# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns > Liberty Campaign Evaluation >  New Liberty Campaign Evaluation Forum

## Bryan

We are pleased to announce the roll-out of a new forum section dedicated to the effort of discovery and vetting of potential liberty candidates and campaigns. The purpose of this is to have a single source of discussion for the worthiness of supporting any particular candidate and/or campaign.

Within this forum every candidate considered pro-liberty can have one thread for the purpose of discussing their campaign. To help prevent duplicate threads only the site staff can start new threads, which will be created upon request. 

The first post in each thread may also be used to aggregate key points, both for and against, to help provide a summary of the discussion.

This should help members get up to speed on who a candidate is and why they should or shouldn't support the candidate based on what is important to them without having to rehash discussions over and over. Standing up to evaluation on key pro-liberty positions and having a good value proposition will be two of a few elements needed for a candidate forum to be created, a critical mass of member support is also very important.

Please base criticism on supportable facts and make them in respectable manners, particularly for any candidate members here.

We are open to suggestions on how to improve the process, but this should be a good step in the right direction.

----------


## malkusm

Very excited about this!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

I'm very curious about this.  I hope we can still use the 5 Star Liberty Scale.

I love the liberty scale because you sort of know what you're getting. It's also a prudent, incremental approach looking towards the future by not tossing aside good candidates because they're not great ones.  I'm pragmatic so I'll take someone that moves the liberty football down field even if its by feet and inches opposed to yards.  


★★★★★ - Green Five stars is essentially Ron Paul incarnate. So good you have to slap yourself silly to believe this person really exists!

★★★★★ - Five stars you're getting someone that agrees with us 99.9% of the time and will be one of the best House or Senator members in decades!

★★★★ - Four stars you're essentially getting a Mike Lee who is damn good on nearly everything, but might have to dial back their rhetoric concerning an issue or two. We'll still agree 90-95% of the time and they'll be a great ally at your side on the issues we do agree upon.

★★★ - Three stars you're mostly getting a Jim Demint type. Someone that is a fiscal hawk and wants to slash and burn the size of government. There's still good potential they can be brought around on other liberty issues. We'll agree 70-80% of the time on most pressing issues.

★★ - Two stars we'll agree on maybe 40-50% of the issues. A Jeff Flake could probably fit into this category, unless you guys have a better example of a two star Congressman or Senator?

★ - One star you're getting someone that is a one trick pony, a candidate that *might* be of help in one focused area of the liberty spectrum, usually curtailing government spending or maybe a civil liberties lion. The tricky part is measuring this one beneficial area with the other issues where they might be horribly wrong in.

No stars you are the arch enemy of liberty and we WILL defeat you! Goodbye Lindsey Graham.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

There have been several suggestions for this over the years. A few years ago we started using a 5 star rating scheme. Some people requested a further breakdown, rating candidates on several specific areas, or even specific issues. Ron Paul endorsed candidates were highlighted. It ends up being a lot of work, but the more people involved, the easier it becomes. Good luck!

----------


## muzzled dogg

Great step fwd

----------


## malkusm

> I'm very curious about this.  I hope we can still use the 5 Star Liberty Scale.
> 
> I love the liberty scale because you sort of know what you're getting. It's also a prudent, incremental approach looking towards the future by not tossing aside good candidates because they're not great ones.  I'm pragmatic so I'll take someone that moves the liberty football down field even if its by feet and inches opposed to yards.  
> 
> 
> ★★★★★ - Green Five stars is essentially Ron Paul incarnate. So good you have to slap yourself silly to believe this person really exists!
> 
> ★★★★★ - Five stars you're getting someone that agrees with us 99.9% of the time and will be one of the best House or Senator members in decades!
> 
> ...


I do think that the end result of the threads in this forum will be a general consensus on the candidate.

We want this to be a place for civil discussion of each candidate on the issues, a compilation of sources which lead us to that conclusion. While people might have differing opinions about a candidate, excessive flaming is probably going to be moderated more stringently here than in other places (same goes with off-topic or semi-off-topic posts).

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> ★★★★★ - Green Five stars is essentially Ron Paul incarnate. So good you have to slap yourself silly to believe this person really exists!


More precisely, green stars were a Ron Paul endorsement, which could result in a 3 star candidate with a green highlight.

----------


## TaftFan

What are ya'lls thoughts on having one thread per race? Like one for Bright/Mace or Barr/Loudermilk.

----------


## Bryan

I like the idea of doing ratings and per Brian4Liberty doing a break it down based on more specifics, such as:

Candidate position on foreign policy (End the wars? End the handouts?)
Candidate position on taxes (End the IRS?)
Candidate position on monetary policy (End the Fed?)
Candidate position on privacy (End the NSA?)
Candidate position personal liberty (End the TSA, handouts, etc?)
Candidates district support
Campaign value proposition

(This list needs work!)

Good point on doing them per race, it may depend on the posting level as to what is best. For limited posting, one thread may be best, for extensive discussions keeping things split, and possibly having a third compare thread, might be best. Let's see how it goes.

Thanks!

----------


## TaftFan

> I like the idea of doing ratings and per Brian4Liberty doing a break it down based on more specifics, such as:
> 
> Candidate position on foreign policy (End the wars? End the handouts?)
> Candidate position on taxes (End the IRS?)
> Candidate position on monetary policy (End the Fed?)
> Candidate position on privacy (End the NSA?)
> Candidate position personal liberty (End the TSA, handouts, etc?)
> Candidates district support
> Campaign value proposition
> ...


A couple of things I would add to that list:
*Understanding of the Constitution
*Is that candidate a fighter/bulldog in certain areas (Ex. Does this person introduce/co-sponsor bills or simply vote on them)

----------


## Smart3

Awesome. Great addition.

----------


## malkusm

I've updated the template of the evaluation thread OPs to incorporate much of what we have discussed here. Additional feedback is always encouraged 

The goal is to get a standard that we can compare candidates on which is relatively consistent no matter the size and shape of the race.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> More precisely, green stars were a Ron Paul endorsement, which could result in a 3 star candidate with a green highlight.


Good point.  There were a few 3-4 star candidates that got Ron's endorsement, so they got the green stars.  I like how simple that system was if you're just glancing through all the candidates.

----------


## muzzled dogg

Thanks Matt

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I like the idea of doing ratings and per Brian4Liberty doing a break it down based on more specifics, such as:
> 
> Candidate position on foreign policy (End the wars? End the handouts?)
> Candidate position on taxes (End the IRS?)
> Candidate position on monetary policy (End the Fed?)
> Candidate position on privacy (End the NSA?)
> Candidate position personal liberty (End the TSA, handouts, etc?)
> Candidates district support
> Campaign value proposition
> ...


Ron Paul Forums should probably send a questionnaire to all the candidates both electronically and by snail mail.  I think it would give this forum more gravitas if we gave a candidate our seal of approval so to speak.  I know other organizations send out some very detailed questionnaires asking very pertinent questions.  Then maybe we could take all those answers and information and break it down into something simple for the casual viewer.  One thing is for sure, I don't care for numbered rating systems.  Every group has them and they are very arbitrary, misleading, and essentially meaningless now.  The star chart was very simple and visually eye pleasing, but it was missing all the data and footnotes on how we came to a determination on a particular candidate's rating.  I guess my question is if there's anyway we could keep the simple visual presentation, but add substance and research to back it up?  

Also, a lot of these candidates come completely out of left field and only people on the ground in their area may know them and what they truly stand for, so people on the ground should have their opinions carry more weight if they are verified trustworthy judges of character.

Another issue are third party candidates.  I think they are big waste of time.  They can't raise money and will never win higher office.  It's hard to take them seriously when they share the podium with Vermin Supreme.  I severely question a candidate's judgment when they run third party.  I'd rather not waste my time with them.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> A couple of things I would add to that list:
> *Understanding of the Constitution
> *Is that candidate a fighter/bulldog in certain areas (Ex. Does this person introduce/co-sponsor bills or simply vote on them)


We should ask them their understanding and interpretation of the Commerce Claus.  Every candidate will say they support the Constitution so these have to be very pointed questions.

----------


## TaftFan

> We should ask them their understanding and interpretation of the Commerce Claus.  Every candidate will say they support the Constitution so these have to be very pointed questions.


Yes. Other provisions include the necessary and proper clause, general welfare clause, power to declare war, etc.

----------


## Bryan

> Ron Paul Forums should probably send a questionnaire to all the candidates both electronically and by snail mail.  I think it would give this forum more gravitas if we gave a candidate our seal of approval so to speak.  I know other organizations send out some very detailed questionnaires asking very pertinent questions.  Then maybe we could take all those answers and information and break it down into something simple for the casual viewer.  One thing is for sure, I don't care for numbered rating systems.  Every group has them and they are very arbitrary, misleading, and essentially meaningless now.  The star chart was very simple and visually eye pleasing, but it was missing all the data and footnotes on how we came to a determination on a particular candidate's rating.  I guess my question is if there's anyway we could keep the simple visual presentation, but add substance and research to back it up?  
> 
> Also, a lot of these candidates come completely out of left field and only people on the ground in their area may know them and what they truly stand for, so people on the ground should have their opinions carry more weight if they are verified trustworthy judges of character.


Good points all around. I agree on the questionnaire, and will support sending it out, we should just pre-fill it with info taken from their web site so we're not asking questions they've already made clear. In thinking on this more, our evaluation should be feed in directly from the questionnaire which should be based on important and commonly understood issues, including key anti-liberty legislation and more. 

Getting started...
Do you support a repeal of the Patriot Act? Why?
Do you support an audit of the Federal Reserve? Why?
Do you support ending the Federal Reserve? Why?

Some might only apply to national candidates however.





> Another issue are third party candidates.  I think they are big waste of time.  They can't raise money and will never win higher office.  It's hard to take them seriously when they share the podium with Vermin Supreme.  I severely question a candidate's judgment when they run third party.  I'd rather not waste my time with them


I certainly understand this, I'll let that be more decided by the members but this seems to be a widely held position.

----------


## Natural Citizen

What is their position on science & technology?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

FWIW, my informal vetting process usually includes using Google searches. Even more important for candidates with no track record. Some standard ones:

1. <candidate name> + Ron Paul. Anything positive? Anything negative? (I.e. Good: "OMG, I shook hands with Ron at the C4L conference!". Bad: "Ron Paul is a wacko-bird.").
2. <candidate name> + Rand Paul
3. <candidate name> + Campaign For Liberty
4. <candidate name> + Syria or Iran or Libya (or whatever is current foreign policy news).
5. <candidate name> + TSA or IRS or any other current government scandal.
6. <candidate name> + <political pundit> Who says good things, who says bad things?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

There are some specific issues that many people are interested in, yet there is no consensus on this forum. For example, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, etc. There is no way to "rate" a candidate if there is no consensus on what is "good" or "bad".

Should we just have a note for these issues if a candidate takes a position on them? 

For example,

Abortion: Pro-life, supports Federal ban.
or 
Abortion: Pro-choice, supports Federal subsidies.
or
Abortion: Pro-life, abortion is personal medical decision, no Federal laws, no Federal subsidies.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Economic Issues: [Rating TBD]


There was a reason we never broke these down in the past, too much work! 

So let's say we have a candidate that doesn't want to significantly reduce government spending or taxes, but advocates for free markets and less regulation? Do those cancel each other?

----------


## malkusm

> There was a reason we never broke these down in the past, too much work! 
> 
> So let's say we have a candidate that doesn't want to significantly reduce government spending or taxes, but advocates for free markets and less regulation? Do those cancel each other?


I think the way this will end up working is:

1. Thread is posted. We have a substantive discussion around the issues. Anyone can pitch in with concerns or points in the candidate's favor. The issue does not need to be listed as one of the issues in the OP - if it's not, we'll file it under the "Miscellaneous Pros/Cons" section as something that people can keep tabs on (even if not everyone here may care about that particular issue). Abortion, immigration, etc are good examples.

2. 2-3 weeks after the original creation of the thread, a poll is added to the thread, allowing members to vote on the *Overall Rating* for the candidate. This poll stays open for 10 days or so.

3. Once the overall rating is set by users, moderators will apply the rating to the OP and clean up the OP. This will include setting ratings on individual issues. There will be some judgment applied here, but we will try as best we can to rely upon the information provided by members in the thread. If there are concerns by some members on a particular issue -- foreign policy, for instance -- we would rate that candidate lower on that issue, but would defer to the poll results for the candidate's final "Overall Rating".

Let me know your thoughts on this approach.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I think the way this will end up working is:
> 
> 1. Thread is posted. We have a substantive discussion around the issues. Anyone can pitch in with concerns or points in the candidate's favor. The issue does not need to be listed as one of the issues in the OP - if it's not, we'll file it under the "Miscellaneous Pros/Cons" section as something that people can keep tabs on (even if not everyone here may care about that particular issue). Abortion, immigration, etc are good examples.
> 
> 2. 2-3 weeks after the original creation of the thread, a poll is added to the thread, allowing members to vote on the *Overall Rating* for the candidate. This poll stays open for 10 days or so.
> 
> 3. Once the overall rating is set by users, moderators will apply the rating to the OP and clean up the OP. This will include setting ratings on individual issues. There will be some judgment applied here, but we will try as best we can to rely upon the information provided by members in the thread. If there are concerns by some members on a particular issue -- foreign policy, for instance -- we would rate that candidate lower on that issue, but would defer to the poll results for the candidate's final "Overall Rating".
> 
> Let me know your thoughts on this approach.


It sounds good.

The one caveat is that there is limited participation in candidate threads. In particular, the people who scream the loudest about politicians wait until after the fact to "get involved". Maybe it's just human nature. Easier to wait and criticize later. Vetting is hard. If we do use a poll, perhaps we need to set some participation standards. I.e. perhaps we set a minimum of votes or participation to actually set a rating.

Just as a generic concern, we need to be extra discriminating so that we don't "endorse" any Rubio, Ayotte, Flake type candidates. Even Bentivolio has turned out to be problematic. As Massie might say, the walkers/biters get to them fast in DC. 

Also, a suggestion would be to have a single post thread edited by mods which would have the candidates, their overall rating, and embedded links to their campaign website, Facebook, Twitter, and their evaluation thread. No other posts or conversation in that specific thread.

----------


## malkusm

> It sounds good.
> 
> The one caveat is that there is limited participation in candidate threads. In particular, the people who scream the loudest about politicians wait until after the fact to "get involved". Maybe it's just human nature. Easier to wait and criticize later. Vetting is hard. If we do use a poll, perhaps we need to set some participation standards. I.e. perhaps we set a minimum of votes or participation to actually set a rating.
> 
> Just as a generic concern, we need to be extra discriminating so that we don't "endorse" any Rubio, Ayotte, Flake type candidates. Even Bentivolio has turned out to be problematic. As Massie might say, the walkers/biters get to them fast in DC. 
> 
> Also, a suggestion would be to have a single post thread edited by mods which would have the candidates, their overall rating, and embedded links to their campaign website, Facebook, Twitter, and their evaluation thread. No other posts or conversation in that specific thread.


I like both ideas (the sticky "Directory" thread and the minimum number of votes required to set a rating). I don't make the final decisions but it sounds reasonable to me.

----------


## muzzled dogg

Limited traffic in the section that's been open for two days

Things will pick up 

Bryan could promote the section on next email bomb

----------


## malkusm

> Just as a generic concern, we need to be extra discriminating so that we don't "endorse" any Rubio, Ayotte, Flake type candidates. Even Bentivolio has turned out to be problematic. As Massie might say, the walkers/biters get to them fast in DC.


I just want to say to this - I think we should be going through candidates who are 1-star or 2-star candidates. If nothing else, we have documentation for future reference on where they stand with us and where they don't. It may be, unfortunately, that a 1-star or 2-star candidate is the best available candidate in a particular race. But even if not, I don't particularly see the evaluation of that candidate as an "endorsement" by the forum. Case in point, we have threads for both Lee Bright and Nancy Mace -- it would be odd to say we're "endorsing" both by doing so.

----------


## malkusm

Just a quick bump - 4 candidates have open polls in their threads here. Please be sure to vote for the rating of those candidates. Other threads will have polls open up later in the week.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I'm very curious about this.  I hope we can still use the 5 Star Liberty Scale.
> 
> I love the liberty scale because you sort of know what you're getting. It's also a prudent, incremental approach looking towards the future by not tossing aside good candidates because they're not great ones.  I'm pragmatic so I'll take someone that moves the liberty football down field even if its by feet and inches opposed to yards.  
> 
> 
> ★★★★★ - Green Five stars is essentially Ron Paul incarnate. So good you have to slap yourself silly to believe this person really exists!
> 
> ★★★★★ - Five stars you're getting someone that agrees with us 99.9% of the time and will be one of the best House or Senator members in decades!
> 
> ...


Now that we are seeing the results from polls in the candidate evaluation threads, I'd say that the new results are more ambiguous than the old ratings. 

Some people are heavily voting based on odds of electability. With that as a major part of the voting, the new "rating" will not reflect purity on issues.

If a candidate is rated a 2, does that mean they are terrible on the issues, or that they are not polling well right now?

----------


## thoughtomator

we need inverted pentagram "stars" for measuring the likes of Graham and McCain

----------


## muzzled dogg

> Now that we are seeing the results from polls in the candidate evaluation threads, I'd say that the new results are more ambiguous than the old ratings. 
> 
> Some people are heavily voting based on odds of electability. With that as a major part of the voting, the new "rating" will not reflect purity on issues.
> 
> If a candidate is rated a 2, does that mean they are terrible on the issues, or that they are not polling well right now?


Could you give 5 stars to a write in candidate?  I think you have to factor in the candidate's chances somehow

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Could you give 5 stars to a write in candidate?  I think you have to factor in the candidate's chances somehow


Sure. 5 Stars could apply to a write-in. But a person might vote for the 4 star candidate who has the better chance of winning.

Having a purity rating broken down into multiple issues makes sense. A single rating is just adding them all together.

Forcing electability into a rating that includes purity on issues seems like an apple and oranges addition.

Is our final score supposed to reflect whether we would donate money? Whether we would vote for a given candidate? Even those two answers may not match up (i.e. someone might vote for a candidate, but not donate money). 

How would Ron Paul rate in a scheme that heavily weighs electability?

----------


## malkusm

> Sure. 5 Stars could apply to a write-in. But a person might vote for the 4 star candidate who has the better chance of winning.
> 
> Having a purity rating broken down into multiple issues makes sense. A single rating is just adding them all together.
> 
> Forcing electability into a rating that includes purity on issues seems like an apple and oranges addition.
> 
> Is our final score supposed to reflect whether we would donate money? Whether we would vote for a given candidate? Even those two answers may not match up (i.e. someone might vote for a candidate, but not donate money). 
> 
> How would Ron Paul rate in a scheme that heavily weighs electability?


I think the goal is to focus our energy and resources on the candidates and races where we can have the biggest impact. Ultimately, some people will feel as you do and will vote based on the purity of the candidate; others will factor in the chances of winning the race to greater or lesser degrees. I think it's good that we'll get a distribution on each candidate because of that, rather than a point estimate of how much they align with strict libertarianism. I think it forces us to be disciplined and to make some tough decisions on the merits of each candidate and how we feel as a whole about them. The idea is that the member who only has 10 minutes, or 10 dollars, can come here and figure out how they want to spend those limited resources, with the confidence of knowing that members here rated a particular candidate favorably overall.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The idea is that the member who only has 10 minutes, or 10 dollars, can come here and figure out how they want to spend those limited resources, with the confidence of knowing that members here rated a particular candidate favorably overall.


I can certainly see the value in a simple, single rating system. It would need to be well-defined, with caveats. (I.e. Objective is to rate best candidate to donate to. Break down of other factors is available in candidate thread).

My decision on donating is based on multiple factors. Electability is just one of them. It's an interesting factor though. If a person is a lost cause, with near zero chance, I probably won't donate. On the other hand, if they are a shoe-in, I probably won't donate either. There's a sweet spot in the middle. If electability were on a scale of 1-5, a 3 is most likely to get a donation.

Electability is also a factor that can change dramatically over time. It's self-fulfilling (or self-defeating) prophecy to write-off a candidate early on just because of polling numbers or poor name recognition.

My preference is to have separate ratings, one for purity (with can be broken down into separate issues), and one for electability. Then personal decisions on whether to donate, endorse, promote, or vote for a given candidate can be based on those two. 

A rating that merges purity and electability could theoretically have some strange results. Weighing heavily on electability, and with current polling, the South Carolina Primary might have Lindsey Graham rated a 4, Lee Bright a 2 and Nancy Mace a 1.

As for an endorsement, it seems like a simple yes/no poll might be good for that. ("Would you endorse this candidate?").

Or for a more specific poll, there could be a multi-choice, where people can check as many as they want:

- I would endorse this candidate.
- I would promote this candidate (social media, friends, family, signs, etc.).
- I would donate to this candidate.
- I would volunteer for this candidate.
- I would vote for this candidate.
- This candidate is ok, but I prefer another candidate in this race right now.
- I would never support this candidate in any way.


Just doing some brainstorming here. I'm not sure what would work best. Participation is key too, and too much complexity may hinder that.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> If we do use a poll, perhaps we need to set some participation standards. I.e. perhaps we set a minimum of votes or participation to actually set a rating.





> I like both ideas (the sticky "Directory" thread and the minimum number of votes required to set a rating). I don't make the final decisions but it sounds reasonable to me.


So far, our participation is not very high. Greg Brannon is the most popular and 35 people voted in his poll. Only 21 in Bright's and 17 in Mace's. The others are even less.

Do we need to advertise this more? Leave the poll open until we get a certain number of votes?

----------


## neverseen

This fellow contacted the RLC of FL for assistance.  Looks like he's a Liberty type.  In his facebook comments he wrote to people that he thinks gay rights and abortion should be state issues, etc.  Says he's a right leaning Libertarian.  

https://www.facebook.com/brian.gibens
http://www.gibens4congress.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Giben...92315924227085

He is not in my area so I won't have much information to give about him.  He's in D19 FL.

----------


## Bryan

I added Gibens. Thanks.

----------

