Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 13, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Public Lands and Natural Resources · Source
52%
of itemized money from Utah donors, in the bottom tenth of State House Republicans
52% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Utah. Ranks 2154th of 2,335, where 1st is the highest share. 178 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Utah, ranked among State House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. The policy areas Teuscher talks about and legislates on agree at 0.42 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans. Teuscher reported $127.5K in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Teuscher 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.
From Utah, 2026
52%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2154th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.42
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 432nd of 504
Itemized, 2026
$127.5K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 404th of 2,521
Attendance
88%
Utah House average 90.7% · ranks 55th of 71 · 832 roll calls
Out of committee
82%
Utah House average 70% · ranks 23rd of 67
CSIP ideology
+0.37
More conservative than 54% of State House Republicans · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Teuscher, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Teuscher is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Teuscher says
Teuscher attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 45 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Teuscher’s 45 statements in the UT 2025–26 session (45 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 UT 2025–26 session
0%80%
Teuscher
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion22 statements
49%
32%
148th of 791
Policy criticism12 statements
27%
9%
52nd of 791
Credit claiming8 statements
18%
13%
217th of 791
Bipartisanship1 statements
2%
2%
232nd of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Teuscher | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 49% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 27% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 18% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
45
statements classified
45 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 45 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Teuscher; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Teuscher does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Teuscher used no extreme labels in 45 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 UT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 36.4% | 63.6% | 0.0% | 27.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’25 | 2 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 ’25 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’25 | 3 | — (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 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 4 | — (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 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 0 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 UT 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%. 21 months are hatched here; 7 of them have no statements.
In Teuscher’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Families; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 8, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Labor and Employment; Government Operations and Politics · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 45 statements
Newest first, the UT 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: 45 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Teuscher talks about most: 27% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.42 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 432nd 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 Teuscher talks about. The bills Teuscher sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Teuscher talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the UT 2025–26 session
0%35%
Teuscher
Peers
Education6 statements
27%
15%
Labor and Employment4 statements
18%
3%
Finance and Financial Sector3 statements
14%
1%
Government Operations and Politics3 statements
14%
18%
Science, Technology, Communications3 statements
14%
2%
Show the data
| Row | Teuscher | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 27% | 15% |
| Labor and Employment | 18% | 3% |
| Finance and Financial Sector | 14% | 1% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 18% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 14% | 2% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Teuscher’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 35%. 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 | 27% | 15% | 11% | 9% |
| Labor and Employment | 18% | 3% | 8% | 3% |
| Finance and Financial Sector | 14% | 1% | 5% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 18% | 24% | 12% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 14% | 2% | 2% | 1% |
0.42
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 432nd of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Teuscher legislates on exactly the areas Teuscher 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 Teuscher sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Teuscher sits at +0.37 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 54% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.34 to +0.41, which understates the uncertainty; from 237 donors and 823 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”.
+0.37
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.34 to +0.41. From 237 donors and 823 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Teuscher, 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 Teuscher’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 Teuscher sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Utah House72 · median +0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Teuscher |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 54% |
| Utah House | 72 | +0.3 | 60% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 74% |
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 Teuscher 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 Teuscher.
Money
Teuscher reported $127.5K in the 2026 cycle, 3.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 52% of itemized individual money came from Utah.
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.
$127.5K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 178 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)46 squares$58.3K
- PACs and other committees54 squares$69.3K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $58.3K | 45.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $69.3K | 54.3% |
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 | $36.3K |
| 2022 cycle | $24.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $69.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $127.5K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 52% came from Utah.
- Utah$30.3K
- Pennsylvania$16.8K
- Kentucky$5,000
- District of Columbia$2,042
- Virginia$1,292
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 |
|---|---|
| Utah | $30.3K |
| Pennsylvania | $16.8K |
| Kentucky | $5,000 |
| District of Columbia | $2,042 |
| Virginia | $1,292 |
| Colorado | $800 |
| Nevada | $521 |
| Arizona | $521 |
| Florida | $500 |
| Tennessee | $250 |
| Michigan | $209 |
| 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 |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | 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 |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
178
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
52%
from Utah
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 Utah. 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.
- UTAH HOUSE REPUBLICAN ELECTION COMMITTEE PAC$25.0K
- HOUSE SPEAKER LEADERSHIP PAC$20.0K
- UTAH ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS$6,500
- LAWYERS INVOLVED FOR UTAH$2,500
- CONSERVATIVE MILLENNIALS PAC$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Teuscher voted with the majority of Utah House Republicans on 91.2% of party-line votes and missed 12% of 832 roll calls. Utah House on average: 89% party unity, 90.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Teuscher voted against the majority of Utah House Republicans 23 times.
832 roll calls Teuscher could vote on in the UT 2025–26 session, compared with Utah 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 Teuscher voted with the majority of Utah House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
23
votes against the majority of Utah House Republicans
Party unity 91.2%, Utah House average 89%, ranks 36th of 71. 832 roll calls in the UT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Teuscher, the thin grey bar the Utah House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Teuscher
Peers
Rank
Attendance
88%
90.7%
55th of 71
Party unity
91.2%
89%
36th of 71
Show the data
| Row | Teuscher | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 88% | 90.7% |
| Party unity | 91.2% | 89% |
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 UT 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 13–0 · R 44–1Democrats 13 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 44 yea, 1 nay | became law · much discussed | |
| Mar 7, 2026 | HCR 2 Concurrent Resolution Authorizing Adult Sentencing and Supervision Length Guidelines and Juvenile Disposition Guidelines House/ concurs with Senate amendment | Did not vote | — | pass | D 12–0 · R 52–0Democrats 12 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Mar 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 3–11 · R 50–2Democrats 3 yea, 11 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Mar 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 14–0 · R 57–1Democrats 14 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 57 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Mar 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 13–0 · R 50–1Democrats 13 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 1 nay | became law |
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 Teuscher most often
- Dave ShallenbergerR564 shared votes97%
- Neil WalterR660 shared votes97%
- Cal RobertsR556 shared votes97%
- Doug FiefiaR619 shared votes96%
- Colin JackR688 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Teuscher least often
- Leah HansenR699 shared votes48%
- Angela RomeroD691 shared votes81%
- Doug OwensD692 shared votes83%
- Rosalba DominguezD704 shared votes83%
- Sandra HollinsD704 shared votes83%
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
UT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Teuscher sponsored 39 bills in the UT 2025–26 session; 23 became law. Cosponsored 33 others. 82% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Utah House average 70%; 23rd of 67).
The bills Teuscher sponsored and cosponsored in the UT 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 UT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 39 | 33 | 32 | 26 | 23 |
| Cosponsored | 33 | 32 | 31 | 29 | 23 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Teuscher sponsored, ochre blocks bills Teuscher cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
82%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Utah House average 70%. Ranks 23rd of 67.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Teuscher, by number of shared bills in the UT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Mike McKell13
- Kirk Cullimore12
- Brady Brammer11
- Stephanie Pitcher7
- Dan McCay4
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 Teuscher’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 301 | Summons Amendments | Cosponsor | Mar 7, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Senate/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
| HB 223 | Electronic Signature Collection Amendments | Sponsor | Mar 7, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Government Operations and Politics(model) | House/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
| HB 239 | Local Land Use Amendments | Sponsor | Mar 7, 2026 | Introduced | Housing and Community Development(model) | House/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
| HB 107 | Vehicle Sales Tax Amendments | Sponsor | Mar 7, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | House/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
| HB 212 | County Formation Amendments | Sponsor | Mar 7, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Government Operations and Politics(model) | House/ filed Mar 7, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Teuscher’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Teuscher’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 Teuscher posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 17
pages crawled
8changes 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 Teuscher posted
No images from Teuscher’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
57 turns, Dec 9, 2025 to Mar 6, 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 Teuscher 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
- 4fb12ece-15d9-4fd2-9b0a-e96a0dbdd2ad
- Open States
- ocd-person/4fb12ece-15d9-4fd2-9b0a-e96a0dbdd2ad
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