Tbh the whole "good people vs bad people" is a bit of an oversimplification when political stuff gets involved I think. It makes some sense when it comes to immediate-scale things; if someone is a jerk that abuses or exploits the people around them, it's probably not a good idea to associate with them or trust them, and it's easier to communicate this with "this person is bad" than listing it all out. Similarly, if someone is friendly, helps out etc, it's easier to just tell people "yeah, they're a good person" when asked and it gets the point across.

But ideological and political positions, while they certainly have consequences that help and hurt people, those consequences are sometimes harder to see and require getting information from other people. What if you have someone that comes across as kind, would help out a neighbor or befriend a new person at work, etc, but they believe some ideological position that if implemented would hurt many people, or support some politician that promotes the same? What if they do so not really even seeing the contradiction, because the people they for whatever reason trust tell him that this person or position actually helps people, that the reports that it's harmful are lies, and that the people with other ideas are abhorrent and untrustworthy?

What about the reverse, where someone's positions would lead to fairly desirable outcomes, but in person the guy is an utter asshole? Obviously not everyone's personality and views are misaligned like this, but it happens.

At the end of the day, if you're talking about someone you will never personally interact with, asking if someone is "a good person" or not isn't super relevant. If you determine that they are, that doesn't make any harm from their missteps go away, and if they're not, your condemnation doesn't do so either. What matters more is if the consequences of the actions they take are desirable, and if not, if you can do anything to mitigate them or influence their future behavior.