All of the pages use the same coding as to the links. A link will appear in blue if you have not recently visited the linked site. However, if you recently visited a link, it will appear in violet. Your net surfing history - not anything done by Politics1 - determines the colors of the links as they appear on your screen. A name will appear in black only if we cannot locate either a relevant web site related to the named candidate.

We get LOTS of emails related to this issue (usually from people who have had this term applied to them). Here's our policy: We like to identify all non-incumbent candidates - when possible - by an occupational or political activity description. Likewise, we find it useful to mention when a person has previously been a candidate for office. Space permitting on the description line, we like to identify the specific past political races in which a candidate has previously sought elective office without success. We quickly discovered that there was rarely room to mention the specifics of more than two prior campaigns. Some individuals, however, have run often for office without any electoral success. Thus we developed the "Frequent Candidate" description and apply it uniformly to all candidates (regardless of political party) who have unsuccessfully run for office three or more times in a row in their most recent streak of candidacies. Here are some fictional examples:

• Joe Smith ran for Congress in 1998 and 2000 and for Mayor of his hometown in 2020. He lost each of those races. He is now running for Congress in the current election cycle. Joe Smith = Frequent Candidate (even though the runs were spread over 20+ years).
• Mary Gold lost for Congress in 2012 but was elected to Congress for three terms starting in 2016. She lost her race for re-election in 2022. She lost a race for State Treasurer in 2024 and is now running for Congress again. Mary Gold = NOT a frequent candidate (because she's only lost two in a row in her most recent streak of candidacies). However, if she loses this race and runs again for any other office, we will apply the frequent candidate moniker to her in her next race.
• Steve McCandidate lost a race for state senate in 2020 and a race for Congress in 2022 as a write-in candidate. In 2024, he ran for Congress again but was disqualified from the ballot because some of his petition signatures were declared invalid. Now he is again running for office. Steve McCandidate = Frequent Candidate. Write-In bids (even as a protest candidate) and runs when a candidate was disqualified count as prior candidacies. FYI: So does dropping out of the race after losing for the a party's official endorsement at a nominating convention.
• Winning just the primary, but losing the general election, does not count as a win which breaks a losing streak.

At the suggestion of a few of these candidates, we discontinued using the "Perennial Candidate" term back in 1998 in favor of our current Frequent Candidate tag. Further, we still suggest you visit the pages of all candidates (including the "Frequent Candidates") as each may offer good ideas and be well qualified to serve. Finally - if you're still not happy with this policy - we guess it goes to show a person can never entirely escape their past.

This is a an entirely speculative listing. Then again, all political prognosticating and punditry involves speculation. A person identified in italics is listed because there has been at least some suggestion the person may be a possible candidate to that office in the next election. Also, any person the subject of an ongoing Draft effort is also listed in italics (even if the person has openly tried to discourage the Draft effort). Anyone who files campaign papers with the FEC is listed. Any person identified in a published news account as merely "thinking" about a race is also identified as a potential candidate. Sometimes, a person is listed as a potential candidate because they directly emailed Politics1 and asked that we list them as a potential candidate - possibly so that they can test the public reaction to the idea. Once the formal candidate filing period closes in a state, we remove all remaining potential candidates from our listings. Note: if your name is listed as a potential candidate and you'd like it removed, simply email us.

You'll note that we use the term "Active Candidate" ... not "Announced Candidate" or "Official Candidate." Our policy: an "active" candidate includes anyone who has publicly announced their intention to seek the office and anyone who has filed state or federal papers to form a committee and/or raise money for a possible bid the office (regardless of whether the filed committee is a Campaign Committee or an Exploratory Committee). Likewise, anyone circulating candidacy petitions on their own behalf is also regarded as an Active Candidate on Politics1.

There are already LOTS of established political parties out there representing many different views across the political spectrum. Thus, here's some good advice if you're thinking of starting a new party: DON'T DO IT!! Why? Because it is a lot easier to find a party you like (or that has weak leadership) that already has qualified for ballot status ... and to then try to take over that entity (at least, at the state or local level). Donald Trump's populist MAGA movement took over the GOP in 2016 ... Pat Buchanan's social conservative activists did this in 1999-2000 to the late Ross Perot's centrist Reform Party ... radical Soviet-style communists have grabbed on-and-off control of the leftist Peace & Freedom Party in California ... plus there are many examples of failed attempts to do this. It may sound tough to do this, but it is a lot easier than starting a new party from scratch. Remember, parties routinely write the rules that control their own nominating process, so be sure to review the already established party by-laws, rules, procedures, etc.

However, if you are intent on ignoring our advice, then keep reading this answer. If your new party plans to support the election of federal candidates, you usually need to contact both the Federal Elections Commission and all applicable State Elections Offices in the states where you intend to run candidates. Ask each of office about the initial registration and ongoing financial reporting requirements -- plus candidate filing requirements. If your new party plans to support only state or local candidates, contact just your State Elections Office and ask them the same questions. As above, there are lots of other paperwork and financial reporting requirements -- but these are good starting points.

With Politics1 trying to track races in 435 Congressional seats, 100 Senate seats, and statewide races in all 50 states - meaning that we are literally trying to stay on top of thousands of candidates and potential candidates - there is no way we can know about everyone who announces for office. Obviously, we always try to check official filings with state agencies, but this info often appears long after a candidate launches a bid for office. If your name is missing from our list, simply send us an email identifying your name, state, race, district, party, occupation/office (for our descriptive tag) and - if available - a campaign website URL or email address. We'll get it posted as soon as possible.

Politics1 is largely a one-person operation (with lots of volunteer help emailed by our readers) so we can not always get everything posted immediately. And sometimes we take vacations (or get sick), so in those instances we often don't do any updates for a few days (or a week). We promise to get it posted as soon as we can. We are not trying to discredit or slight you - in fact, we've probably never even heard of you until now (but we're still sure you'd make a fine candidate - something that will, presumably, be readily apparent to us just as soon as we get around to visiting your excellent campaign site). And - as for suing us - you might want to research the first amendment and the heavy protections it grants us (remember: Politics1 is not government owned nor government funded, so "equal protection" or "discrimination" or "first amendment" arguments, etc., don't lawfully apply for listing or not listing a candidate).

As Politics1 is a one-person operation, we find it a challenge to just stay current with the thousands of candidates in the races we currently cover. It is simply impossible for us to track the state legislative and local races in various cities and towns.

We review a candidate's site (when available) as a starting point. Failing that, we obtain info from published news reports on the race, LinkedIn, and Internet searches of older materials that may enable us to identify the person. The descriptive tag is not meant to describe the totality of a candidate's career, but rather is a starting point for our visitors. Hopefully, if they follow all the links to the various candidate sites, they can read more complete bios on each of the contenders. We also try to use neutral, consistent and more general terms in our descriptive tags. Here are some examples:

• We use the general term "Attorney" ... but not more specific terms like "Law Firm Partner" or "Trial Attorney" or "Civil Rights Attorney" or "Corporate Attorney." However, we will use specific governmental titles for attorneys when applicable, such as "Assistant District Attorney" or "Ex-US Attorney" or "Johnsonville City Attorney."
• We use the term "Accountant" rather than "Certified Public Accountant" ... simply because it is shorter and conveys the same meaning.
• We use the term "Ex-" (rather than "Former") - as in "Ex-Congressman" or "Ex-Teacher" - simply because it is shorter. Readers should understand we intend it to convey the same meaning as if we had used "Former." However, "Ex-" is not the same as "Retired." When we use the term "Retired Army Officer" or "Retired Civil Servant," we intend to convey not merely that the person once held the job in the past (i.e., when we use "Ex-") but that the person worked at that position for a long enough period of time as to actually have reached retirement (qualified for a pension, etc.) from that job.
• "Businessman" or "Businesswoman" is a term that we dislike simply because it is so vague and could include - without distinction - everyone from a street corner hotdog cart owner to a billionaire tech magnate. When we can better identify the nature of the business and the person's position, we will always do so. Also, we do not use the term "Small Business(wo)man" or "Small Business Owner" because nearly EVERYONE seems to claim this vague title, making it of little use to our visitors.
• "Physician" applies to any type of medical doctor (both MDs and DOs). When more specific information is known (i.e., Ophthalmologist, Surgeon, Emergency Room Physician, etc.), we will use it. We use the term "Chiropractor" for all DCs.
• We will not print outlandish titles, even if a candidate claims them on his/her web site. Thus - and this is a real example - we declined to list a prior congressional candidate as "God's Second Son" (even though he repeatedly emailed us asking that we do so). Likewise, "Genius" is not an occupation.
• We do not use descriptions to help one side make political points. Thus, we will not use terms like "Carpetbagger" (even when requested to do so by an opposing candidate).

As for the "Frequent Candidate" tag, see above. We also do not use any adjectives in the tags. None of the terms used are meant to be derisive or show any preference on the part of Politics1 for any of the candidates in any races.

The "Activist" tag is used when it seems to accurately describe a candidate who has a history of involvement on a particular cause (or causes). Often, this information is culled from news reports and info on a candidate's own website. To remain neutral and objective, we typically use the terms that each side favors for describing themselves. Here are some examples:

• "Community Activist" is a fairly general term we use to describe someone active in neighborhood groups, charitible and civic groups, local causes, etc.
• A "Progressive Activist" is one who has been involved in a broader variety of mainstream liberal/left causes (environment, pro-choice, gun control, peace, civil rights, etc.). If the person has been active in the DSA, or proclaims themselves a socialist, we will use "Socialist Activist."
• A "MAGA Activist" is one who has been involved in President Trump's MAGA / America First campaigns at any level.
• A "Conservative Activist" is one who has been involved in a broader variety of mainstream conservative/right causes (anti-tax, pro-life, gun rights, increased defense spending, property rights, etc.).
• A "Religious Conservative Activist" is one who has been involved in a broader variety of social conservative causes with an underlying religious foundation to that candidate's activism (pro-life, anti-gay rights, prayer in school, Christian Coalition, etc.). The term is meant to distinguish this form of conservative activism from the more secular form of conservatism.
• A "Gun Rights Activist" is someone who has been active in the NRA or similar groups. By contrast, a "Gun Control Activist" is someone who has been active in the Million Mom March and other similar groups.
• A "Pro-Life Activist" is one who has been involved in the anti-abortion movement. A "Pro-Choice Activist" is one who has been invovled in in the abortion issue through NARAL, NOW, and other similar groups.
• A "Republican Activist", "Democratic Activist", "Libertarian Activist," etc., is used to describe a candidate with a history of involvement in partisan campaigns, party organizations, fundraising, etc.
• "Political Organizer" is one who professionally devotes most of their time to (and, typically, earns a living related to) grassroots political activities.

NO! Never has and never will. We are not trying to influence votes, only encourage a better educated electorate. Follow the links to all of the races in your area and make up your own mind about the candidates.

Politics1 does not keep this kind of information. We'd suggest you visit the Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections for that answer.

While the US Constitution sets the basic requirements to seek the job (at least 25 years old and a resident of state from which you are seeking office), ballot qualifying requirements vary from state to state. They also can be governed by additional party nominating rules. A good starting point is to contact the Elections Division of the Secretary of State's Office in your state (or whatever the State Elections Office is for your state -- they're all listed near the bottom of each of our state pages). They can probably point you in the right direction. In some states, you need to pay only a few hundred dollars in filing fees or file as few as 150 petition signatures to run. In other states, unfortunately, you may need to pay a filing fee of well over $10,000 or collect thousands of valid signatures just to get listed on the ballot. The rules can often be even tougher (if not impossible) for third party and independent candidates in some states. Some states even place extra obstacles in your way -- in NY, for example, an entire page of petition signatures is entirely void if even just one signature on the page is invalid. You will also need to file paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission. There are lots of other paperwork and financial reporting requirements -- but these are good starting points. See ... this is why many campaigns have to consult with attorneys and accountants to keep their campaign on the correct side of the law and meet complicated filing requirements.

Ha, ha. Politics1 is a sole proprietorship / hobby site operated by retired attorney and former political consultant Ron Gunzburger. That's it. It is not a business. It holds no assets. No investors or stockholders. No professional programmers or graphic artists ... although this last part may be rather obvious!

With Politics1, what you see is what you get. We have no other materials available other than in the HTML form and format currently displayed online. We don't even keep archived versions of our pages from past election years (or past versions from even last week). However, if you're looking for older versions of our pages from the 1998, 2000, past pre-primary pages, and info, check out the amazing Internet Archive site at www.archive.org. Simply go there, enter our politics1.com name and view all the old, archived versions of our pages that they keep online (along with archived versions of millions -- maybe even billions -- of other web pages).