C4L Candidate Survey

[InterestedParticipant]

I simply don’t trust answers from a political candidate on a 20-question survey.

Is this the extent of the criteria that C4L uses to evaluate candidates?

[dannno]

They are putting politicians on record, they are not questions, they are commitments. Have you read through the 20 questions?

If they break their commitment then they can use the information against them. If they lie on the survey to try to get C4L funding, then that information can be used against them in their current campaign if they have made statements to the contrary... they could be made out to be a flip-flopper by their opponent.

So far, if you look at the candidate surveys, most of them are scoring really bad. Politicians don't seem to be lying on these surveys... and if they do, then their support from C4L will be dropped.

In reality I think it's a pretty good program. I wish the survey had another question on foreign policy to make it more clear where they stand on non-intervention.

Would you rather the C4L NOT get this information from politicians? The entire point is to help classify politicians, and promote those who are committed to liberty, and continue to promote the ones who follow through. This is a long-term project.

[InterestedParticipant]

They are putting politicians on record, they are not questions, they are commitments. Have you read through the 20 questions?

If they break their commitment then they can use the information against them. If they lie on the survey to try to get C4L funding, then that information can be used against them in their current campaign if they have made statements to the contrary... they could be made out to be a flip-flopper by their opponent.

So far, if you look at the candidate surveys, most of them are scoring really bad. Politicians don't seem to be lying on these surveys... and if they do, then their support from C4L will be dropped.

In reality I think it's a pretty good program. I wish the survey had another question on foreign policy to make it more clear where they stand on non-intervention.

Would you rather the C4L NOT get this information from politicians? The entire point is to help classify politicians, and promote those who are committed to liberty, and continue to promote the ones who follow through. This is a long-term project.
They are not meeting with the candidates? Interviewing them, similar to a job interview?

Someone applying for a regular wage-slave job probably goes through more scrutiny.

[LittleLightShining]

They are putting politicians on record, they are not questions, they are commitments. Have you read through the 20 questions?

If they break their commitment then they can use the information against them. If they lie on the survey to try to get C4L funding, then that information can be used against them in their current campaign if they have made statements to the contrary... they could be made out to be a flip-flopper by their opponent.

So far, if you look at the candidate surveys, most of them are scoring really bad. Politicians don't seem to be lying on these surveys... and if they do, then their support from C4L will be dropped.

In reality I think it's a pretty good program. I wish the survey had another question on foreign policy to make it more clear where they stand on non-intervention.

Would you rather the C4L NOT get this information from politicians? The entire point is to help classify politicians, and promote those who are committed to liberty, and continue to promote the ones who follow through. This is a long-term project.

Wouldn't it make sense to check out a candidate's website? Granted there are some sites which are very much lacking information but some sites, like Buck's, are chock full of information which goes far beyond a yes or no answer to a question.

[jmdrake]

IP: Is your problem with the survey as written, or with the idea of relying on surveys in general? If the former then how would you rewrite it? If the latter than what other mechanisms did you use?

My problem with the C4L survey is that the foreign policy questions are vague and sparse. Maybe the point of the survey is to show general agreement with republicans? I'm still not sure if Ken Buck was "lying" with his answer and that's concerning.

[jmdrake]

Wouldn't it make sense to check out a candidate's website? Granted there are some sites which are very much lacking information but some sites, like Buck's, are chock full of information which goes far beyond a yes or no answer to a question.

Both. Buck's website says nothing about the federal reserve, the patriot act, the united nations, the NAFTA superhighway, the North American Union etc. At the very least the survey should be compared with the website to see if it jives. If there's a discrepancy, ask the candidate to explain. The candidate surveys should include an asterisk and a link to such explanations. I'd love to hear Bucks explanation for why he voted yes to question 10 when he supports staying in Afghanistan even though there's no declaration of war.

[dannno]

They are not meeting with the candidates? Interviewing them, similar to a job interview?

Someone applying for a regular wage-slave job probably goes through more scrutiny.

Scrutiny for what exactly? They are just getting them on record on these issues. All politicians. Most of them fail the test. Do you want C4L to interview everybody who fails the test? Most of them fail miserably, you know that.

They aren't promoting, endorsing or giving money to these candidates based on the survey (with the exception of Buck, who was given money that was given to the organization specifically to promote how Buck did on the C4L survey, which the organization admits was not done 100% properly and they are revising how they will conduct themselves in the future)

[dannno]

Wouldn't it make sense to check out a candidate's website? Granted there are some sites which are very much lacking information but some sites, like Buck's, are chock full of information which goes far beyond a yes or no answer to a question.

C4L has been in personal contact with Buck for a long time and they are responsible for helping change his views on the Fed, civil liberties, international sovereignty, declaration of war by congress and many other issues. They are trying really hard on the non-intervention thing, but he hasn't quite come around on that yet. Maybe he will, maybe he won't..

Not sure what other candidates are becoming an issue here.. pretty much everybody fails this test miserably.

[SelfTaught]

I simply don’t trust answers from a political candidate on a 20-question survey.

Is this the extent of the criteria that C4L uses to evaluate candidates?

I share the same sentiment.

Politicians lie. How is a survey any more effective than when news programs replay clips of Obama, Bush, or any other politician on the campaign trail? It's not, and incumbents get reelected more than 90% of the time.

[pacelli]

I'd love to hear Bucks explanation for why he voted yes to question 10 when he supports staying in Afghanistan even though there's no declaration of war.

How come advertising the survey via Buck's campaign was more important to the C4L than getting an explanation from Buck about one of his answers on their own survey?

[jmdrake]

Scrutiny for what exactly? They are just getting them on record on these issues. All politicians. Most of them fail the test. Do you want C4L to interview everybody who fails the test? Most of them fail miserably, you know that.


What survey results are you looking at? The ones I see have most politicians (especially GOP politicians) passing it.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=IL

That's not surprising considering the way the survey is slanted. (There's only 1 foreign policy question on the survey). If "passing" means getting at least 70% right, then only 2 republicans have failed. All dems who took it failed. Most blew it off.

[dean.engelhardt]

"I simply don’t trust answers from a political candidate on a 20-question survey.

Is this the extent of the criteria that C4L uses to evaluate candidates?"

It called quid pro quo.

When a small group throws in $350K in political advertising, he is tempted to be less that truthful with his answers. If you compare his survey answer to his foreign policy stance on his website you can see he is was not truthful in the survey. He did it for the $$$$

How can we expect a lawyer, politician (aka professional liar) to be truthful? What does he care if CFL holds his feet to the fire when he flips?

G. W. Bush sent this country to war based on a flip and a lie; he seems to be going just fine.

[dannno]

How come advertising the survey via Buck's campaign was more important to the C4L than getting an explanation from Buck about one of his answers on their own survey?

Did you not read my post where I explained that C4L has been having conversations with Buck for MONTHS about this?

They know exactly where he stands, what explanation do you need? He's against undeclared wars now, so, he should not vote for any more funding until war is declared. That's the obligation he made when he took the survey.

If he does then he'll be another candidate C4L never supports. But C4L never supported him, all they were doing was getting free promotion for their survey so more politicians will take it. Unfortunately the spin on the ad made people upset, and C4L is changing their policy on this portion of the program which I think is appropriate.

[LittleLightShining]

Did you not read my post where I explained that C4L has been having conversations with Buck for MONTHS about this?

They know exactly where he stands, what explanation do you need? He's against undeclared wars now, so, he should not vote for any more funding until war is declared. That's the obligation he made when he took the survey.

If he does then he'll be another candidate C4L never supports. But C4L never supported him, all they were doing was getting free promotion for their survey so more politicians will take it. Unfortunately the spin on the ad made people upset, and C4L is changing their policy on this portion of the program which I think is appropriate.
Since you seem to have some kind of inside knowledge about CO C4L maybe you can answer this: How come theses new, special donors appeared out of nowhere, bypassing the national, funding this ad and then the CO coordinators were only informed of the ad the morning the ad was run?

[dannno]

What survey results are you looking at? The ones I see have most politicians (especially GOP politicians) passing it.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/candidatesurvey.php?state=IL

That's not surprising considering the way the survey is slanted. (There's only 1 foreign policy question on the survey). If "passing" means getting at least 70% right, then only 2 republicans have failed. All dems who took it failed. Most blew it off.

70% is not passing in my book.. not for this test. I score 100% on that test without even thinking about my answers.

Technically there is no pass or fail, I just say that most candidates fail miserably cause when I looked through it a few days ago most candidates had reds and blanks. Even the Republicans that don't have a lot of red, there are a lot of blank answers.

But even the ones who get 100% still don't get any C4L money. Again, this is a gauge to test whether politicians are:

A) Liberty friendly

B) Honest


It's a long-term project.

[dannno]

Since you seem to have some kind of inside knowledge about CO C4L maybe you can answer this: How come theses new, special donors appeared out of nowhere, bypassing the national, funding this ad and then the CO coordinators were only informed of the ad the morning the ad was run?

No inside knowledge, everything I know came from this post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=228969


I noticed you were the first to respond to the OP so I won't ask if you read it all, but I suggest you do if you didn't. I thought the OP was pretty inspiring.

I agree that C4L didn't carry out the Buck situation properly, but they also admit that and they are changing their procedures. The biggest issue was the fact that the ad seemed to be an endorsement of Buck, and C4L admits that they shouldn't have done that.

[jmdrake]

They know exactly where he stands, what explanation do you need? He's against undeclared wars now, so, he should not vote for any more funding until war is declared. That's the obligation he made when he took the survey.


Obvious guy says "But the Afghanistan war was never declared. Yet his website still says we should support it even if it takes 10 years". This survey obligates him to do what exactly? Not vote for authorization for new undeclared wars? Not continue to vote to fund the ones that are already undeclared even though he's promised to do the exact opposite on his website?



If he does then he'll be another candidate C4L never supports. But C4L never supported him, all they were doing was getting free promotion for their survey so more politicians will take it. Unfortunately the spin on the ad made people upset, and C4L is changing their policy on this portion of the program which I think is appropriate.

Yes. We know the CFL gave a mea culpa on the content of the ad. The question remains if what is on Buck's survey is in conflict with his website. And just how would the CFL hold him accountable later? By running an ad paid for by the same anonymous donors saying "Well Buck kept his website promise and violated his promise to us, even though we knew that ahead of time and still gave him an A rating so don't support this guy". :confused:

I'm much less concerned about Buck as I am about how this looks going forward. The survey looks like a paper tiger IMO. If the CFL isn't willing to hold candidates accountable on the front end, how can the survey be used for accountability after the election?

[dannno]

Obvious guy says "But the Afghanistan war was never declared. Yet his website still says we should support it even if it takes 10 years". This survey obligates him to do what exactly? Not vote for authorization for new undeclared wars? Not continue to vote to fund the ones that are already undeclared even though he's promised to do the exact opposite on his website?

I don't think he should vote for funding for any more un-declared wars. If he does, then if he comes to C4L for support again (they never really supported him in the first place) they can tell him to F himself.

The bottom line is that, especially with the new C4L approach, they would never have endorsed or supported him anyway.. So ya, if he doesn't follow what he said in the survey then nothing happens. If he sticks to it, stops voting to fund un-declared wars and changes his views on foreign policy, then we might gain a new liberty candidate.





I'm much less concerned about Buck as I am about how this looks going forward. The survey looks like a paper tiger IMO. If the CFL isn't willing to hold candidates accountable on the front end, how can the survey be used for accountability after the election?

Accountable for what? They aren't going to support him until he proves himself.

We're treating these entrance exams like final exams... they're just entrance exams, C4L is obtaining baseline data to track candidates. That's what they should be doing, right?

[InterestedParticipant]

"I simply don’t trust answers from a political candidate on a 20-question survey.

Is this the extent of the criteria that C4L uses to evaluate candidates?"

It called quid pro quo.

When a small group throws in $350K in political advertising, he is tempted to be less that truthful with his answers. If you compare his survey answer to his foreign policy stance on his website you can see he is was not truthful in the survey. He did it for the $$$$

How can we expect a lawyer, politician (aka professional liar) to be truthful? What does he care if CFL holds his feet to the fire when he flips?

G. W. Bush sent this country to war based on a flip and a lie; he seems to be going just fine.
So, my essential questions are:
What is the value of this effort by C4L?
Is this the best program that can be implemented in order to elect candidates that are more aligned with libertarian values?

[jmdrake]

I don't think he should vote for funding for any more un-declared wars. If he does, then if he comes to C4L for support again (they never really supported him in the first place) they can tell him to F himself.

The bottom line is that, especially with the new C4L approach, they would never have endorsed or supported him anyway.. So ya, if he doesn't follow what he said in the survey then nothing happens. If he sticks to it, stops voting to fund un-declared wars and changes his views on foreign policy, then we might gain a new liberty candidate.


As an incumbent, why on earth would he need to come to the C4L for support? Once elected money senators have money thrown at him. A small organization like the C4L withholding "support" (which they say they don't give to candidates anyway) would be meaningless. The only way to go after him would be to support another candidate. (Difficult proposition since the C4L isn't supposed to support anyone). Besides, Buck could easily abandon any support for the C4L in exchange for support from Palin, Beck and others. Going against the C4L on undeclared wars could bump him up rather than hurt him.



Accountable for what? They aren't going to support him until he proves himself.


Accountable for answering the survey honestly. Someone anyone should be able to pick up one of this surveys, run through the answers and have some idea of who they want to donate money to and/or vote for. If a candidate can just answer a survey any way he wants with no fact checking then the survey becomes meaningless.



We're treating these entrance exams like final exams... they're just entrance exams, C4L is obtaining baseline data to track candidates. That's what they should be doing, right?

Using your "entrance exam" analogy, if you put false information on an application that's automatic grounds for dismissal. It's better, for example, to admit having a felony conviction and then try to explain it later than to simply say "I'm not a felon" when you know that you are. Maybe your explanation will sway the examiner your way. The problem in this case is that incumbents are hard to get out of office. This year is an exception. And even then, most incumbents are expected to win. If Buck was elected and he voted against Obamacare, cap and trade etc, but then voted to fund every undeclared war that came up the power of the CFL to do something about that after the fact is slim to none. Right now he's and "up and coming" candidate that really needs help. Later....who knows?

[AuH2O]

They are not meeting with the candidates? Interviewing them, similar to a job interview?

Someone applying for a regular wage-slave job probably goes through more scrutiny.

Let's see...assuming an average of 6 candidates (total, both parties) in every primary election (I realize many will just be 1 incumbent, but there are also real 10-12 candidate battle royales).... we're talking 2,610 candidates to identify, contact, schedule and meet with and score/tabulate in the very short window around filing deadlines -- and that's just for CONGRESS. God forbid they want to run state survey.

[dannno]

As an incumbent, why on earth would he need to come to the C4L for support? Once elected money senators have money thrown at him. A small organization like the C4L withholding "support" (which they say they don't give to candidates anyway) would be meaningless.

But C4L isn't going to support him anyway, and they changed their whole position on how they are going to run this program based on this incident... even though technically they didn't follow the guidelines on this one anyway, they just plain handled it wrong..

The answer is you shouldn't take the candidate surveys seriously or vote for candidates based on the outcome, this is a long-term data-mining operation to find the best candidates. I think it is a great long-term project.

[jmdrake]

But C4L isn't going to support him anyway, and they changed their whole position on how they are going to run this program based on this incident... even though technically they didn't follow the guidelines on this one anyway, they just plain handled it wrong..

The answer is you shouldn't take the candidate surveys seriously or vote for candidates based on the outcome, this is a long-term data-mining operation to find the best candidates. I think it is a great long-term project.

Nothing wrong with data mining. But why not clean the data on the front end? From my own experience in data management it's easier to catch errors on the front end then to ferret them out later. I have nothing against the survey program. But I do think that it would be much more effective if there was actually vetting of the answers, especially if any campaign ad was forthcoming.

The ad could easily be changed to avoid the endorsement problem. The ad simply needed to end with "Paid for by friends of Ken Buck". And preceding the "thank Ken Buck for filling out the survey part" it could have said "Ken Buck received a 95% positive rating from the Campaign for Liberty Candidate Survey". Had that happened there would have been no issue.

But I would still have a problem. I don't think he deserves such a rating. At least not with an asterisk for him to explain the discrepancy between his answer on Q 10 and his position on his website. For the life of my I don't understand why fact checking the CFL survey is a problem for you.