Theodore F.
Oath.vote is a good way to get more bang for you buck.
I have heard about the political fund-raising group “Oath” for a while and I finally researched them. If you are going to contribute money to democratic political candidates, this seems like a great way to make sure your hard-earned money has the greatest bang for the buck. And you don’t just give them the money and they invest as they see fit. You totally dictate how much you want to give to which candidates. Their website is oath.vote. (NOT oath.org or oath.com) Here are a few things about them. Basically, they provide a way to channel your dollars (if you have any to contribute to political causes) to where you will get the most bang for your buck. As they put it: Oath combines the power of data analytics with expert political strategy. Our proprietary Impact Score evaluates every candidate’s competitiveness, stakes, and financial need. The higher the score, the greater the value of your donation in that race. The heart of Oath’s model is the Impact Score. Our proprietary algorithm analyzes thousands of races across dozens of data points to rate the relative value of your donation in each race. Each candidate gets a score from 10.0 to 1.0. (Higher means your buck has more impact.) The score is based on Competitiveness (e.g., is the race a toss-up?); Stakes (e.g., if this candidate wins, will it possibility flip one chamber or prevent Republicans from having a veto-proof majority?); and Financial Need. See their website for more details. Click on “Search candidates” and you can filter them one of three ways: Slates, States, or Type. “State” is self explanatory. Type means local, state, or federal (and a couple more). Slate is interesting. You can select things like Flip the House; Flip the Senate; Tipping points for state legislatures; Elect more women; Next Gen leaders; and so forth. Just for fun, I filtered on North Carolina. They brought up 10 candidates whose scores ranged from 9.8 to 9.3. Most of these were NC House or NC Senate, with a couple of judicial races thrown in. Some are incumbents, some are challengers. Next, just for fun, I filtered on Virginia. They brought up 7 candidates whose scores ranged from 10.0 to 1.0. (The candidate with a score of 1.0 is Mark Warner, running for reelection. He is a great candidate but presumably low ranked because he is sure to be reelected.) I also found an article in Politico that is favorable about Oath.vote.