Narrative-first, evidence-driven

Back to playbooks

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)?
2. Competition / market power: Do they limit monopolies/capture and enforce fair rules?
3. Competence: Do they show they can implement (staffing, budgets, timelines, metrics)?

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 “vibes and slogans” as weak evidence.

A simple scorecard

• Guardrails: Pass / Fail
• Squeeze: 0–3
• Competition: 0–3
• Competence: 0–3
• Notes: receipts + uncertainties

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.

Back to playbooks