Subject: Re: Draft Message Box
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: Robby Mook <[email-masked]>
Cc: Oren Shur <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Teddy Goff <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:02:42 -0400

Here are some more edits. See how I tried to deal with "knocked down,"
going back to a theme from announcement speech that we'd kinda neglected

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Robby Mook <[email-masked]> wrote:

> All very helpful thanks.
> 1 and 2 make sense.
> Agree on NH being counties and CDs--not MM.
> I agree on "getting knocked down".  I want it but should it be part of
> accomplishments for the reason you explained?
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Oren Shur <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Sorry – ignore last email, refer to this one (cleaned two little things
> up):
>
>
>
> 1.       In terms of the media markets in NH, it’s difficult to say
> (since 80-ish% is Boston market), but more of our targets live in CD1 than
> CD2 (and that’s different than the population distribution).  Would make
> sense to focus there on population centers, Rockingham Co, etc.
> Ideologically, a bigger percentage of undecideds are moderate (45%) than
> liberal (36%) – room for growth there, particularly with moderate men.
> Also younger women as target.
>
> For IOWA, based on recent survey, should be Cedar Rapids media market and
> that entire Central-East region (Waterloo east to Dubuque, down south to
> Davenport and Iowa City).  These are labor-heavy areas where we have room
> to grow – labor rallies could be a natural type of event in this region.
> (Of course we’ll confirm this and know more with modeling).  And confirmed
> with Anzo that the demos we laid out as targets are correct by him.
>
> 2.       On the section about the phases and themes, think we should
> label them consistent with the “get ahead” broader thematic?  Also, I know
> I’m kind of a broken record here – but I’d suggest making the contrast
> message a key part of the thematic phases you lay out – (or maybe that’s
> inferred?)
>
> 3.       In the message box, under Values, you highlighted “get knocked
> down” and mentioned it seemed a bit random – but I think there are several
> ways she weaves it in nicely: when she joined the President’s cabinet after
> defeating her, when she fought for children’s health care after the bigger
> battle didn’t succeed. (Channeling implicitly the toughness that voters
> associate with her for her tenacity and resilience in dealing with more
> personal matters … and the fact that she’s back at it, running for
> president again …) So I’d suggest leaving it. channels toughness and badass.
>
> *From:* Robby Mook [mailto:[email-masked]
> <[email-masked]>]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 3, 2015 4:25 PM
> *To:* Jennifer Palmieri
> *Cc:* John Podesta; Dan Schwerin; Christina Reynolds; Jake Sullivan;
> Kristina Schake; Oren Shur; Teddy Goff
> *Subject:* Re: Draft Message Box
>
>
>
> Ok, I did a few things:
>
>
>
> 1. On the message box, I did some formatting to tighten it.  Some of it
> was reading like a list of things, rather than a framework.  I highlighted
> where I did anything significant.  Dan, please make sure I didn't de-HRC
> the language.  I also added a little language at the top of each section to
> show how it related to the central box.
>
>
>
> 2. I added this into the larger document (and have attached as a PDF for
> people who may have issues with the formatting).  Oren, can you run the
> targeting by anzo again?
>
>
>
> 3. I added a theory on how we can have a "rudder" for scheduling.
> Essentially, we break the schedule up into phases that are anchored by
> policy, but we we deliberately design to reinforce character traits.  I'm
> not married to it at all, but this is the sort of framework I'm hoping we
> can finalize next weekend.
>
>
>
> Can folks give a look...if we're good, we ship it off.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jennifer Palmieri <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hey - you know what this sounds like??
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton!
>
>
>
> So exciting!
>
>
>
> I would put "clean" before "energy" and add climate to one of the
> challenges we could harness American power to combat.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jul 3, 2015, at 11:47 AM, John Podesta <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Add clean before energy? Is that enough on climate?
>
> On Friday, July 3, 2015, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> Here's a revised message box based on our discussion last night.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Kate Offerdahl <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Attached is the draft message box to discuss on the 7pm call.
>
>
>
> Many thanks!
> Kate
>
>
>
>
>
>