Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source
98%
of State House Republicans score to the left of Gleim on the CSIP scale
CSIP score +0.91 (approximate range +0.87 to +0.95, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 224 donors and 1,198 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Gleim sits among State House Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. Gleim missed 1.1% of 1,497 roll calls, attendance in the bottom 5% of the Pennsylvania House (average 99.9%). 26% of Gleim’s statements criticize a policy, 2.8 times the State House Republican average of 9.3%.
The measures on which Gleim sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
+0.91
More conservative than 98% of State House Republicans · ± 0.04
Attendance
98.8%
Pennsylvania House average 99.9% · ranks 201st of 203 · 1,497 roll calls
Policy criticism
26%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 54th of 791
Out of committee
6.1%
Pennsylvania House average 40% · ranks 160th of 171
Policy discussion
56%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 71st of 791
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.61
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 128th of 504
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Gleim, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gleim is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Gleim says
Gleim criticizes policies more than 93% of State House Republicans. Policy criticism in 26% of 300 statements, against 9.3% for the average State House Republican; 54th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Gleim’s 300 statements in the PA 2025–26 session (300 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the PA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Gleim
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion167 statements
56%
32%
71st of 791
Policy criticism79 statements
26%
9%
54th of 791
Credit claiming22 statements
7%
13%
473rd of 791
Personal attacks5 statements
2%
3%
338th of 791
Bipartisanship3 statements
1%
2%
404th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Gleim | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 56% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 26% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 7% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
300
statements classified
300 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 300 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Gleim; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Gleim does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Gleim used extreme labels in 1.7% of statements, above the peer average. 5 statements, most often aimed at Shapiro; peers 1.4%.
- “communist”2
- “extreme”1
- “far left”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Shapiro2
- Communism1
- MAGAVoice1
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 23 | 0.0% | 34.8% | 69.6% | 0.0% | 17.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 36.0% | 52.0% | 0.0% | 8.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.3% |
| Apr ’25 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 71.4% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 45.5% | 63.6% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 54.5% | 4.5% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 36.4% | 45.5% | 9.1% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 27.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 9.1% |
| Oct ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 17 | 11.8% | 29.4% | 29.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 14 | 7.1% | 7.1% | 64.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 58.3% | 8.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 40.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 17 | 5.9% | 35.3% | 58.8% | 0.0% | 17.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 37.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.3% |
| Aug ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 20 | 5.0% | 10.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 80.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the PA 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 5 months are hatched here.
In Gleim’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; Education; Taxation; Commerce; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 8, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Health; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Shapiro · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: ShapiroSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Taxation · Economics and Public Finance · target: GovernorSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · EnergySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: MichelleSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Cari DonleySource
All 300 statements
Newest first, the PA 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 300 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Gleim talks about most: 44% of policy statements, 3.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.61 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 128th of 504).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Gleim talks about. The bills Gleim sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Gleim talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the PA 2025–26 session
0%49%
Gleim
Peers
Education74 statements
44%
15%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues38 statements
23%
6%
Agriculture and Food24 statements
14%
4%
Government Operations and Politics17 statements
10%
18%
Economics and Public Finance12 statements
7%
12%
Show the data
| Row | Gleim | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 44% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 23% | 6% |
| Agriculture and Food | 14% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 10% | 18% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 7% | 12% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Gleim’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 49%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 44% | 15% | 20% | 9% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 23% | 6% | 6% | 4% |
| Agriculture and Food | 14% | 4% | 6% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 10% | 18% | 10% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 7% | 12% | 5% | 2% |
0.61
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 128th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Gleim legislates on exactly the areas Gleim talks about, in the same proportions; 0 means no overlap. It does not say whether the bills match the positions in the statements, only the subjects. Bills Gleim sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Gleim sits at +0.91 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 98% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.87 to +0.95, which understates the uncertainty; from 224 donors and 1,198 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”.
+0.91
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.87 to +0.95. From 224 donors and 1,198 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gleim, 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 Gleim’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 Gleim sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Pennsylvania House203 · median −0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Gleim |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 98% |
| Pennsylvania House | 203 | −0.3 | 98% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 99% |
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 Gleim 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 Gleim.
Money
Gleim reported $59.7K in the 2026 cycle, 1.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
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.
$59.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 43 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)59 squares$35.4K
- PACs and other committees41 squares$24.3K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $35.4K | 59.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $24.3K | 40.7% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $51.0K |
| 2022 cycle | $83.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $77.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $59.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania$32.9K
- Wisconsin$2,500
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
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $32.9K |
| Wisconsin | $2,500 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
43
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
93%
from Pennsylvania
Of itemized individual dollars
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 Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$14.3K 8 donors
- OWNER$7,300 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- COMMONWEALTH CHILDREN'S CHOICE FUND$5,000
- BIKERS PAC (BIKEPAC)$3,350
- OPERATORS FOR SKILL PAC$2,800
- HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN HARRISBURG PAC$1,500
- PROTECTING PA PAC$1,250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Gleim voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans on 97.8% of party-line votes and missed 1.1% of 1,497 roll calls. Pennsylvania House on average: 95.1% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Gleim voted against the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans 182 times.
1,497 roll calls Gleim could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania 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 Gleim voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
182
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Republicans
Party unity 97.8%, Pennsylvania House average 95.1%, ranks 112th of 203. 1,497 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Gleim, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Gleim
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.8%
99.9%
201st of 203
Party unity
97.8%
95.1%
112th of 203
Show the data
| Row | Gleim | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.8% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 97.8% | 95.1% |
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 PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1431 An Act amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Pennsylvania Game Commission, further providing for Game Commission officers and employees; and, in enforcement, further providing for powers and duties of enforcement officers. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 922 An Act amending the act of January 28, 1988 (P.L.24, No.11), known as the Private Academic Schools Act, further providing for application for license, for issuance and renewal of license and for promulgation of rules and regulations. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–2 · R 100–0Democrats 101 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1328 An Act requiring automated external defibrillators at utility or electrical worksites; imposing duties on the Department of Labor and Industry; and imposing penalties. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 94–6Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 94 yea, 6 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 764 An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in alteration of territory or corporate entity and dissolution, further providing for conduct of referenda and for court review of transitional plan. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2593 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in general provisions relating to powers and duties of the Department of Health and its departmental administrative and advisory boards, providing for prostate health public education campaign; and FINAL PASSAGE | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 88–12Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 88 yea, 12 nay | party 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 Gleim most often
- David MaloneyR1,480 shared votes95%
- Joe HammR1,480 shared votes94%
- Dave ZimmermanR1,480 shared votes93%
- Marc AndersonR1,480 shared votes93%
- Leslie RossiR1,480 shared votes93%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gleim least often
- Dan MillerD709 shared votes49%
- Josh SiegelD709 shared votes49%
- Mary IsaacsonD1,480 shared votes54%
- Joe HohensteinD1,480 shared votes54%
- Malcolm KenyattaD1,480 shared votes54%
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
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Gleim sponsored 33 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 102 others. 6.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Pennsylvania House average 40%; 160th of 171).
The bills Gleim sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 33 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 102 | 101 | 10 | 2 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Gleim sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gleim cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
6.1%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Pennsylvania House average 40%. Ranks 160th of 171.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gleim, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Dave Zimmerman74
- Joe Hamm68
- Rob Kauffman59
- Milou Mackenzie36
- David Rowe34
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 Gleim’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 663 | A Resolution designating the month of November 2026 as "Veterans and Military Families Month" in Pennsylvania. | Sponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Reported as committed Oct 20, 2026 |
| HB 2855 | An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in inchoate crimes, further providing for prohibited offensive weapons and for use or possession of electric or electronic incapacitation device. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Referred to Judiciary Oct 14, 2026 |
| HB 744 | An Act amending Title 65 (Public Officers) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in ethics standards and financial disclosure, further providing for definitions and for restricted activities, providing for gift ban and for gift ban exceptions and further providing for statement of financial int | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Laid on the table Sep 29, 2026 |
| HR 642 | House Discharge Resolution discharging Committee on Environmental and Natural Resource Protection from further consideration of Senate Bill No. 403. | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to House Calendar Under Rule 53 Sep 29, 2026 |
| HR 636 | House Discharge Resolution discharging Committee on State Government from further consideration of House Bill No. 744. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to House Calendar Under Rule 53 Sep 28, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 45 times in 90 days. Gleim’s official site had 48 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Gleim’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 Gleim posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 48
pages crawled
45changes in 90 days
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
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.
Social accounts
Images Gleim posted
No images from Gleim’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
105 turns, Feb 5, 2020 to Apr 28, 2026
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 Gleim is most unusual among State House Republicans, 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
- 48c5b966-eef2-456a-8ca0-f47d584e7883
- Open States
- ocd-person/48c5b966-eef2-456a-8ca0-f47d584e7883
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