Subject: Re: Evolving the core message
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: Ronald Klain <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Karen Dunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:52:33 -0500

I think Ron's right, but the irony here is that HRC talks about hardly
anything else. Her stump has always been a long recitation of what she
wants to do as President.  We've rolled out a million detailed policies.
Our problem is missing the forest for the trees. We've never found a good
way (or at least a way she embraces) that sums up her vision for how
America would be different. We're either in the weeds or we're in
platitudes like "make the economy work for everyone, not just those at the
top." I think "fairness-growth-opporunity" isn't bad as a middle ground,
but she seems somehow resistant to it. In the past, I liked the idea of a
"full potential economy" or a "no ceilings economy," but we've all
discussed the drawbacks there. Some of you know I'm also fairly obsessed
with finding a way to adapt her lifelong "It Takes a Village" theme into a
response to the hollowing out of the working class and the polarization of
Trumpism, but that needs more work to avoid gauzy abstraction.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:39 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I wish I had saved my emails from the 1999-2000 Gore v.Bradley campaign,
> because I could save everyone a lot of time by circulating them and they
> would largely be identical, and include many of the EXACT SAME points from
> Stan Greenberg -- EXACT SAME.  It was the EXACT same issue:  Could Gore be
> the change candidate?  Should he build on the Clinton record?  Lots of Dems
> loved Bill Bradley's change message -- could Gore ever beat Bradley at the
> change game?  Should he even try?
>
> That said, one thing comes through this all that I agree with:  We need to
> invest more time in describing what HRC wants to do for America, if she
> becomes President.  Forget the symbolic choice between "build on" and
> "change" -- what is it that she wants to do as President?  How would
> America be different?  What should people be excited about?  I think that
> is where our bread, meat and cheese are thin.  People can draw their own
> conclusion about whether such a vision would be continuity or change --
> that's just a label.  What we need to deliver is a more compelling message
> on America under HRC.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>
> To: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>; John Podesta <
> [email-masked]>
> Cc: Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>; Ron Klain <
> [email-masked]>; Karen Dunn <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wed, Jan 27, 2016 12:19 pm
> Subject: RE: Evolving the core message
>
> I would posit, based on his observations, that if our case for how change
> happens is the meat of the sandwich, we need thicker bread.  The top piece
> of outrage about the current state of affairs has to be thicker, and the
> bottom piece about her bold agenda for what we’re going to do about it has
> to be thicker.
>
> How’s that for an overwrought analogy?
>
> *From:* Dan Schwerin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2016 12:15 PM
> *To:* John Podesta <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>; Jake Sullivan <
> [email-masked]>; Ron Klain <[email-masked]>; Karen Dunn <
> [email-masked]>
> *Subject:* Re: Evolving the core message
>
> This is both helpful and a little frustrating. I'm curious whether his
> point about Obama holds true with the African American voters we're going
> to be appealing to in the next few weeks.  But the broader point seems well
> taken. I'm playing with an idea for Monday night's speech that might help
> modestly:
>
> I think she should speak directly to the thousands of grassroots voters,
> especially young people, who are bringing new energy and urgency to this
> race and forcing all of us to grapple with deep injustices and imbalances
> in our country (the deck is stacked, etc). She should say that she hears
> them, shares their concerns, and is glad they're reshaping our national
> debate. We all agree on the problem that needs to be solved. Now the
> question is how to actually do something about it. And then launch into our
> contrasting theories of change and her belief that ideas can't just sound
> good on paper, they have to really make a difference in people's lives.
>
> The idea here is 1) make it clear that the protest vote has been heard,
> giving permission to Democrats in later states to move on; 2) provide a
> pivot point to more authentically embrace a shared diagnosis; 3)
> disaggregate Bernie's voters from Bernie himself, so the former feel like
> they can keep shaping the party even after the latter rides off into the
> sunset.
>
> None of this changes the basic problem that compared to Bernie we're never
> going to be the "change candidate" and so we're either confident in our own
> identity or we're chasing him and offering ourselves as a pale imitation. I
> think we're on to something good with our new message that change is about
> pushing hard, getting knocked down, etc, because it puts her best
> attributes in service of progressive ends. But that's still process and
> incrementalism.
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:46 AM, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> Sending just to the internal crew. His dissection of our message is worth
> paying attention to.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Stan Greenberg* <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2016
> Subject: Evolving the core message
> To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Stan Greenberg <[email-masked]>
>
> John,
>
> Let me follow-up your suggestion that I read the transcript of what
> Hillary is actually saying. Here, I’m focusing on the Iowa town hall
> transcript, and happy to respond to the one you are sending.  For now, I am
> convinced you are badly positioned, though I now believe you can readily
> transition to an evolved core message.
>
> I told you I thought she did great, but that was stylistically,
> presidentially and on foreign threats. She had energy, sounded like
> somebody you could trust as president and looked good. She was the one who
> talked about the new diversity of the country and our new values. It may be
> enough to win Iowa.
>
> But I think the overall message is tone death on what is happening in the
> country and even more, in the Democratic primary electorate.  As a result,
> she has left the change voters to Sanders.  She addresses change as
> biography: so you are making the vote choice about her, rather than what is
> happening in the country.  At least in this town hall, Sanders was the only
> one talking about change, the country and the future.
>
> There is a pretty easy way to transition your message, and it could drive
> votes to you pretty quickly.  I believe it is plausible.
>
> What is your core message?  So, consider me a focus group of one and my
> take away from the town hall. Knowing your core message is the starting
> point to evolving it.
>
>
> *First, you are running on continuity with Obama.* Hillary said, we need
> to “build on the progress that we’ve made.” President Obama achieved great
> things and the great risk is “the Republicans rip away the progress and
> turn us backwards.”  “We need to build on it, and go further.”
>
> Obama abandoned this message in his own re-elections, but you are on it.
>
> This is tone death, at best. You begin with a contested idea, even among
> Democrats and people who rate Obama highly.  And it sears in the idea that
> you are incremental change, while conceding change to Sanders and the
> Republicans. That will make your race much harder.
>
> Which voters could you possibly be talking to? Fully 55 percent of the
> Rising American Electorate and three quarters of white working class women
> says we are on the wrong track in both WVWV and Roosevelt surveys.  This is
> a mad starting point.
>
> In focus groups we just conducted for Roosevelt last week with African
> American millennials, participants could not have been more despairing:
> “It’s disappointing. I just think our country could do a lot better … It’s
> going to take a real long time to fix the mess. For real.” They describe
> their experience with the economy: “sad and crappy”; “I’m very disgusted”;
> “I’m gong to say uneasy. And just disappointed.”
>
>
>
> *Second, you are running on being ready for the job in very insecure
> times.* The primaries and caucuses are a way to vet the candidates, and
> you can see Hillary is ready.  That is what Hillary said in the town hall
> and what the president focused on.
>
> I can’t tell you how many leaders I supported who want to run on
> experience and building on the progress, including David Miliband, and
> watched them defeated by the change candidate who get all the energy.
> Voters in both the primary and general election will be figuring out how to
> vote for change – and you have given Sanders a big opening.
>
>
> *Third, governing is messy and not very pretty.* And Hillary knows the
> idealism and promises of other candidates won’t happen. Hillary knows how
> to make progress. “I just keep going forward … and I’m still standing.”
> You sound like a grown-up lecturing these young people on don’t expect too
> much from all this idealism.
>
>
> *And fourth, Hillary has spent a lifetime fighting for change and “going
> after inequality.”*  That is who she is. “I’ve taken on the status quo
> time and time again.”  You can trust me to bring change because she battled
> for it, starting with kids and health care.  She’s fought “racial
> inequality, sexist inequality, homophobic inequality.”  Also, economic
> inequality, but mainly to remind people that Bill Clinton is the only
> president to produce greater equality.
>
> *I found that answer attractive but it does not change your core
> framework, though critically, it provides a ready platform to evolve it.*
>
> But for now, your core message is about the past. It is about Clinton’s
> character and qualities as a leader.  The message is not economic, and it
> is not about the country.
>
> * * * * *
>
> But as we discussed, Hillary can be the candidate who can bring the
> change, and your discussion of biography in town halls allows you to make
> the transition.  But you have to start by saying, “Look, all of us
> Democratic candidates share this critique and anger with what is happening
> in the country.  The difference is I have a powerful personal history of
> fighting inequality and bringing change. And here is are the bold changes I
> will work to bring.”
>
> That transition takes you to what is happening in the country, it makes
> her bio relevant, and enables her to talk about the bold changes she wants
> to bring. [This is explicitly, not just finishing what Obama did or
> defending his progress.”
>
> My starting point is the remarkable and intense level of support for the
> level the playing the field message. In our most recent test for Roosevelt,
> we showed that bringing in trade issues in particular strengthens the
> message further.
>
>
>
> The reason Sanders is getting so much traction and energy is that he is
> articulating this message. Yes, his personal conviction is important, but
> what makes it work is what he is saying about the country and the ability
> to bring change.  He is talking unapologetically about the excess at the
> top and the need to grow the middle class and America.
>
> I also now believe that Sanders is being helped by his use of the trade
> issue.
>
> Your running on “building on the progress” allows him a contrast that
> hurts you in the primary and general.
>
> But from the beginning, Hillary and her campaign, you affirmed in our
> meetings, really accepted this core economic message, even if Hillary took
> the edge off in delivery.  Progressive Democrats were pretty united. That
> is key to my recommendation here.
>
> Hillary should say how united are Democrats on this core critique of the
> country and what needs to happen to change the rules so the country grows
> the middle class again. The core difference is that Hillary has a history
> of fighting inequality and bringing change. Sanders does not. That is why
> she is excited to talk about this bold agenda that will bring change.
>
> Hope this makes sense and helps.
>
> Happy to talk further.
>
> Stan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>