Back to playbooks

Candidate Evaluation + Feedback

Use when: you’re choosing who to support, donate to, volunteer for, or vote for.
Goal: consistent, fair evaluation focused on actions and implementation.

Hard-fail guardrails (non-negotiables)

A candidate is a “no” if they consistently undermine:

• rule of law and peaceful transfer of power
• due process and equal protection
• oversight, anti-corruption, basic accountability
• human dignity (no scapegoating as strategy)

The three scoring questions

1. Squeeze reduction: Do they reduce big monthly costs (housing, healthcare, childcare, education, transportation)?
2. Fair rules + real competition: Do they limit capture, curb monopoly behavior, and support cleaner terms people can actually understand?
3. Competence: Do they show they can implement (staffing, budgets, timelines, metrics)?

What stronger answers sound like

A good candidate answer usually names:

• the rule
• the owner
• the metric
• the deadline

That is stronger than:

• “I care about affordability”
• “We need transparency”
• “I will fight for working families”

Better examples

Instead of:

• “I’ll make housing more affordable”

Look for:

• “I support all-in move-in cost disclosure, a monthly permit dashboard, and by-right approval for code-compliant small infill.”

Instead of:

• “I’ll fix healthcare bureaucracy”

Look for:

• “I want prior-authorization turnaround reporting, plain-language denial reasons, and a fast-lane path for repeat low-value approvals.”

Instead of:

• “Transportation costs are too high”

Look for:

• “I support all-in vehicle pricing, clear opt-in for add-ons, and review of extreme insurance renewal spikes.”

Instead of:

• “We need better childcare”

Look for:

• “I support infant-slot expansion, faster licensing timelines, and wraparound care that matches work schedules.”

Evidence hierarchy (keep yourself honest)

Prefer:

1. votes, budgets, executive actions, enforcement choices
2. official plans with funding + metrics
3. credible reporting, audits, court findings Treat slogans and impression-management as weak evidence.

A simple scorecard

• Guardrails: Pass / Fail
• Squeeze: 0-3
• Fair rules + competition: 0-3
• Competence: 0-3
• Ask quality: 0-3
• Notes: receipts + uncertainties

Ask quality rubric

• 0: slogan only
• 1: names a problem, no rule
• 2: names a rule or action, but no metric or owner
• 3: names a rule, owner, metric, and rough timeline

Feedback message template (short)

• One sentence: what you care about
• One sentence: one ask
• One sentence: what success looks like
• Close: reply requested

What success looks like

You can explain your support in 30 seconds without dunking on anyone. You can also explain what you are still unsure about.

Back to playbooks