Subject: Re: NYT + Iowa
From: Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
To: Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>
Cc: John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Nick Merrill <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>, Marlon Marshall <[email-masked]>, Jesse Ferguson <[email-masked]>, Oren Shur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:13:12 -0400

yep, lily and i have only talked to amy so far, but believe pat is doing a
good deal of the writing.

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jennifer Palmieri <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Brian - if okay with you, I want to call pat to talk with him off the
> record for more context.  It is an election, not a coronation; lots of
> different views among dem primary voters - this is not like 08 where Obama,
> HRC and Edwards were all going for same type of voters so should expect
> that there would be room for someone like sanders.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 3, 2015, at 11:00 AM, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>