The words behind a position

Sources and identity

We start with campaign websites whose ownership has been checked. Attributable statements from an official office, interview, debate, or candidate questionnaire may also be used. These source types are labeled separately. A party platform, endorsement, vote, or another person’s characterization does not establish a candidate’s stated position.

People with similar names and regular, special, and runoff contests are kept separate. Older statements are labeled when the current position has not been confirmed.

What we check

AI helps extract proposed summaries from collected passages. A separate check compares each claim with the evidence, including who spoke, qualifications, negation, numbers, timing, and jurisdiction. Unsupported wording is held back. Ambiguous identity, material conflicts, and substantive changes need review.

A sourced statement tells you what the candidate said. It does not certify that a promised policy will work or that the candidate will act on it. Conditions stay in the full summary; we do not turn every proposal into a support-or-oppose score.

Dates mean different things

The statement date is the date provided by the source, when known. “Source checked” records when we checked that page. A recent check does not make an older statement new. If a page disappears, that alone does not establish a change of position.

When a topic has no current statement

Missing evidence does not mean opposition, indifference, or that a candidate has never addressed the subject. Our research is limited to the sources checked.

• Research is not yet complete.
• No clear public statement found in the sources checked.
• The available sources could not be checked.
• Earlier statement — current position not confirmed.
• These statements differ. Read both sources and their dates.
• Positions are temporarily unavailable.

A conflicting statement appears only after review. Unpublished drafts and private reviewer notes are not shown.

Fair comparisons

Each contest offers every eligible candidate in alphabetical order, with the same space and topic order. You can change the visible candidates and topics; your selection is saved in the URL. Two statements under one topic may address different proposals and should be read on their own terms. Campaign statements and legislative records are kept distinct.

• Economy
• Healthcare
• Immigration
• Education
• Defense
• Climate
• Gun Policy
• Abortion
• Housing
• Taxes
• Voting Rights
• Crime
• Foreign Policy
• Energy
• Other

Corrections and changes

Use “Suggest a correction” beneath a statement to send the wording at issue and a supporting source to our review queue. Sign-in is required. Reports do not immediately change the public statement. Accepted corrections go through the same publication workflow; rejected material is kept from automatically reappearing from unchanged evidence.

Research can remain incomplete when sources cannot be accessed or attribution cannot be resolved. We prefer an explained gap to an unsupported claim.