A framework for evaluating 2026 House endorsements: balancing principles and political constraints.
As we begin evaluating candidates for the 2026 U.S. House elections, I want to be transparent about the principles guiding our endorsement decisions.
This post outlines how we evaluate candidates for our 2026 U.S. House endorsements.
Our goal is not to advance one party over another. It is to encourage a more functional, less polarized political system—one that produces policies that are economically efficient, fair, and respectful of personal freedom—while recognizing the practical constraints of the political system.
Opposing Sabotage, Supporting Strategic Voting
We reject the increasingly common practice of supporting extreme candidates in the opposing party’s primary in the hope that they will be easier to defeat in the general election. While tactically tempting, this approach contributes directly to polarization and dysfunction.
At the same time, we recognize that voters—particularly independents—often face imperfect choices. In some cases, strategic voting may be appropriate: supporting the candidate who is most likely to produce a better governing outcome, even if that candidate is not an ideal match with my policy preferences. This differs from “sabotage” strategies: the goal is not to weaken the opposing party, but to improve the quality of the likely winner.
In open or semi-open primary systems, this logic may also influence which primary a voter chooses to participate in. Even for voters who typically lean toward one party, if their preferred primary is effectively decided while the other party’s contest is competitive, it can make sense to vote where the outcome is still in doubt—particularly when doing so may help a more moderate candidate prevail over a more extreme alternative.
Support for Bipartisan Problem-Solving
We place a high value on candidates who demonstrate a willingness to work across party lines.
Membership in the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus is a strong positive signal. While not a guarantee of alignment with our views, it reflects a commitment to negotiation, compromise, and governing—qualities that are essential to a functioning democracy.
Ideological Alignment and Its Limits
We are less likely to support candidates closely aligned with highly ideological factions.
Membership in the Freedom Caucus is a strong negative signal. Alignment with more ideological factions on the left is also a negative factor, including candidates supported by organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America or the Working Families Party.
At the same time, labels are imperfect indicators. The fact that some members belong to both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus illustrates the limits of ideological labels and the importance of evaluating governing behavior.
Endorsements and Political Incentives
Endorsements provide useful signals about the coalitions a candidate depends on.
A Trump endorsement is viewed as a negative factor in our evaluation, reflecting alignment with a style of politics that we believe has contributed to increased polarization and institutional strain. That said, we also recognize political realities: in some districts, such endorsements may be effectively required for electoral viability. Our evaluations will take this context into account.
Similarly, endorsements from organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America or the Working Families Party are viewed as negative signals, reflecting alignment with policy approaches that we generally believe move away from economically efficient or politically sustainable outcomes.
Demonstrated Independence
We place significant weight on demonstrated independence.
Candidates who show a willingness to depart from their party leadership—particularly when it reflects a willingness to support moderation or bipartisan compromise—provide a strong signal of a governing mindset. While such votes can carry political risk, they are often essential to producing durable policy outcomes.
A Pragmatic, Case-by-Case Approach
No single factor determines our endorsements.
We evaluate candidates holistically, considering:
- Their policy positions
- Their demonstrated willingness to govern
- The political realities of their district
- The likely consequences of their election
In some cases, this may lead us to support candidates who are imperfect but represent a clear improvement over the alternatives. In others, we may decline to endorse at all.
A Note on the Current Environment
I have found it increasingly difficult to identify candidates in the House—and among those running for it—who consistently reflect a moderate, centrist approach. This is not a criticism of any one individual so much as a reflection of the incentives embedded in the current system.
Rising polarization has narrowed the space for pragmatism, while partisan redistricting has made many districts effectively noncompetitive in general elections. As a result, primary elections often become the decisive contest, where more ideologically committed voters play an outsized role. In those environments, candidates who emphasize moderation or compromise often struggle to gain traction, while more ideologically driven candidates can succeed.
I find this trend troubling and, at times, disheartening. A system that makes it harder for pragmatic, solutions-oriented candidates to emerge is one that struggles to produce effective governance. The struggle to bring moderation and reason into our politics can seem increasingly quixotic, but it has also become increasingly important.
Our Objective
Our objective is not ideological purity. It is progress—incremental, durable progress toward a more functional political system.
If enough voters and organizations reward cooperation, pragmatism, and good-faith governance, those behaviors will become more common.
That is the incentive structure we aim to support.