Skip to content

Democrat · New Hampshire House, district Hillsborough 12

Serving since Dec 7, 2022NH 2025–26 session

Portrait of Rosemarie Rung, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$1,000
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of State House Democrats

The median for State House Democrats is $40.4K. Ranks 1995th of 2,082, where 1st raised the most. 0 itemized donors.

Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State House Democrats. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.

At a glance

5 measures against the New Hampshire House. Rung sits at −0.29 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 93% of State House Democrats. Rung voted against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats 34 times; party unity 94.1%, in the bottom quarter of the New Hampshire House (average 95.3%).

The measures on which Rung sits furthest from the middle of the New Hampshire House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Itemized, 2026

$1,000

State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1995th of 2,082

CSIP ideology

−0.29

More conservative than 93% of State House Democrats · ± 0.02

Party unity

94.1%

New Hampshire House average 95.3% · ranks 315th of 381 · 34 votes against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats

Attendance

99.4%

New Hampshire House average 89% · ranks 67th of 382 · 557 roll calls

Out of committee

67%

New Hampshire House average 48% · ranks 32nd of 128

Statements

No statements in this window

Peer group: New Hampshire House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Rung, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Rung is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Rung says

No statements for the NH 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

No policy statements for the NH 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Rung sits at −0.29 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 93% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.30 to −0.27, which understates the uncertainty; from 453 donors and 1,138 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

−0.29

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.30 to −0.27. From 453 donors and 1,138 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Rung −0.3State House Democrats −0.6New Hampshire House 0.0All State House +0.1

The outlined dot is Rung, coloured by its side of 0 (blue left, red right, deeper further out); the bar through it is the approximate range (±1.96 standard errors), which understates the uncertainty; the grey ticks below are the medians of Rung’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.

What this means, and what it doesn’t

The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.

Where Rung sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →State House Democratsmedian −0.6Rung −0.3New Hampshire Housemedian 0.0All State Housemedian +0.1
Show the data
Rung's CSIP score of −0.29 placed against State House Democrats, New Hampshire House, All State House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Rung
State House Democrats2392−0.693%
New Hampshire House3820.040%
All State House5324+0.142%
How to read the strips

Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Rung in every row; the rule is each group’s median. The table under the figure gives the share of each group to the left of Rung.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Rung reported $1,000 in the 2026 cycle, 2.5% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total.

Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.

Election cycle
$1,000

itemized in the 2026 cycle

From 0 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.

Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)Party committees: $1,000 (100.0%)
  • Party committees100 squares$1,000
Show the data
Sources of Rung's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Party committees$1,000100.0%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.

Receipts by cycle

Itemized contributions, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $1,939$1,93920222024 cycle: $14.7K$14.7K20242026 cycle: $1,000$1,0002026State House Democrats median $40.4K
Show the data
Rung's receipts by cycle against the 2026 State House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$1,939
2024 cycle$14.7K
2026 cycle$1,000

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state.

No itemized donors with an address.

Small donations

State filings report no total for small gifts.

Not reported in state filings.

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: no dataVAMaryland: no dataMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: no dataDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Rung's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
VirginiaNo data
MarylandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
District of ColumbiaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
0

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

No itemized individual money.

How to read the map

Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is New Hampshire. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No occupations reported.

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE$500
  2. MERRIMACK TOWN DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE$500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Rung voted with the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats on 94.1% of party-line votes and missed 0.5% of 557 roll calls. New Hampshire House on average: 95.3% party unity, 89% attendance. Across all roll calls, Rung voted against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats 34 times.

557 roll calls Rung could vote on in the NH 2025–26 session, compared with New Hampshire House. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Rung voted with the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

34

votes against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats

Party unity 94.1%, New Hampshire House average 95.3%, ranks 315th of 381. 557 roll calls in the NH 2025–26 session.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Rung, the thin grey bar the New Hampshire House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Rung
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.4%
89%
67th of 382
Party unity
94.1%
95.3%
315th of 381
Show the data
Rung's attendance and party unity against New Hampshire House.
RowRungPeers
Attendance99.4%89%
Party unity94.1%95.3%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the NH 2025–26 session

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Aug 19, 2026
HB 2026
relative to the state 10-year transportation improvement plan; relative to toll rate adjustments and periodic toll reviews for the New Hampshire turnpike system to support the 2027-2036 ten-year transportation plan; and relative to reconstruction of the Gregg Mill Road Bridge in the town of New Bost
Veto Override
YeaWith majoritypassD 143–0 · R 148–25 · I 1–0Democrats 143 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 148 yea, 25 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Aug 19, 2026
HB 1358
establishing a commission to study transitioning all public schools to public charter schools.
Veto Override
NayWith majorityfailD 0–143 · R 149–23 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 143 nay; Republicans 149 yea, 23 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote · party crossover
Aug 19, 2026
HB 1610
allowing school districts to annually retain year-end unassigned general funds.
Veto Override
NayWith majoritypassD 0–139 · R 161–9 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 139 nay; Republicans 161 yea, 9 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 19, 2026
HB 1336
relative to regulated conditional deposits.
Veto Override
NayWith majoritypassD 0–142 · R 158–13 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 142 nay; Republicans 158 yea, 13 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 19, 2026
HB 1726
relative to the sale of surplus state-owned land and establishing a commission to study the sale of state-owned property.
Veto Override
NayWith majorityfailD 2–135 · R 98–71 · I 1–0Democrats 2 yea, 135 nay; Republicans 98 yea, 71 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Rung most often

  1. Nancy MurphyD554 shared votes96%
  2. Dennis MalloyD541 shared votes96%
  3. Susan AlmyD554 shared votes95%
  4. Lee Ann KlugerD545 shared votes95%
  5. Megan MurrayD553 shared votes95%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Rung least often

  1. John LeavittR325 shared votes10%
  2. Jim SummersR350 shared votes11%
  3. Gary DanielsR501 shared votes11%
  4. John SellersR527 shared votes11%
  5. Phyllis KatsakioresR417 shared votes11%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

NH 2025–26 session, loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Rung sponsored 6 bills in the NH 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 43 others. 67% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New Hampshire House average 48%; 32nd of 128).

The bills Rung sponsored and cosponsored in the NH 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.

Bills by stage

Counts for the NH 2025–26 session

Sponsored6 billsSponsored, Introduced: 66Sponsored, In committee: 66Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored43 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 4343Cosponsored, In committee: 4343Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2121Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 1010Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Rung sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored66411
Cosponsored434321105
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Rung sponsored, ochre blocks bills Rung cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

67%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

New Hampshire House average 48%. Ranks 32nd of 128.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Rung, by number of shared bills in the NH 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.

  1. Nancy Murphy24
  2. Karen Ebel16
  3. John MacDonald16
  4. David Watters16
  5. Karel Crawford12
What this means, and what it doesn’t

The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Rung’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
HB 1837relative to the New Hampshire marine patrol.CosponsorDec 18, 2025Passed both chambersCrime and Law Enforcement(model)Signed by Governor Ayotte 05/28/2026; Chapter 99; eff.05/28/2026 Jun 1, 2026
HB 1614restricting the use of coal tar-based sealant products containing levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.CosponsorDec 10, 2025In committeeEnvironmental Protection(model)Interim Study Report: Not Recommended for Future Legislation 10/16/2026 (Vote 10-1; ) Oct 21, 2026
HB 1500establishing a commission to study and propose procedures in the event of a state government shutdown.CosponsorDec 10, 2025In committeeGovernment Operations and Politics(model)Died on Table, Session ended 08/19/2026 HJ 16 Aug 20, 2026
HB 1504prohibiting retailers from engaging in price gouging on certain necessary products and services.CosponsorDec 10, 2025In committeeCommerce(model)Inexpedient to Legislate: MA VV 03/11/2026 HJ 7 P. 12 Mar 11, 2026
HB 1540relative to municipal health ordinances and accessory dwelling units and relative to on-premises licenses for licensed barbershops and salons.CosponsorDec 10, 2025Passed both chambersHealth(model)Conference Committee Report; Not Signed Off; SJ 14 Jun 2, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Rung’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.

The lab crawls Rung’s official and campaign websites (weekly for Congress, monthly for the states) and keeps every page’s text, so changes can be read later; it also records social accounts and describes the images Rung posts with a vision model.

Websites

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Images Rung posted

No images from Rung’s posts have been described.

About the descriptions

Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

State floor speeches

No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.

Floor speeches

Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

Methods and sources

How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.

The headline

The headline is the measure on which Rung is most unusual among New Hampshire House, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
1a5923c6-3e1f-4ebe-8739-17c9e9642403
Open States
ocd-person/1a5923c6-3e1f-4ebe-8739-17c9e9642403

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

  • What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
  • Roll calls (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
  • Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
  • Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; aggregates only.
  • Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
  • WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
  • State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.

How the measures work

What politicians say
Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
Extreme labels
A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
Policy areas and agreement
Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology (CSIP)
Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
Campaign money
Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
Votes and key votes
Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
Peers and ranks
Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top