Subject: Re: NYT + Iowa
From: Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Cc: Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Marlon Marshall <[email-masked]>, Jesse Ferguson <[email-masked]>, Oren Shur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:00:52 -0400

OK, tweaked statement to include "all in," "tough proving grounds" and
"expect to win":

"We take nothing for granted in Iowa because the caucuses are always such a
tough proving ground, but Hillary Clinton's regular travel to the state,
and the organization we have established on the ground, show how committed
we are to prevailing there. We always expected a competitive contest in
Iowa, but we are all in, and we intend to win."

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM, John Podesta <[email-masked]> wrote:

> All in,  intend to win, know Iowa caucuses are tough proving grounds
>  On Jul 2, 2015 7:43 PM, "Robby Mook" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> On the one hand I definitely want to dispel any thinking that we would
>> abandon or retreat from Iowa.  That's bad.
>> On the other hand, I like increasing expectations on Bernie.
>> So...yes we should do quote saying we are all in and know it will be
>> tough.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 7:28 PM, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Folks - Please see below thread. NYT is fascinated with doing a piece for
>> Monday suggesting "Clinton allies begin pondering chance of Iowa loss." I
>> think they consider this to be a newer, edgier take on the Berniementum
>> stories that have already been done.
>>
>> Amy claims they have heard whispers from "Clinton allies" that we need to
>> start preparing for this possibility. I have told her that in addition to
>> this being an absurd overreaction to a poll that showed her ahead by 19
>> pts, there is no such thing for us as "preparing for an Iowa loss," because
>> we already are investing heavily in the other early states -- not to
>> mention deploying organizers/doing house parties etc in Super Tuesday
>> states and beyond -- at the same time we are prioritizing Iowa. I told her
>> that she should not mistake some folks' attempts to try to be helpful by
>> raising expectations on Bernie (Maria Cardona did say on CNN this week that
>> he might win Iowa), as a reflection of the actual campaign's true thinking
>> on the state of the race there.
>>
>> All of that said, I think it wise to provide a strong, on-the-record
>> quote from HQ that dimisses the idea that we are bearish on Iowa and are
>> plotting any contingency scenarios that presume a loss there. It could be
>> from me, but I think it might be better to have it from Robby or Podesta.
>> Below is a draft for consideration:
>>
>> "While we have always expected a competitive primary contest and continue
>> to take nothing for granted, this campaign is built to win in Iowa. Hillary
>> Clinton's regular travel to the state, and the organization we have already
>> established on the ground, shows how committed we are to prevailing there."
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Lily Adams* <[email-masked]>
>> Date: Thursday, July 2, 2015
>> Subject: Fwd: NYT + Iowa
>> To: Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
>> Cc: Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>
>>
>>
>> Hey, so a few things from my conversation with her.
>>
>> She said all the organizational points were very helpful and that she'll
>> use them. I also pushed her on the other stuff from the Q poll and made her
>> clarify that the only polling proof point she was using was this one poll.
>> She said she certainly wouldn't accuse us of taking Iowa for granted but
>> asked if we'd ever contemplated a scenario where we lose Iowa. I said that
>> no, we've built a team and operation here to win here.
>>
>> Brian - she'd like to talk to you about the FEC/fundraising point but
>> also said that it would be helpful for you or someone nationally to weigh
>> in on whether there was any conversation anywhere in the campaign about
>> what happens if we don't win Iowa. She says both she and Pat have heard
>> this. Can you assure her there is not and that we're focused on winning
>> Iowa? I think this is one thing that's got to get swatted down because
>> it'll send people here into a frenzy. Happy to chat this part over but is
>> important to us here.
>>
>> She would like a quote from Matt so are you guys OK with sending her "We've
>> always known that this would be a competitive primary, and we've said that
>> from day one.  A competitive race will mean a healthy and spirited debate
>> about the issues, which we welcome. It's what's best for the party, for the
>> country, and an opportunity for Hillary Clinton to put forth her ideas and
>> let Iowans decide."
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Lily Adams <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Can do.
>>>
>>> I think we can do the quote from Matt and agree that makes sense. I'll
>>> see what she needs.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On background, I would:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Talk them through some of the finer points of the Q poll, noting
>>>> that she remains a clear frontrunner notwithstanding the tightening and
>>>> showing how her fav and trustworthy numbers remain terrific with Dem
>>>> caucusgoers, notwithstanding attacks on emails, etc.
>>>> 2) Talk up the proof points/metrics on how our organization in Iowa is
>>>> unrivaled. You would know these better than me.
>>>> 3) Talk up her visits there as a show of her commitment there, etc
>>>>
>>>> Off record, and not necessarily specific to Iowa, what I have been
>>>> saying on Berniementum inquiries:
>>>>
>>>> 1) When we said we expected a competitive primary in April, it was not
>>>> a meaningless bromide. We always expected the contest to tighten, and in
>>>> fact, always thought it would come from Bernie specifically.
>>>> 2) The reason we expected it from Bernie was because he was the natural
>>>> person to consolidate the Warren supporters. That largely explains what is
>>>> happening now.
>>>> 3) Moreover, national surveys of Dems consistently show two-thirds of
>>>> Dems want a competitive primary, notwithstanding their strong support for
>>>> Clinton, which is a natural factor in the tightening we are seeing. Dems do
>>>> not want a coronation.
>>>> 4) In early states, HRC is a strong second choice option even among
>>>> those more liberal Ds who lean Sanders, proving she is in good standing
>>>> even with the more progressive types.
>>>> 5) Her standing with progressives will only improve in coming weeks as
>>>> she outlines bold stands on progressive issues, and the attacks/contrast
>>>> between her and GOP raise the stakes in this election and appeal to these
>>>> Dems' partisan nature.
>>>> 6) We expect to win in the early states, but have built the campaign
>>>> for the long haul (had organizers in all 50 states, etc). That's what it
>>>> means to take nothing for granted.
>>>>
>>>> I might suggest we make the quote from Matt Paul, if you think that
>>>> makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, today's FEC numbers should not be a proof point for
>>>> Bernie-mentum. If you sense they are going to say that 15m versus her 45m
>>>> is evidence of his momentum, let us know and we can try to argue back the
>>>> money side from HQ.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Lily Adams <[email-masked]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brian - let me know what you'd like me to give them. I assume you just
>>>>> want me to talk to them on background and some off the record & then give
>>>>> the quote from one of you all?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Nick Merrill <
>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that's bueno too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Lily Adams <[email-masked]
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> something like that quote is fine with me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think on background though it's worth walking her through the
>>>>>>> metrics besides the ones on expectations. We have a committed supporter in
>>>>>>> all 1,600+ precincts, an team that's in all parts of the state, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Nick Merrill <
>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It might be worth one of us going on record and expanding on why we
>>>>>>>> look forward to a competitive primary.  Something like
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We've always known that this would be a competitive primary, and
>>>>>>>> we've said that from day one.  A competitive race will mean a healthy and
>>>>>>>> spirited debate about the issues, which we welcome.  It's what's best for
>>>>>>>> the party, for the country, and an opportunity for Hillary Clinton to put
>>>>>>>> forth her ideas and let voters decide on who is best to lead America."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Lily Adams <
>>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure happy to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>>> Lily Adams
>>>>>>>>> cell: (202) 368-4013
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:31 PM, Brian Fallon <
>>>>>>>>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lily, do you want to take first pass at talking through our
>>>>>>>>> points? I will loop you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>> From: Chozick, Amy <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:23 PM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Fwd: NYT + Iowa
>>>>>>>>> To: Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>, Nick Merrill <
>>>>>>>>> [email-masked]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey guys. I got Jesse's out of office. What is that all about??
>>>>>>>>> Please see below. Would appreciate any and all guidance.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>> From: Chozick, Amy <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:20 PM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: NYT + Iowa
>>>>>>>>> To: Jesse Ferguson <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey there. Pat Healy and I are teaming up on a story about Iowa,
>>>>>>>>> Bernie's latest poll #s and fundraising and what it means for Clinton. I
>>>>>>>>> was curious to get your thoughts. I'll include that no non-incumbent has
>>>>>>>>> ever won more than 50% in Iowa. But I have also heard from people who are
>>>>>>>>> close to HRC and the campaign who say there is a scenario in which she
>>>>>>>>> could be behind in the polls in Iowa in August and could potentially lose
>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know we've got 200 plus days (as per the countdown on the "Iowa"
>>>>>>>>> conference room says) but would you say the campaign foresees a scenario in
>>>>>>>>> which she could lose Iowa? You're obviously doing everything you can to win
>>>>>>>>> there, but I wanted to run it by you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm at the office (212-556-7440). We are planning for the weekend
>>>>>>>>> or Monday, but would be good to talk today, if you have time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Amy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Amy Chozick
>>>>>>>>> Reporter
>>>>>>>>> The New York Times
>>>>>>>>> Office: 212-556-7440
>>>>>>>>> Cell: 718-715-8661
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Amy Chozick
>>>>>>>>> Reporter
>>>>>>>>> The New York Times
>>>>>>>>> Office: 212-556-7440
>>>>>>>>> Cell: 718-715-8661
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Lily Adams
>>>>>>> Iowa Communications Director
>>>>>>> Hillary for America
>>>>>>> c: 202-368-4013
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Lily Adams
>>>>> Iowa Communications Director
>>>>> Hillary for America
>>>>> c: 202-368-4013
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lily Adams
>>> Iowa Communications Director
>>> Hillary for America
>>> c: 202-368-4013
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lily Adams
>> Iowa Communications Director
>> Hillary for America
>> c: 202-368-4013
>>
>>