The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) claims “non-partisanship,” but it is inherently bi-partisan and seemingly “rigged” for Hillary Clinton. Americans must reject the misinformation spread by the CPD. Open the debates.
CPD Co-Chairman Michael McCurry is invested in a Hillary Clinton presidency. He donated to her the day she announced her current run.
CPD Co-Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf has donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Republican party. He has previously supported George W. Bush and John McCain.
CPD Co-Chairman Emeritus Paul G. Kirk, Jr. has donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Republican party. He has previously supported George W. Bush and John McCain.
There are other apparent conflicts of interests among the CPD Board Members
Richard Parsons has contributed to Clinton. He has even spoken at the Clinton Global Initiative.
Shirley Tilghman appears in a video entitled “Hillary Fan.” She has praised Clinton’s leadership in speeches delivered at Princeton University.
Antonia Hernandez has collaborated with the Clintons on Latino outreach since at least 1992. She has attended the Clinton School of Public Service. She donated to Hillary Clinton in the current cycle.
Jane Harman supported Clinton’s 2007 bid. She and her husband donated early in the campaign.
Harman’s husband is also a donor to the Clinton Foundation.
Harman praised Clinton in her 2007 endorsement.
Harman gave an award to Clinton at the Wilson Center. She can be seen holding the award with Clinton.
While most CPD members seem to serve for years, the wayback machine shows Bob Schieffer as a member between September 2015 and December 2015. The exact reason behind his departure is unknown, but it is notable that in October 2015, he criticized the Clinton campaign. It is worthwhile to ask: Does the CPD tolerate members who don’t prefer Clinton over Trump, Johnson, or Stein?
Problems with the polls used by the CPD
The CPD claims it arrives at its decision on debate inclusion by averaging across five polls. However, some of these polls have considerable scientific problems. And, worse yet, the researchers who conduct the polls show a clear bi-partisan bias. Given this bias, can they be relied upon to accurately represent the interests of non-bipartisan candidates and voters?
For example, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll under-samples independents. It is run by partisans.
Bill McInturff describes himself on his company profile as a researcher who is not “simply monitoring public opinion.” Instead, he has a goal of “developing messages to defend and promote client interests on complex public policy issues.” What does this mean? In the worst possible light, it could mean delivering “research” that advances the interests of his clients, i.e., the Republican party.
The other researcher in charge of the poll, Frederick Yang is highly valued by Democrats. How can he be “non-partisan”?
The Fox News poll is also run by pollsters who donate to the Democrats and Republicans. It also under-represents independents.
The CNN/ORC poll seems to either drastically under-sample the largest generation in American history (Millennials) or to not sample them at all. Dozens of emails requesting clarification have been unreturned by the CNN Polling Director. This pales in comparison to the professionals at the ABC-Washington Post poll, who have promptly answered all questions.
Beyond these problems, the core methodology is flawed. The polls over-rely on polling through telephone calls. Yet, Wired Magazine recently uncovered the fact that 99%+ of Americans in 2016 do not respond to telephone poll requests. In other words, the polls only succeed in polling the least busy, most patient 1% of the population. As such, contrary to the claims of the CPD, the polls do not represent the American people.
Neither the CPD nor the flawed polls represent the American people. Open the debates.
Note: This is a living document. It will be updated as new information is learned. Rodolfo Cortes and Nick Bax contributed to this report.
