About

This site places 2026 midterm candidates on a six-tier spectrum according to their documented positions on Palestine, Israel, and the genocide in Gaza. It is a research document: it records what candidates have said and done, and publishes the reasoning for every placement alongside it.

A record of positions · not a voter guide

What this is not

It does not tell you how to vote, or whether to.

Nothing here is a recommendation to vote for anyone, against anyone, or at all. The roster’s job is to make the record on Palestine, genocide, and Zionism legible.

A tier is not a grade. The number marks how far a candidate sits from the pro-Israel pole. It is not a score, and the scale has no best end.

123456

◀ most pro-Israelmost critical of Israel ▶

Tier 1 is not first place and Tier 6 is not last. Neither end is the top — they are two ends of a line, and the number says where on that line a candidate’s record puts them.

Why the spectrum measures distance from the pro-Israel pole

The obvious way to build this scale would be to measure support for Palestine. That scale would not work, because it would not distinguish anyone.

Almost no candidate for American office argues for Palestinian liberation, for the right of return, for a single democratic state, or for BDS. The positions actually available in American electoral politics run, in practice, from unconditional military support for Israel at one end to conditioning some portion of that aid at the other — and nearly everyone in the field affirms, somewhere in their record, Israel’s standing as a Jewish state. Measured on support for Palestine, the overwhelming majority of candidates would sit at the floor, indistinguishable from one another, and the scale would tell you nothing.

What does vary, and vary considerably, is the strength of a candidate’s attachment to Israel as a Jewish state — and what they are willing to do about it. Whether they will condition weapons. Whether they will call the genocide by its name. Whether they take money from the lobby, and whether they will say so. Whether Palestinian life registers in their record as a political cost to be managed or as a matter of rights.

So that is what the six tiers measure. The spectrum runs from the firmest attachment at one end to anti-Zionism at the other, because that is where the differences between American candidates actually lie.

Which means the range of this scale is set by American politics, not by justice.

A candidate far from the pro-Israel pole is far from it relative to the field they are running in. They are not thereby aligned with Palestinian liberation, and nothing here claims they are. The most critical end of this spectrum still sits well short of what a just settlement would require. That is a fact about the candidates rather than about the scale, and recording it plainly is part of the point of the exercise.

What a placement means

A tier is a presumption, not a verdict. The rules set a starting placement that a candidate’s full record can override. Where a call is close or contested, the entry says so and shows the tension rather than forcing a clean answer.
The reasoning is published. Every placement carries its own explanation and its sources, so it can be argued with. If you think the reasoning is wrong rather than the facts, that is worth writing about too.
Absence is a scope choice, not a judgment. The roster covers candidates with a documented position, or who have been targeted by the tracked money and endorsement networks. It is not a complete list of every candidate in every race. A Tier 0 / NR marking means no individual position is yet on the public record — not that the candidate is neutral.
Records shift. Positions change, sometimes late. Re-verify close to an election rather than trusting a placement made months earlier.
Review has not been even across the spectrum. Candidates toward the most-critical end, at Tiers 5 and 6, have had the closest review: their records have been re-checked more often, against their own words and votes, than placements elsewhere on the scale.

The full method — what each tier requires, how money and endorsements are weighed, and how the computed Base grade is built — is on How the Ratings Work. How sources are ranked, and where nothing better exists, is in the source audit.

AI-assisted research document

This document was produced using Claude (Anthropic), a large language model, under human direction. The researcher helps determine the scope, analytical framework, tier criteria, and candidate list — though has not yet fully specified them. The research, sourcing, candidate summaries, position markers, quotes, and analytical language were substantially written by Claude, based on searches of primary campaign materials, FEC filings, news outlets, advocacy trackers, and legislative records.

Content written by AI can contain errors, outdated information, or misattributions. This document has not been extensively fact-checked and is intended as a research starting point, not a finished publication. Placements on the six-tier spectrum are analytical judgments rather than objective facts — a different researcher applying the same framework might reach different conclusions.

Follow the embedded source links, cross-check positions against primary sources, and treat placements as provisional. This document should not be cited as authoritative without independent verification.

Corrections

Corrections are the most useful thing you can send, and a specific link — to a vote, a filing, a press release, or the candidate’s own words — moves a rating faster than anything else. The contact form is encrypted in your browser, and an email address is optional.

Return to the roster · How the Ratings Work · Source audit · Contact