CIVPAC has endorsed Charlie Hatcher in the Republican primary and Chaz Molder in the Democratic primary for Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District.
Endorsing candidates in both parties may seem unusual, but it reflects the purpose of an independent centrist organization. We do not begin by choosing a party and then searching for reasons to support its nominee. We evaluate the candidates actually running and ask which candidate in each primary offers voters the strongest combination of competence, responsible government and appeal beyond the party’s most committed base.
In the Republican primary, that candidate is Charlie Hatcher.
Hatcher is a farmer, veterinarian, business owner and former Tennessee commissioner of agriculture. He offers Republican voters a more serious and accomplished alternative to incumbent Representative Andy Ogles, whose congressional career has been characterized too often by ideological performance, inflammatory rhetoric and the pursuit of national attention.
Hatcher would also be the more appealing Republican candidate in the general election. His executive experience, agricultural background and emphasis on competent government give him a better chance of reaching voters who may share conservative instincts but are weary of political theater.
In the Democratic primary, CIVPAC endorses Chaz Molder.
Molder has twice been elected mayor of Columbia in heavily Republican Maury County. His record includes balanced budgets, investments in public safety and infrastructure, and no increase in the city’s property-tax rate. Whatever disagreements CIVPAC may have with individual elements of his platform, he has demonstrated an ability to govern and to earn support beyond the Democratic base.
That experience distinguishes him from the rest of the Democratic field. Democrats hoping to compete in Tennessee’s 5th District need more than a candidate who can mobilize reliable Democratic voters. They need someone capable of persuading independents and at least some Republicans. Molder has already shown that he can do that.
These endorsements are limited to the party primaries. CIVPAC will evaluate the general-election nominees after the primaries are complete.
For now, our message to voters in both parties is straightforward.
Republicans who want a more responsible representative and a stronger general-election nominee should choose Charlie Hatcher.
Democrats who want an experienced candidate with the best chance of building a broader coalition should choose Chaz Molder.
A healthier political system requires both parties to nominate candidates capable of governing—and capable of speaking to people who do not already agree with them.
CIVPAC has endorsed two Democratic congressional candidates in Michigan: Bridget Brink in the 7th Congressional District and Callie Barr in the 1st Congressional District.
The districts are different, and neither candidate should be treated as a generic national Democrat. Both bring experience particularly relevant to the people they seek to represent.
Bridget Brink — Michigan’s 7th District
Bridget Brink is a career diplomat and former United States ambassador to Ukraine. She served under presidents of both parties and represented the United States in Kyiv during Russia’s invasion. She resigned from government after concluding that the Trump administration was placing pressure on Ukraine while accommodating Russia.
Brink brings seriousness, integrity and extensive national-security experience to a competitive central Michigan district. At a time when American alliances and democratic values are under pressure, Congress needs members who understand both the human consequences of aggression and the strategic importance of resisting it.
Her career also demonstrates that public service need not begin with partisan ambition. She spent decades representing the United States before seeking elective office.
Callie Barr is a military spouse, veteran advocate, teacher and attorney seeking to represent northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. Her campaign emphasizes affordability, health care, housing, energy costs and the practical needs of families who often feel overlooked by Washington.
Barr’s understanding of military families is particularly relevant in a region with a strong tradition of service. She also offers Democrats an opportunity to compete in a difficult district with a candidate whose biography and priorities are grounded in the community rather than in national ideological politics.
An endorsement is not merely a prediction about who is most likely to win. Sometimes it is also a statement that a serious candidate is making the right kind of argument in a place where that argument needs to be heard.
Brink and Barr represent two important forms of public service: international leadership in defense of American interests and practical advocacy for families at home. CIVPAC is pleased to endorse both.
Kansas has repeatedly demonstrated that a Republican-leaning state can elect pragmatic leaders who appeal beyond a narrow partisan base.
CIVPAC has endorsed three Kansas candidates in 2026: Ethan Corson for governor, Adam Hamilton for the United States Senate and Representative Sharice Davids for reelection to Congress.
Ethan Corson for Governor
State Senator Ethan Corson offers Kansas voters an opportunity to continue the practical, results-oriented style of leadership that has allowed Democrats to compete successfully for the governorship.
Corson emphasizes public education, economic opportunity, individual rights and making it possible for younger Kansans to build their lives in the state. His campaign presents a mainstream alternative to ideological government from either the right or the left.
Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab deserves credit for defending the integrity of Kansas elections, rejecting unsupported fraud claims and resisting demands for sensitive voter information. However, his opposition to even limited abortion rights and enthusiastic support for the expanded federal SAVE voter-screening system leave too much distance between his positions and CIVPAC’s for us to offer an endorsement.
Adam Hamilton for the U.S. Senate
Adam Hamilton is an unusual political candidate. As the founding pastor of a large United Methodist congregation, he has spent decades speaking to people with different political, religious and cultural perspectives.
Hamilton considered running as an independent before entering the Democratic primary and describes himself as an independent-minded Democrat. His candidacy offers the party an opportunity to nominate someone capable of reaching voters who would not ordinarily consider supporting a Democrat.
CIVPAC does not expect Hamilton to fit neatly into every conventional Democratic position. That is part of his potential value in a state such as Kansas.
Representative Sharice Davids has demonstrated that a pragmatic Democrat can win and govern effectively in the Kansas suburbs. She is seeking reelection in the 3rd Congressional District.
Davids has already shown that she can assemble a durable coalition without adopting the language or priorities of the ideological left. She remains one of the most important examples of the Democratic Party’s ability to compete in places it once routinely lost.
These endorsements reflect a common idea: candidates should fit the people and political culture they seek to represent. Kansas Democrats will not succeed by importing the politics of the most progressive parts of the country. They can succeed by offering capable, practical and independent-minded leadership rooted in Kansas itself.
CIVPAC has endorsed former Representative Elaine Luria in Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District.
Luria brings an unusual combination of military experience, legislative experience and demonstrated commitment to constitutional government. Before entering Congress, she served for 20 years as a Navy officer. In the House, she developed a reputation for seriousness on national security and later served on the committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol. She is now seeking to reclaim the district she represented from 2019 through 2022.
CIVPAC does not expect to agree with Luria on every issue. We would, of course, prefer a true centrist, but she represents the kind of center-left leadership the country needs: pragmatic, experienced, internationally engaged and willing to place constitutional responsibility ahead of immediate political convenience.
Virginia’s 2nd District includes a large military and veteran population and deserves a representative who understands both national defense and the obligations that accompany public power. Elaine Luria has demonstrated that understanding.
CIVPAC’s endorsements are not offered as kingmaking exercises. We recognize that we do not have that kind of influence. They are public markers: statements about the kind of politics we believe deserves support and the kind of politics we believe should be resisted.
CIVPAC has endorsed three Democratic members of Congress in Washington state: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Adam Smith and Marilyn Strickland.
They represent different districts and different styles of leadership, but all three demonstrate that Democratic politics need not be dominated by its most ideological voices.
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez — Washington’s 3rd District
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez represents a politically difficult district in southwest Washington. A small-business owner with roots in the skilled trades, she has developed a reputation for independence, practical problem-solving and a willingness to depart from her party when she believes her district requires it. She won a Republican-leaning district in 2022 and expanded her margin in 2024.
CIVPAC does not endorse every departure from party leadership merely because it is independent. We endorse Gluesenkamp Perez because her independence generally reflects the interests of the people she represents.
Adam Smith is an experienced legislator and one of the Democratic Party’s most knowledgeable voices on national security. He has represented Washington in Congress since 1997 and currently serves as the leading Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Smith combines a broadly center-left domestic outlook with a realistic understanding of alliances, military power and America’s international responsibilities. At a time when parts of both parties are tempted by isolationism or ideological simplification, that experience matters.
Marilyn Strickland brings executive experience, practical judgment and close attention to the military families, veterans, workers and businesses of Washington’s South Sound. She is seeking a fourth term in Congress.
Strickland is a pragmatic Democrat who understands that public programs must deliver visible results. Her attention to infrastructure, economic opportunity and the quality of life of servicemembers and their families makes her a strong fit for her district.
These three endorsements do not suggest that the candidates are identical or that CIVPAC approves every vote they cast. They reflect our belief that the Democratic Party and the country need experienced national-security voices, pragmatic representatives of competitive districts and legislators focused on making government work.
CIVPAC does not favor Democratic control of Congress or Republican control of Congress in the abstract.
Our concern is institutional balance.
The Constitution assumes that Congress will defend its institutional role against the executive. In practice, party loyalty often overwhelms institutional responsibility. Members of Congress too often behave less like members of a separate branch of government and more like members of the president’s party team.
Divided government is not ideal. It is a second-best safeguard. If Congress will not check a president because it is Congress, perhaps an opposition-party Congress will check a president because it is the opposition party.
That is not a perfect solution. Divided government can produce obstruction, gridlock, posturing, and crisis. But it may still be safer than unified partisan control when party loyalty is too strong and institutional restraint is too weak.
In 2026, this principle may lead CIVPAC to favor some Democratic candidates as a check on this Republican executive. That should not be mistaken for a general endorsement of Democratic control of Congress.
In a different cycle, if Democrats held the White House — especially under a DSA-aligned or far-left president — the same principle could lead CIVPAC to favor Republican control of Congress, if Republicans nominate candidates fit to serve as a constitutional check.
Our preference is not partisan control. Our preference is constitutional balance, institutional restraint, and resistance to one-party overreach.
The more hopeful answer is that one of the two major parties might become moderate enough, responsible enough, and institutionally serious enough to be trusted with unified power. If that happened, divided government would be less necessary. But neither party has yet earned that level of trust.
This connects directly to CIVPAC’s idea of a true win-everywhere strategy.
Winning everywhere means nominating candidates who can actually represent the voters in the places they hope to serve. It means being broad enough, serious enough, and trusted enough to compete where the party’s national brand is weak. It also means having a national brand that does not make that impossible.
Too often, both parties say they want to win everywhere while behaving as if every district should be represented by the same national ideological brand.
A party captured by its ideological base cannot really win everywhere. It can win safe seats. It can hope for favorable waves. But it cannot rebuild trust in places where voters fear that unified party control would become ideological overreach.
A true win-everywhere strategy requires rejecting extreme ideological litmus tests, nominating candidates suited to their districts, respecting constitutional limits, and showing voters that winning power would not become permission for factional domination.
Candidate selection matters, even if success or failure of the party is inevitable in that state or district.
When Democratic primary voters choose practical center-left candidates over far-left or DSA-aligned alternatives, they make the Democratic Party more governable and more trustworthy. When Republican primary voters choose practical center-right candidates over MAGA, election-denying, or authoritarian-populist alternatives, they do the same for the Republican Party.
The center is not asking the two parties to become identical. Disagreement within constitutional boundaries is healthy. But there is a difference between ordinary policy disagreement and a politics that treats institutions as obstacles, opponents as enemies, and victory as permission to dominate.
Democracy is not stable merely because elections are held. It also requires parties that can be trusted with power, leaders who respect limits, and voters who reward seriousness over performance.
CIVPAC’s position is therefore straightforward: divided government may be necessary when neither party has earned full trust. The better long-term answer is for at least one party — and ideally both — to become moderate, responsible, and institutionally serious enough to be trusted with power.
The first party to learn that lesson may not merely win more elections.
It may deserve to govern.
Until then, please remember that even if your side wins by substantial majority, you do not have a mandate to pursue your wildest dreams. You have an opportunity to demonstrate that you can be trusted with power.
Sometimes the centrist position is to say that the menu itself is inadequate.
CIVPAC is not endorsing in the Maine Senate race at this time.
That is not because the race is unimportant. It is very important. Maine could help determine control of the United States Senate. Susan Collins is one of the few remaining Republican senators with a reputation for independence. Graham Platner, the Democratic nominee, has become an embattled and highly controversial candidate. Even apart from the personal controversies, his policy positions make a centrist uneasy. And the possible Democratic replacements, if Platner withdraws, do not yet present an obvious centrist alternative.
That is precisely the problem.
This race poses a real dilemma for centrists. On ordinary policy and temperament grounds, many centrists may find Susan Collins preferable to the current Democratic field. She is experienced, institutionally minded, and comparatively moderate within the modern Republican Party. She has sometimes broken with Donald Trump in ways that matter.
But “comparatively moderate” is not the same as independent of today’s Republican Party. A vote for Collins is also a vote that affects Senate control, committee control, confirmations, and the ability of Congress to restrain or enable a Trump-dominated Republican Party. PolitiFact found that Collins voted with Trump’s position 94.6% of the time in 2025, while also noting that she was still among the less Trump-aligned Republican senators. Both halves of that sentence matter.
The Democratic side is not easier. Platner won the Democratic nomination, despite CIVPAC’s preference for Janet Mills in the primary, but he now faces serious allegations and controversies, which he denies, and major Democratic leaders have called on him to withdraw. Senate Democratic leaders have said the DSCC will not invest in the Maine race if he remains on the ballot. Maine Democrats have said that if Platner withdraws, he cannot choose his replacement; the state party would do so under Maine’s replacement process.
Legally, Platner cannot name his replacement. Politically, that is not the end of the matter. He is under no legal obligation to withdraw, and that gives him cards to play. If he tries to condition his withdrawal on influence over the replacement, I am not persuaded that the Maine Democratic Party will have the will to call his bluff. If it capitulates — especially to a successor in Platner’s ideological lane — it will likely lose a majority of the centrist independent vote.
That replacement process may produce a better nominee. It may not.
The names being discussed include figures with experience and ability. Janet Mills is a sitting governor and a conventional governing Democrat. Nirav Shah has a technocratic public-health and administrative profile. Troy Jackson has appeal to working-class populists. Shenna Bellows has experience in state office and a strong democracy/civil-liberties profile. But none of these alternatives, at least at this stage, clearly solves the centrist problem.
Mills may be the most conventionally centrist Democrat. Shah may be the most technocratic. Jackson and Bellows appeal more strongly to progressive voters, which is precisely why they do not clearly solve the problem from a centrist’s point of view. But “less bad” or “more plausible” is not the same as meeting an affirmative standard for endorsement.
That distinction matters to CIVPAC.
Our endorsements are not meant to be automatic partisan gestures. We do not endorse Democrats simply because of our concerns about Trump’s Republican Party. We do not endorse Republicans simply because a Democratic nominee is too far left. We are looking for candidates who show moderation, seriousness, judgment, respect for democratic institutions, and a willingness to govern rather than perform.
Sometimes a race does not offer that choice.
That is not merely a Maine problem. It is a system problem.
America’s winner-take-all elections push politics into two major parties. In normal times, that can be frustrating. In abnormal times, it can become dangerous. Voters are forced to weigh questions that should not have to be bundled together. Do I prefer this candidate’s policy instincts? Do I prefer the other party’s control of the Senate? Do I trust this person’s character? Do I trust that person’s party? Am I voting for a senator, a Senate majority, a check on a president, or a message to my own side?
The answer, too often, is all of the above.
That is why many centrists feel politically homeless. They may prefer Susan Collins to much of the Democratic field on temperament and some policy questions. They may also fear strengthening a Republican Senate in the Trump era. They may want Democrats to nominate serious, mainstream, pro-democracy candidates. They may also be unwilling to reward a party that elevates candidates who are unvetted, extreme, or unfit. They may want a politics of moderation, but find themselves offered a choice between party control and candidate quality.
That is not a healthy political system.
CIVPAC believes voters deserve better than this. They deserve serious candidates in both parties. They deserve primaries that test judgment, not merely ideological enthusiasm. They deserve parties that vet candidates before crisis. They deserve institutions that make room for independent-minded voters without forcing them into binary choices that distort their actual views.
The Maine Senate race is a reminder that centrism is not the same thing as splitting the difference. Sometimes the centrist position is not to “endorse the moderate Republican” or “endorse the least objectionable Democrat.” Sometimes the centrist position is to say that the menu itself is inadequate.
That is where CIVPAC is today.
We may revisit the race if the field changes. If Platner withdraws and Maine Democrats choose a replacement who demonstrates moderation, seriousness, judgment, and respect for democratic institutions, that candidate deserves evaluation. If Collins takes positions or actions that demonstrate genuine independence from Trumpism, that matters too. But at this point, CIVPAC is not prepared to endorse anyone.
That may sound unsatisfying. It is unsatisfying.
But honesty is better than pretending.
The Maine Senate race presents exactly the kind of dilemma that makes many Americans distrust politics: a comparatively moderate Republican tied to a party many centrists believe has become dangerous, and a Democratic field that has not yet produced a clearly acceptable alternative.
That is not a reason to stop caring. It is a reason to demand better.
Update: Shortly after this post was published, Graham Platner announced that he was suspending his campaign. That does not eliminate the dilemma described below; it moves it to the replacement process. The central question now is whether Maine Democrats will choose a nominee who can appeal to centrist and independent voters, or whether they will remain in Platner’s ideological lane.
If the replacement is chosen through a rushed activist convention, Democrats may have avoided letting Platner name his successor while still creating a process likely to favor his faction. That may prove to be all the capitulation he needed.
AI can help voters research candidates, but it should support—not replace—independent civic judgment.
CIVPAC would like to have the resources to provide endorsements in the vast majority of primaries and general-election contests. We do our best, but sadly that goal is, at least for now, beyond our reach.
If you find our philosophy and policy positions similar to your own, and you do not find an endorsement from us in a race you care about, we do have a suggestion. You can use your favorite AI tool to assist you in getting to a decision.
We suggest copying and pasting the following prompt into your AI tool. Within the prompt, replace the words [INSERT RACE] with the race you are interested in. Of course, you may want to modify it to reflect your own preferences.
All AI engines have warnings that AI makes mistakes, this is definitely true. On the dates for your local primaries, in particular, we would suggest checking with you state’s Secretary of State, the Federal Election Commission, or Ballotpedia.
Suggested AI Prompt
“I am a centrist voter broadly aligned with CIVPAC-style principles: market-compatible solutions; fiscal seriousness; equality of opportunity; respect for personal freedom; practical liberal-democratic governance, including respect for constitutional limits, democracy, and the rule of law; support for Ukraine and stable international alliances; and skepticism toward both far-right authoritarian populism and far-left or DSA-style politics.
Please help me evaluate the candidates in this race: [INSERT RACE].
Do not simply tell me who to vote for. Instead:
Identify the major candidates and the election context.
Summarize each candidate’s record, platform, endorsements, major public statements, and relevant controversies.
Compare the candidates against the principles above.
Flag evidence of election denial, authoritarianism, corruption, contempt for constitutional limits, antisemitism, isolationism, hostility to NATO or Ukraine, unserious fiscal promises, or extreme ideological commitments.
Distinguish clearly between facts, reasonable inferences, and opinion.
Use current, reliable sources and provide citations or links.
Explain which candidate appears most consistent with these principles and why.
Identify serious weaknesses, uncertainties, or gaps in the evidence.
If this is a primary, analyze the choice within that party’s field and do not assume that my primary preference will be the same as my general-election preference.
Keep the analysis practical. Perfect ideological alignment is too much to ask. Governing temperament, institutional responsibility, policy seriousness, and ability to represent the district can make up for some degree of policy weakness in a candidate.”
After You Get the AI Response
Do not treat the AI’s answer as a substitute for your own judgment. AI tools can be useful research assistants, but they can miss recent developments, rely on stale sources, overstate uncertain conclusions, or fail to understand local political context. Ask for sources. Check the most important claims. Then make your own decision. AI engines can have subtle hidden biases. Press your tool to be more specific if its reasoning is not compelling for you.
These endorsements should not be read as a general-election endorsement of the Democratic Party. CIVPAC includes members with different views about which party should control Congress. But we are united in believing that, when Democratic primary voters have a choice between practical center-left candidates and far-left or DSA-aligned candidates, the practical center-left candidate is usually more consistent with CIVPAC’s principles.
The three races are different. Missouri’s 1st District is a safe Democratic district, where the central question is what kind of Democrat should represent the district. Wisconsin’s 3rd District is a competitive, Republican-held district, where Democratic primary voters should give serious weight to breadth of appeal and practical governing judgment. New Hampshire’s 1st District is a competitive open seat in a politically independent state, where the Democratic nominee will need to appeal beyond the activist base.
In each race, CIVPAC believes Democratic primary voters have a better center-left alternative to far-left or DSA-aligned politics.
CIVPAC endorses Wesley Bell, Rebecca Cooke, and Stefany Shaheen in their respective Democratic primaries.
These are not endorsements of perfect candidates. They are endorsements of the better choices in a party that should be trying to strengthen its claim to practical, institutionally serious governance.
Colorado matters because it is not New York. It is a state where Democrats have built real strength, where statewide victories are possible, and where the party has had room to present itself as pragmatic, modern, and broadly appealing. That makes the current primary choices especially important.
Democrats should be in a strong position nationally. President Trump and his allies have weakened the Republican Party’s claim to constitutional seriousness, institutional restraint, and responsible governance. In such an environment, Democrats should be expanding their appeal to independents, moderates, suburban voters, disaffected Republicans, and voters exhausted by politics as permanent combat.
Instead, too many Democratic primary voters seem tempted to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.
But politics is not only emotional expression. It is also coalition-building and governance.
That is why CIVPAC supports John Hickenlooper in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary. Hickenlooper is a serious, pragmatic, center-left Democrat with experience as mayor, governor, and senator. He is the kind of candidate who can help Democrats maintain a broad governing coalition and preserve credibility with voters who do not think like Democratic activists.
Julie Gonzales is a serious public official and deserves respect. But her challenge reflects a broader impatience with mainstream Democratic politics. CIVPAC does not believe Colorado Democrats should replace a proven statewide winner and pragmatic senator with a more ideological challenger at a moment when the party’s central task should be expanding its claim to the center.
The same concern applies in Colorado’s 1st Congressional District.
Diana DeGette is not a centrist Democrat. She is a mainstream progressive Democrat from a safe Democratic district. CIVPAC does not endorse her because she represents our ideal policy position. She does not. We endorse her because the primary choice is not between centrism and progressivism. It is between an experienced mainstream progressive and a democratic-socialist challenger whose victory would further strengthen the movement-left direction of the party in one of its safest seats.
That matters beyond Denver.
Safe Democratic districts are not politically isolated. They help define the national Democratic brand. When deep-blue districts choose candidates whose politics are more ideological, more urban, more confrontational, and more movement-driven, voters elsewhere notice. So do Republican campaigns and conservative media. The party cannot say it wants to win everywhere while allowing its safest districts to become symbols of a politics that travels poorly.
This is the same concern CIVPAC raised in New York. The problem is not that every movement-left candidate is identical or that every incumbent deserves protection. The problem is that Democratic voters in safe districts and primaries may be choosing candidates who intensify the party’s internal mood while weakening its national appeal.
That is a dangerous road.
A party serious about governing must tolerate internal variety. It needs candidates who fit different electorates. It needs some members who are more progressive and some who are more moderate. It needs new candidates, but not every new candidate is an improvement. It needs energy, but energy is not a substitute for judgment.
The Democratic Party should not make the same mistake that MAGA made in the Republican Party: treating moderation inside the party as betrayal. MAGA created the language of RINOs and loyalty tests. Democrats should not create their own version of that habit by treating pragmatic Democrats as embarrassments, obstacles, or insufficiently pure.
By “Blue MAGA,” CIVPAC does not mean that democratic socialism and Trumpism are identical. They are not. They represent different threats. They do have a core similarity: the habit of treating politics as a test of factional loyalty rather than as a practical exercise in persuasion and governance. The habit of assuming that the other side’s extremism justifies our side’s extremism. The habit of confusing activist enthusiasm with general-election strength.
Colorado Democrats should resist that temptation.
Hickenlooper and DeGette are very different candidates in very different races. But the common thread is the same. Both represent mainstream Democratic politics against challengers who would move the party further toward a more left-wing, movement-driven style. CIVPAC believes Democrats should choose the candidates who strengthen the party’s claim to responsible governance, not candidates who make the party easier to caricature.
President Trump has given Democrats an opening. He has reminded many voters why institutional seriousness matters. He has made some independents and moderate Republicans available to persuasion. He has weakened the Republican claim to constitutional conservatism.
Democrats can use that opening to build a broader coalition. Or they can squander it by allowing their primaries to become exercises in ideological self-expression.
That is why CIVPAC supports John Hickenlooper and Diana DeGette in Colorado’s Democratic primaries.
The country does not need a blue version of factional politics. It needs a stronger governing center.
