory by two points. Ø Their refusal to apply a consistent and rigorous likely voter model also led to variable polling in the 2014 cycle: o Their final poll in the Iowa Senate <http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2110> race had Ernst and Braley tied. Ernst won that race by 8.5 points. o Their final poll in the Virginia Senate race had Senator Warner ahead by 9 points. He won by less than a point. § And in the 2013 Governor’s Race, they predicted McAuliffe would win by 6 points, when he won by 2.5 o In Colorado, where Governor Hickenlooper won by 3 points, Quinnipiac had his opponent, Republican Bob Beauprez up by 2-5 points in the final weeks of the campaign. o And in the Colorado Senate race, they had the race swinging from Gardner 46/ Udall 39 (+7) to Gardner 45/ Udall 43 (+2), over the course of 10 days. (Final result was Garner 49/Udall 46). Ø Their current polls build on these flaws to produce results that tilt the scales against Secretary Clinton. In particular, they allow party ID to swing significantly from poll to poll. Party ID does not swing wildly from month to month – and if it is, your data is not credible. Ø In Virginia - where Quinnipiac has Clinton running 2-3 points behind the major Republican candidates - their poll is 5 points less Democratic than their own April poll and 6 points less Democratic than the 2012 exits. Ø In Colorado – where they have Clinton 5-9 points behind – they have 7 points fewer Democrats than the 2012 exit polls keeping Republican party ID stable. And they have a 5 point swing in Party ID from their own April poll. o Additionally, they have a lower number of Hispanics in their poll than in the 2012 exits (11 vs 14), in a state where the Hispanic population is on the rise. Ø In Iowa - where they have Secretary Clinton 6 to 8 points behind the Republican candidates – their poll has Democratic Party ID 6 points lower than the 2012 exits. o Additionally, they have a 4 point spread on gender (48% men / 52% women) when that state had an 8 point gender spread in 2012 (46% men / 54% women) *Party ID Democrat / Republican* *Current Poll* *April Poll* *2012 Exits* *VA* Dems: +1 (28 / 27) Dems: +6 (32 / 26) Dems: +7 (39 / 32) *IA* Dems: -2 (27 / 29) Dems: -1 (29 / 30) Dems: even (33 / 33) *CO* Dems: -3 (26 / 29) Dems: +2 (28 / 26) Dems: +4 (33 / 29)