Where to Spend and Where to Skip: A National Map of Winnable Races
Summary
A climate organization sought to invest in congressional primary candidates who would effectively advance climate policy, and it needed to determine which races were winnable, which candidates were genuine, and which contests were a waste of resources. We scored every House district in the country, rated every relevant primary candidate, and delivered a tiered investment strategy the organization could act on race by race.
The Client
A climate-focused organization working to increase the number of legislators in Congress willing to champion climate action. Its mission crossed party lines, which meant it needed a way to separate genuine commitment from convenient positioning.
The Challenge
The organization faced two problems at once. It had to find the districts where a climate-aligned candidate could realistically win, now or in the coming cycles. It also had to determine which candidates meant what they said, because public statements on climate had become cheap. Funding decisions worth real money depended on getting both answers right.
What We Did
We built a district model from ten years of federal election results layered with a decade of demographic change, including shifts in young adults, people of color, single women, college graduates, and income. The model identified the districts where margins and demographics made a climate-aligned candidate viable, and it separated districts worth immediate investment from districts that belong in a longer-term strategy.
On the candidate side, we created a commitment ranking and applied it to primary candidates in relevant districts across all fifty states, drawing on voting records, public statements, campaign contributions, and candidate interviews. We also analyzed the language candidates use on climate, identifying which phrases signal genuine commitment and which serve as cover for fossil fuel interests, so the client could read positioning the way an insider would.
The Outcome
The findings overturned the assumption that stated support equals real support. Among officeholders publicly claiming climate commitment, fewer than one in five held up as strong supporters under scrutiny, and the weakest claimants received the most fossil fuel money. The deliverable was a tiered set of funding priorities ranked by competitiveness, commitment, and need, including districts deliberately not selected, with the reasoning stated for each.
Strategic Impact
The organization replaced an instinct-based giving strategy with a defensible national map. It knew where its money could change an outcome, where it would be wasted, and how to tell a real ally from a rehearsed one.