Subject: Times story
From: David Binder <[email-masked]>
To: John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:41:44 -0800

So you attended Knox in Galesburg?  I grew up in Kewanee and still go back there regularly.  Didn’t know you shared my experience of corn and soybeans country and the people of the heartland.   Good for political perspective on life…

From: John Podesta [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 11:11 AM
To: John Anzalone
Cc: Marissa Astor; Robby Mook; 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; Matt Hogan
Subject: Re: First Draft of Policy Poll

A few additional thoughts post call:
Q7 picking up on Binder, should we use some formulation like climate change and the environment.
Q14 investment point I made on the call--apples and oranges in the Q
Q15n cutting taxes for two income families seems weird,  maybe supporting families by cutting taxes for households with two earners.
Q23 education bank is pretty standard fare. This is probably more a policy than a polling question, but we should probably do something more innovative maybe around technology access there.
Q28 I don't get the first half of the question.is<http://question.is> that pie in the sky or are you testing a specific policy?
Q30f should we straightforwardly test whether all income should be taxed at the same rate whether earned or capital gains?
Q30m cant imagine people will know what high frequency traders are so this will just be testing that sort of sounds evil (which it is) but I don't think the answer tells us much.
Q32/33 climate questions without clean air and reducing asthma likely don't test intensity of the way this will play out in campaign. Recent Nyt polling amongst Latinos interesting on that point.
Q40 on free trade, my own view is this is sort of a dog, but should we try to test the proposition that trade deals are bad unless they have high standards on labor and the environment.

Sorry to run on.

JP
--Sent from my iPad--
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
For scheduling: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

On Feb 13, 2015, at 7:17 PM, John Anzalone <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
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!
<NATIONAL POLICY POLL 2016 Q REV_G.pdf>