Subject: Re: Ratifying next steps for the research process
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: H <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Huma Abedin <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 07:05:46 -0500

I will ask joanne to poll the rest of the group and circulate a time and
dial in number.

if folks can email her directly, we'll cut down on the traffic.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:03 AM, H <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  I could do btw 11-4.
>
>  *From*: Cheryl Mills [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent*: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 07:01 AM
> *To*: Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
> *Cc*: H; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; Huma Abedin;
> Joanne Laszczych <[email-masked]>
> *Subject*: Re: Ratifying next steps for the research process
>
>  adding joanne:
>
>  my best times tomorrow are:
>
>  before 8am;
> between 11am - 4pm;
> between 5pm - 6pm
> (or after 830pm).
>
>  cdm
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:50 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>  Happy to.  I'm fairly flexible tomorrow.
>>
>> On Dec 9, 2014, at 6:43 AM, H <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>  I have a number of points I want to discuss, but don't have time until
>> tomorrow. Could we set time then to discuss?
>>
>>  *From*: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]
>> <[email-masked]>]
>> *Sent*: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 06:39 AM
>> *To*: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
>> *Cc*: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>; H; Huma Abedin
>> *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 <[email-masked]> 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--
>> [email-masked]
>> For scheduling: [email-masked]
>>
>> On Dec 8, 2014, at 9:46 PM, [email-masked] 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 <[email-masked]> 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 <[email-masked]> 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).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>