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 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.
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.
When CIVPAC began, we expected much of our work to involve supporting center-left and center-right candidates in primaries, with the hope of nudging both parties toward the political center. That task has changed. Increasingly, CIVPAC finds itself supporting conventional left-wing or right-wing candidates against more extreme alternatives that, not long ago, would have seemed unlikely to gain serious traction in American politics.
When this effort began, through CIVPAC’s predecessor organization, the New Independent Party, the national political world was still recognizable. The 2012 presidential race was Mitt Romney against Barack Obama. CIVPAC would have had criticisms of both candidates, but both were serious, constitutional, mainstream figures. The distance between that world and today’s politics explains why CIVPAC’s task has changed.
Espaillat is not a centrist Democrat. He is a mainstream progressive Democrat with a reliable party-line voting record. But the question in NY-13 is not whether voters should choose a centrist over a progressive. The question is whether Democratic primary voters should replace an experienced incumbent with Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic-socialist challenger backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
That race is part of a larger pattern. Mamdani has endorsed three congressional candidates in New York: Avila Chevalier in NY-13, Brad Lander in NY-10, and Claire Valdez in NY-7. CIVPAC is not making endorsements in all three races at this time. But the slate matters because it has become a national signal about the direction of the Democratic Party in its most heavily Democratic urban districts.
Deep-blue primaries are not politically isolated. New York City helps shape the Democratic Party’s national brand. When candidates running on democratic-socialist, movement-left politics become the face of the party in highly visible urban districts, voters outside New York notice. So do Republican media and campaign strategists.
If Democrats believe Mamdani’s strategy and the candidates he is backing are likely to succeed nationally, they should ask why Fox News is so eager to make that strategy visible to voters outside New York City.
CIVPAC does not object to new candidates merely because they are new. Parties need competition, new voices, and serious challenges to complacency. Nor does CIVPAC believe incumbents are entitled to renomination. But not every insurgency is an improvement.
This is one of those situations. The work now feels less like gently nudging the parties toward the center than trying to keep the planets from being flung out of the solar system.
Our concern is the road to “Blue MAGA.” We do not mean that left-wing populism and Trumpism are identical. They are not. But both can reward tribal certainty, ideological escalation, contempt for persuasion, and the belief that political intensity is a substitute for broad public appeal.
In NY-13, CIVPAC believes the better choice is clear. Representative Espaillat is not a CIVPAC ideal candidate, but he offers experience, institutional knowledge, and continuity. Replacing him with a movement-left challenger would strengthen the very tendency CIVPAC has warned about: the temptation to make deep-blue urban politics the face of the national Democratic Party.
That is bad politics for Democrats and bad politics for the country.
CIVPAC therefore endorses Representative Adriano Espaillat in the Democratic primary for the U.S. House in New York’s 13th Congressional District.
CIVPAC has posted several new primary and runoff endorsements in Georgia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. The races are different, but the standards are the same.
CIVPAC is looking for candidates who show practical judgment, respect for democratic institutions, willingness to govern beyond slogans, and some understanding of how policy actually works. We are trying to identify candidates who strengthen the governing center.
That sometimes means endorsing a Democrat. Sometimes it means endorsing a Republican. Sometimes it means making no endorsement.
Georgia Republican Runoffs
In Georgia, CIVPAC endorses Derek Dooley in the Republican primary runoff for U.S. Senate and makes no endorsement in the Republican primary runoff for Governor.
The Senate runoff presents a clear comparative judgment. Derek Dooley is not a perfect CIVPAC candidate. He is new to politics and has not yet built a public record that allows a full assessment of his governing philosophy. But his opponent, Representative Mike Collins, represents a more confrontational and performative style of politics that CIVPAC has consistently rejected.
Dooley is the more plausible choice for Republicans who want to move Georgia politics back toward a responsible center-right tradition.
The Governor runoff is different. CIVPAC supported Brad Raffensperger in the Republican primary because he demonstrated institutional courage in defending the integrity of Georgia’s 2020 election. With Raffensperger eliminated, the remaining candidates do not present a clear CIVPAC choice. CIVPAC is not obligated to choose between unsatisfactory alternatives merely to appear balanced.
In Maryland, CIVPAC endorses Rushern Baker in the Democratic primary for Maryland’s 5th Congressional District and Representative April McClain Delaney in the Democratic primary for Maryland’s 6th Congressional District.
In Maryland’s 5th District, the race to succeed Steny Hoyer includes several candidates with real strengths. Harry Dunn has a powerful January 6 story and deserves respect for his service. Harry Jarin also deserves respect for his public-service background and support for Ukrainian first responders. Adrian Boafo has the support of Representative Hoyer and a plausible continuity argument.
But CIVPAC’s endorsement is ultimately about who appears best prepared to serve effectively in Congress. Rushern Baker has the strongest governing-experience case in the field. His service as Prince George’s County executive gives him direct experience with budgets, administration, public safety, economic development, and the practical tradeoffs of governing.
Read the full Baker endorsement here: [CIVPAC Endorses Rushern Baker in Maryland’s 5th Congressional District Democratic Primary]
In Maryland’s 6th District, CIVPAC endorses April McClain Delaney over former Representative David Trone. This is not because the two candidates differ sharply on every major issue. They do not. Both are mainstream Democrats.
But in a race with limited policy distance between the leading candidates, CIVPAC gives weight to incumbency, continuity, and whether the challenger has made a persuasive affirmative case for replacing the incumbent. Representative McClain Delaney is the sitting member of Congress. She won a competitive general election. She has begun doing the job. In the absence of a compelling policy or performance-based reason to replace her, CIVPAC favors continuity.
CIVPAC also supports Kenyan McDuffie in the Democratic primary for Mayor of Washington, D.C.
CIVPAC does not ordinarily involve itself in local races outside its core geographic focus. But Washington, D.C. is not an ordinary local jurisdiction. It is the nation’s capital, a regional economic center, and a city whose governance affects many people who live and work throughout the Washington metropolitan area.
This race presents a familiar question: pragmatic governance or ideological ambition?
D.C. voters want more affordable housing, improved public safety, a local government that deserves their confidence, protection of home rule, and a strengthened economy that cannot take federal employment, downtown office demand, or private investment for granted. These problems require practical judgment, not slogans.
Housing is a central example. CIVPAC is skeptical of down-payment subsidies in supply-constrained housing markets because they can raise demand rather than supply and make homes more expensive for unsubsidized buyers. The stronger case for McDuffie is his greater emphasis on permitting reform, construction capacity, housing preservation, and working with private and nonprofit builders to expand supply.
CIVPAC also rejects threats of federal overreach against D.C. home rule. But opposition to President Trump should not become a substitute for judgment. The answer to federal overreach is not local overreach. It is steady, serious self-government.
These endorsements are not about party loyalty. They are about judgment.
In Georgia, that means supporting a Republican Senate candidate who appears more connected to a responsible center-right tradition while declining to endorse in a Governor runoff where neither remaining candidate meets CIVPAC’s standard.
In Maryland, it means supporting Democratic candidates who offer governing experience, continuity, and institutional seriousness.
In Washington, D.C., it means supporting a mayoral candidate whose approach is more pragmatic, market-compatible, and realistic about housing, public safety, home rule, and economic growth.
CIVPAC’s general view is that public policy should be economically sound, fair, respectful of individual freedom, politically realistic, and grounded in strong democratic institutions. These endorsements apply that standard across different races and different parties.
The country does not need more political performances aimed at ideologically extreme bases. It needs more serious governing.
