Subject: RE: First Draft of Policy Poll
From: David Binder <[email-masked]>
To: John Anzalone <[email-masked]>, Marissa Astor <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>, "Jake Sullivan" <[email-masked]>, Shannon Currie <[email-masked]>, Jim Margolis <[email-masked]>, Mandy Grunwald <[email-masked]>, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>, Jeff Liszt <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>, Ethan Gelber <[email-masked]>, Mona Thinavongsa <[email-masked]>, Teddy Goff <[email-masked]>, Cheryl Mil
Cc: Matt Hogan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:40:38 -0800

As usual and as expected, a great job from the ALG research team, putting together an amazingly comprehensive and detailed questionnaire that will provide a payday of rich data.

My comments are offered not necessarily as suggestions for edits, but more as an offering of what I have been hearing on the multi-year swing and non-swing state tour of independent voters.    Some of this is commentary or observation that may or may not be relevant to changing any questions, but offer as food for thought.    Please understand that in many cases I call attention to things without necessarily suggesting an action or improvement, but just raise the issue in the hope that it may generate thought among the rest of the team.  And some of these comments may be off-base, which is frequently the case, but here goes:

1.       One of the biggest wording issues we've struggled with is the word "invest," which I know is a word that we use (not sure if Reps use it) to mean additional spending.  And Dems can't say additional spending because that triggers negative reaction and we get hit with tax-and-spend Dems/liberals.  But invest is not a word that I hear voters use in the groups we do.  And for a few, invest triggers thoughts about the stock market, or other such speculation.  In some cases they say, "spend more," but what they really want is adequate funding.   Investment is the construct of question 14 and used in 13, 16, 29 and elsewhere.  We also use the more traditional definition of investment in 30f.    I see "increasing funding" in q24, which I think is what we really mean when saying "investments."   There may not be a better word to use as substitute, but I bring this up, only because the word is viewed, at least in the qual we've done, as a political word that Democrats use to mean "spend more".

2.       On q6, I see climate change, and I see the need for that.  Comment is that I frequently hear voters talk about the environment as a key issue without mentioning climate change specifically.  Some are just shy on the term, seeing it as controversial, while still harboring concerns about whether there is something going on out there.  Others care more about clean air and clean water and stopping pollution.  Others care about energy and clean energy.   I understand value and necessity of asking specifically about climate change, but wanted to note the importance of environment to some who may not believe/care in climate change.

3.       Also on q6, immigration is the other issue that we regularly hear volunteered as most important facing the country.  The other thing, of course, is government itself, the gridlock/partisanship, etc., which I know we all know about, and I know we can't add to the list.  But frequently that trumps all other issues when voters are asked what is the most important issue facing the country.

4.       Should we do a check on Scott Walker fav/unfav in 8?

5.       Q13, we've also found some don't know 'infrastructure' when asked without clarification.  We are hearing more concern about streets, roads, highways, bridges, etc., but not everyone uses the word infrastructure.  Like that job training is there, which is huge.  (I see that infrastructure is defined in 14a.  I've rarely heard infrastructure defined as 14b though).

6.       On 14h, mostly I hear voters talk about loans, and rarely talk about grants.   Are we thinking about a policy that would lead to an increase in grants?  Reducing cost of student loans is something I hear constantly as a concern.

7.       Another thing I hear in groups often that is not in q14 is public safety, which takes in a few things:  more cops on the streets and in the neighborhoods, better firefighting services, reduced response time in the case of emergencies, and disaster planning.

8.       On the 15 series, clearly there is a policy behind d that the team is working on, but to me, $51,000 seems an odd almost arbitrary amount, and long hours seems vague.    Maybe just "makes 50 thousand or less"?

9.       I'm confused on 15p,  do they keep unemployment benefits as long as they can show they are starting their own business, and then unemployment ends once the business launches?  I'm not sure I get this one.

10.   On 16/17 series, the other thing I hear people discuss regularly in conjunction with job training is apprenticeship programs.

11.   I had a recent instance in which I found massive confusion among voters between debt and deficit.   Some use interchangeably, some think debt is accumulated while deficit is annual.  So just to check, we ask about deficit in 6/7, and debt in 16/17.

12.   On 21, not to add any more, but another item I hear regularly in groups is along the lines of, improving our schools so students receive the skills necessary for jobs of the future...

13.   Elephant in the education room is standardized testing.  I see it 24/25 but not in 23 series?

14.   Reducing class size is another thing that constantly comes up when talking about what can improve education.  Maintaining arts/music/phys ed/recess, etc. also comes up regularly.

15.   Also on education generally, perhaps not for this questionnaire, is the giving teachers more latitude to teach critical thinking.   I frequently hear voters saying teachers teach kids how to take tests but not how to think.   Many also talk about the need for teachers to teach "the basics".

16.   Also I've heard a lot of pushback on "free college tuition," as making it free for everyone gnaws at some as going too far, unless there are some basic restrictions and accountability to make sure that students are trying, getting decent grades, and moving toward matriculation (I was surprised to hear some mention their awareness of - and annoyance at -- perpetual students who are perceived to be living off the government while extending their college years into decades, something that I myself was considering, oh, so long ago.)

17.   The first choice on 28 strikes me as two separate ideas - paying workers more, and long-term growth

18.   On 30a/b, I remember some thinking that 500k was a good place to draw the line.  Perhaps rather than 250k, which more people are saying is too low, at least in groups...

19.   In discussions on tax reform in groups, the word that is spoken with most emotion is "simplify."

20.   On 32, instead of greenhouse gases, voters say "pollution" although I understand that they are not the same.  But many don't understand "greenhouse gases".

21.   On 30k/l, we use high earners, rather than upper income or wealthy, or just high incomes.  High earners is a term I don't hear much in groups when discussing this sort of stuff.

I fear I've already gone on too long.

I may not be able to get on the Monday AM call, but if anyone has any questions or comments on my questions or comments, please email.

And finally, kudos again to everyone for putting together such a rich questionnaire that will provide clear guidance moving forward.

From: John Anzalone [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 7:17 PM
To: Marissa Astor; Robby Mook; John Podesta; Jake Sullivan; Shannon Currie; Jim Margolis; Mandy Grunwald; Dan Schwerin; Jeff Liszt; Jennifer Palmieri; Kristina Schake; Ethan Gelber; Mona Thinavongsa; Teddy Goff; Cheryl Mills; Joanne Laszczych; David Binder
Cc: Matt Hogan
Subject: First Draft of Policy Poll

Team HRC

Attached you will find the first draft of the Policy Poll.  There is a lot going on in this poll and a lot that we all want to know but naturally there are time limitations on what we can do in one instrument.  We will have future policy polls that will build on this one and dive deeper into specific issue areas.

We are attempting to do several things in this poll:

1:  Measure the importance voters put on different issues
2:  Measure isolated support or opposition of policy proposals
3:  Determine the prescriptions that voters have when policy proposals are stacked against each other
4:  And on some issues, see if proposal stand up to opposition arguments.

We have also focused on the following issue areas - almost all economic related:

1:  General Issue salience (most important issue that leaders should focus on)
2:  Importance of new investments in a variety of areas that could help families and the economy
3: The importance of different policy proposals to improve the economy and incomes
4:  Dissecting the needs of small businesses and what is needed to help them succeed and grow
5:  Proposals that would improve public education (K-12) and college debt
6: Tax reform and tax policy options (OK, tax increases)
7:  Climate changed focused mostly on the Pollution Tax (carbon tax), including opposition arguments
8  Paid Family Leave including opposition arguments
9:  Baseline measure on trade
10:  Proposals for retirement security

That is a lot for one poll and it is certainly too long but we wanted people to be able to get the full flavor or issues we have discussed on past policy calls and strategy meetings.  This will allow us to put issues side by side and then make decisions on priorities and what we might be able to wait for future polls.

As you review think to yourself what might not be needed in this round of research.  If you feel strongly that there are items missing that should be included please be ready to let us know what you would cut to fit it in the poll.

I also want to give a shout out to the Policy Team.  Them memos, calls and endless emails we sent to Jake, Dan and Ethan have been invaluable and we could not have put this draft together without your effort.  Thank you.

We have a call on Monday which gives everyone the weekend to kick the tires (Happy Valentines).  Feel free as you review and ponder to shoot me, Jeff Liszt, and Matt Hogan, an email on your comments and suggestions (and questions) and then we can attempt to put a second draft together before the call.  That would make the call more efficient.

Thanks for everyone's time and effort.

- John Anzalone
Anzalone Liszt Grove Research
334-387-3121 Office
@AnzaloneLiszt

From: Marissa Astor <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:37:00 -0500
To: Robby Mook <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, John Podesta <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Shannon Currie <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, John Anzalone <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Jim Margolis <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Mindy Grunwald <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Jeff Liszt <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Kristina Schake <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Ethan Gelber <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Mona Thinavongsa <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Teddy Goff <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Joanne Laszczych <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Policy Poll Review Call

For this call, please use the number (202) 847-6076 and enter the pin 98260. Thank you!