Candidate comparison · November 3, 2026
US SENATE Recommended: Michael Dublin. Dublin publishes unusually specific pro-worker commitments on healthcare, wages, unions, housing and democracy reform, while official FEC totals show no other-political-committee contributions.
Recommended
Green
Dublin publishes unusually specific pro-worker commitments on healthcare, wages, unions, housing and democracy reform, while official FEC totals show no other-political-committee contributions.
Score 85.31/100
Score coverage 100%
Evidence confidence 76.25%
Record comparison not applicable
Questionnaire not received
Party/PAC money shown Unknown
Viability Small campaign scale Donate directly to this campaign See evidence
No endorsement
Democratic
A partial office-appropriate score is available, but the evidence gate does not support an endorsement.
Partial score 74.4/100
Score coverage 50%
Evidence confidence 74.5%
Record comparison insufficient evidence
Questionnaire not received
Party/PAC money shown Unknown
Viability Established campaign Review official voting information See evidence
No endorsement
Libertarian
A partial office-appropriate score is available, but the evidence gate does not support an endorsement.
Partial score 79/100
Score coverage 25%
Evidence confidence 72%
Record comparison not applicable
Questionnaire not received
Party/PAC money shown Unknown
Viability Viability unknown Review official voting information See evidence
Not recommended
Republican
Not recommended because validated evidence includes 2 high-risk and 2 material conflicts under the approved civil-rights methodology.
Partial score 29.5/100
Score coverage 25%
Evidence confidence 87.5%
Record comparison not applicable
Questionnaire not received
Party/PAC money shown Unknown
Viability Established campaign Review official voting information See evidence
Separate dimensions
Why the recommendation looks this way worker policy alignment 85/100 74/100 insufficient evidence insufficient evidence
record reliability not applicable insufficient evidence not applicable not applicable
funding independence 90/100 insufficient evidence insufficient evidence insufficient evidence
democracy and ethics 80/100 insufficient evidence 82/100 10/100
transparency 90/100 78/100 70/100 88/100
Decision boundary The highest-ranked candidate is not automatically recommended. Recommendations require the published threshold, sufficient confidence, resolved finance and identity matches, independent validation and adversarial review.
Read the methodology →