Overview Strategic Imperatives Our Organization Finance and Budget Path to Victory
Strategic Imperatives
Strategic Imperatives 1. Prove to voters that Hillary Clinton will be a President who fights for them and their economic future. 2. Stay on offense and pivot quickly away from attacks. 3. Win early four states, especially IA and NH 4. Build March firewall (maintain support with African Americans, Hispanics, Women) 5. Superdelegates 6. Raise the resources to compete Build our digital community Fully fund our early four states Build a March TV "nest egg" Help Priorities raise $300+ million General election imperatives: 1. Muddy the waters with GOP on vulnerabilities 2. Define the GOP as out of date and out of touch.
Message Imperatives / Vulnerabilities XXXXX XXXXXX
Organizational Snapshot
Our Winning Strategy The Early States 10 69 9,672 Offices Staff in-state Vol. shifts scheduled 19 2,700 2 Offices Staff in-state Vol. shifts scheduled 6 Offices 2 Offices 36 Staff in-state 14 Staff in-state 4,700 Vol. shifts scheduled 2,993 Vol. shifts scheduled
Headquarters 292 Staff 130 Active Volunteers Digital 5,000,000+ social followers O Malley: 151,978 Sanders: 879,079 33 M Average number of people reached across platforms every week Tech Reliability of donation processing 99.99% unique pageviews 11 million unique sessions 7.1 million signup count 2.6 million
Finance & Budget
Fundraising Cash on Hand: $28,800,416.66 Total Contributions: $47,501,688.91 (including Candidate in-kind) $47,222,867.82 (excluding Candidate in-kind) Primary Contributions: $46,730,540.88 General Contributions: $771,148.03 Contributions from the Candidate: $278,821.09 (in-kinded) Average Contribution: $144.89 Median Contribution: $25.00 Number of Donors: 251,887 Number of Maxed-Out Donors: 11,502 Number of Repeat Donors: 20,375 Number of Recurring Donors: 7,391 Best Online Fundraising Day: April 12, 2015, $2,087,279.45 raised
2011 Revenue vs. Expenditures HFA: Q2 15 Raised $46.7M Spent $24.3M* Sources: FEC filings; Washington Post s 2012 Finance Explorer *HFA Q2 15 spending includes fixed asset purchases 7/13/15
Primary Election Baseline Scenario Includes $28.6M for TV in Early States US$ millions $50.0 $40.0 $30.0 $20.5 $19.7 $20.0 $10.0 $6.9 $8.3 $9.6 $10.5 $35.2 $30.2 $25.8 $27.1 $32.0 $48.1 $17.8 $11.7 $12.5 $11.1 $14.5 $11.4 $17.5 $15.8 $20.9 $17.6 $14.2 $0.0 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. $27.2 Revenue Expenses Cash on hand No Increase in Staff HQ Analytics 29 Campaign Management 7 Communications 52 Digital 58 Finance (HQ) 11 Legal 2 Operations 52 Opinion Research 1 Paid Media 2 Policy 10 States HQ 29 Technology 48 Vice Chair 18 HQ total 319 States Iowa 97 New Hampshire 50 Nevada 22 South Carolina 14 States total 183 Regional Finance 50 Total 552 *Includes $28.6M of paid media expenses 7/13/15
Primary Election Expanded Scenario $10.5M of total incremental cost over Baseline Scenario Includes $28.6M for TV in Early States Double Staff in early 4 States Deploy organizers to March 1-15 States Deploy State Directors to General Election Battleground States Expanded tech, digital, & analytics staff at HQ Total 552 *List of assumptions on next slide 7/13/15
Salaried Staff Headcount Comparison Historical vs Projected Note: Headcount numbers above reflect only salaried staff of the candidates respective campaigns Sources: Clinton 2007-08 and Obama 2007-08 data from FEC filings; Obama 2011-12 figures and Clinton 2015-16 projections from internal documents 7/13/15
Priorities
Path to Victory
State of the Race In Iowa, we are leading Sanders 58-25 (+33). In New Hampshire, we are leading Sanders 47-38 (+9). Other notes: In both states, Sanders support is strongest among men, Independents, young voters and those less likely to vote. In New Hampshire, he has particular strength in the Burlington media market and the nearby rural areas. We saw no indication that Martin O Malley, Jim Webb or Lincoln Chafee have made inroads into either state. Their support summed to three percent or less in both states
50% 80% Iowa support by precinct Each dot on the map to the left represents a precinct. The bigger the dot, the more people we expect to caucus in that precinct. The dots are colored from blue to orange (bluer dots are more supportive of HRC). Modeled HRC Support
40% 60% New Hampshire support by precinct and county Each dot on the map to the left represents a precinct. Each on dot on the map to the right represents a county. The bigger the dot, the more people we expect to vote in that area. The dots are colored from blue to orange (bluer dots are more supportive of HRC). Modeled HRC Support
Impact of anti-hrc / pro-sanders message Women moved to Sanders after hearing the message more than men (Iowa & New Hampshire) Within gender, younger women and older men were most likely to be impacted by the message (Iowa & New Hampshire) Minorities were more likely to be impacted by the messages (New Hampshire) Those who caucused in 2012 were least likely to change their vote (New Hampshire) Voters in Burlington media market were most likely to move. Rural voters were more likely to respond to the message (Iowa) In general, the message was more likely to impact subgroups with the strongest support for HRC
Different States different delegate strategies Iowa Caucus New Hampshire Primary Not all Iowans are created equal Delegates in Iowa are awarded by precinct caucus results. The number of delegates a precinct is worth is not determined by previous caucus-goers (by GE vote instead). This results in an inefficiency which means that some attendees are worth more than others. Our Iowa strategy includes exploiting these inefficiencies and distributing our resources according to a weighted voter algorithm instead of total voters. Run up the score Delegates in NH are awarded proportionally based on who gets the most votes across the state and each congressional district. Therefore, each voter has roughly the same value. Regardless of delegate attribution, the media reports a winner based on popular vote. Our New Hampshire strategy is more straightforward than our Iowa one win the most votes statewide.
In Iowa, we can win by building a fence around current supporters who we are at risk of losing
In Iowa, we can win by building a fence around current supporters who we are at risk of losing
Determining the delegate value of a voter
The delegate math in New Hampshire is simpler, but the path to victory math is more complicated In New Hampshire, we have three sets of targets: 1. Mobilization those who are supporting us under all circumstances. We must make sure they stay engaged and vote High Who do you support? Ignore these voters. They won t vote for us and have no chance of changing their minds Mobilize these voters. 1/3 of our voters say there is no chance they will vote for anyone else 2. Erosion those who are supporting us, but might change their mind. We need to talk to them to make sure we don t lose them 3. Persuasion those who are supporting Sanders, but might change their mind. Since we won t be able to stop all of the potential erosion, we need to win over some of Sanders voters Strength of support? Persuade these voters. 75% of non-hrc voters say there is a chance they will vote for her (27% say there is a good chance). Talk to these voters and make sure they don t leave us. 69% of HRC supporters say there is a chance they ll support someone else (16% say there is a good chance). Low Sanders Hillary
Travel Maps
DNC Joint Account $1.2 Million per Month Transfer Strategic Control of Communications, Research, Data, and Tech Unlimited Add-Ons for General Election Planning Shift costs for high expense fundraising, finance, staff, and finance offices
General Election Planning Certain R Likely Certain R Battleground Lean D Certain D Arizona Colorado Alabama Maine 2 Arkansas Florida California Alaska Michigan Georgia Iowa Connecticut Idaho Minnesota Indiana Nevada Delaware Kansas New Mexico Kentucky New Hampshire Hawaii Mississippi Oregon Louisiana North Carolina Illinois Nebraska 1, 3 Washington Missouri Ohio Maine 1 North Dakota Montana Pennsylvania Maryland Oklahoma Nebraska 2 Virginia Massachusetts South Carolina Texas Wisconsin New Jersey South Dakota West Virginia New York Tennessee Rhode Island Utah Vermont Wyoming Analytics assessment of battleground by Sept/Oct Identifying planning lead/staff solution in each state (may have someone on payroll in CO) State plans (including staff recommendations) by October for 7 states Scoring state budgets Devising national and state coordinated structures that best support our goals/needs