CSIP score −0.21 (approximate range −0.24 to −0.18, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 2,604 donors and 402 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 George sits among Unicameral-legislature Democrats, not how far from the centre.
3 measures against the District of Columbia Legislature. 66% of the 74 bills George sponsored got out of committee, in the top half of the District of Columbia Legislature.
The measures on which George sits furthest from the middle of the District of Columbia Legislature, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 77% of Unicameral-legislature Democrats · ± 0.03
Out of committee
District of Columbia Legislature average 62% · ranks 5th of 12
Attendance
District of Columbia Legislature average 97.8% · ranks 7th of 13 · 1,680 roll calls
Statements
139 posts on X
Roll calls
Compared with District of Columbia Legislature
Bills sponsored
and 0 cosponsored
Peer group: District of Columbia Legislature. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is George, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which George is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
George attacks opponents personally more than 80% of Unicameral-legislature Democrats. Personal attacks in 1.4% of 139 statements, against 0.4% for the average Unicameral-legislature Democrat; 2nd of 10.
An AI model reads each of George’s 139 statements in the DC 2025–26 session (139 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 Unicameral-legislature Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the DC 2025–26 session
| Row | George | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 47% | 47% |
| Credit claiming | 17% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 8% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 0% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 1% |
statements classified
139 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 139 |
The thick bar is George; the thin grey bar is the average Unicameral-legislature Democrats. A longer thick bar means George does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
George used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, 5.1 times the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at rent increases; peers 0.1%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the DC 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| 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 | 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 ’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 | 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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 88.2% | 0.0% | 29.4% | 5.9% |
| May ’26 | 24 | 8.3% | 4.2% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 6.7% | 46.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 27.6% | 0.0% | 3.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 31 | 0.0% | 6.5% | 67.7% | 0.0% | 12.9% | 0.0% |
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 DC 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%. 16 months are hatched here; 15 of them have no statements.
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 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Transportation and Public Works; Labor and Employment; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 18, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Mr. McDuffie · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 29, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Energy; Taxation; extreme label “extreme” aimed at rent increases · Source
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: Mr. McDuffieSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Mr. McDuffieSource
Newest first, the DC 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 139 posts on X.
Government Operations and Politics is what George talks about most: 28% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.54 on a 0–1 scale (Unicameral-legislature Democrats average 0.49; 2nd of 9).
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 George talks about. The bills George sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the DC 2025–26 session
| Row | George | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 28% | 21% |
| Housing and Community Development | 26% | 24% |
| Labor and Employment | 17% | 8% |
| Education | 14% | 14% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 12% | 12% |
The thick bar is the share of George’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Unicameral-legislature Democrats. 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.
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 Unicameral-legislature Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | Unicameral-legislature Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | Unicameral-legislature Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 28% | 21% | 16% | 15% |
| Housing and Community Development | 26% | 24% | 8% | 19% |
| Labor and Employment | 17% | 8% | 24% | 6% |
| Education | 14% | 14% | 4% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 12% | 12% | 2% | 7% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Unicameral-legislature Democrats average 0.49. Ranks 2nd of 9.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means George legislates on exactly the areas George 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 George sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
George sits at −0.21 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 77% of Unicameral-legislature Democrats. Approximate range −0.24 to −0.18, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,604 donors and 402 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.24 to −0.18. From 2,604 donors and 402 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is George, 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 George’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of George |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unicameral-legislature Democrats | 11 | −0.4 | 73% |
| District of Columbia Legislature | 13 | −0.5 | 77% |
| All Unicameral legislature | 62 | 0.0 | 42% |
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 George 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 George.
George reported $47.6K in the 2024 cycle, close to the Unicameral-legislature Democrats’ median of $47.6K. State filings report no small-donation total. 89% of itemized individual money came from District of Columbia.
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.
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 1,128 itemized donors. Unicameral-legislature Democrats’ median $47.6K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $47.6K | 100.0% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2024. The grey line is the Unicameral-legislature Democrats’ median for 2024.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $78.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $50 |
| 2024 cycle | $47.6K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 89% came from District of Columbia.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| District of Columbia | $42.1K |
| Maryland | $2,215 |
| California | $597 |
| Virginia | $375 |
| New York | $372 |
| Pennsylvania | $330 |
| Massachusetts | $320 |
| Georgia | $264 |
| Illinois | $150 |
| Colorado | $150 |
| Texas | $126 |
| Florida | $110 |
| Iowa | $60 |
| New Hampshire | $56 |
| Wisconsin | $50 |
| Michigan | $50 |
| Nevada | $50 |
| Ohio | $50 |
| New Jersey | $50 |
| Washington | $30 |
| Idaho | $10 |
| Missouri | $10 |
| Hawaii | $10 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | 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 |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from District of Columbia
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is District of Columbia. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
George missed 0.8% of 1,680 roll calls. District of Columbia Legislature average attendance 97.8%.
1,680 roll calls George could vote on in the DC 2025–26 session, compared with District of Columbia Legislature. 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 George voted with the majority of District of Columbia Legislature Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
roll calls
No party-line votes. Attendance 99.2%, ranks 7th of 13.
The thick bar is George, the thin grey bar the District of Columbia Legislature average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | George | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.2% | 97.8% |
| Party unity | — | — |
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.
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as George most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as George least often
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.
DC 2025–26 session, loads in batches
George sponsored 74 bills in the DC 2025–26 session; 45 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 66% of sponsored bills got out of committee (District of Columbia Legislature average 62%; 5th of 12).
The bills George sponsored and cosponsored in the DC 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.
Counts for the DC 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 74 | 73 | 49 | 49 | 45 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills George sponsored, ochre blocks bills George cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
District of Columbia Legislature average 62%. Ranks 5th of 12.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with George, by number of shared bills in the DC 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 George’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| PR 26-0818 | Net Zero Continuity Congressional Review Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | Became law | Energy(model) | Approved with Resolution Number R26-0519 Oct 6, 2026 |
| CER 26-0210 | Robert A. Kennedy, Jr. Memorial Recognition Resolution of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Approved with Resolution Number ACR26-0205 Oct 6, 2026 |
| B 26-0847 | Net Zero Continuity Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Environmental Protection(model) | Transmitted to Mayor, Response Due on Nov 02, 2026 Oct 19, 2026 |
| B 26-0827 | Porchfest Permitting Emergency Amendment Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Transmitted to Mayor, Response Due on Nov 02, 2026 Oct 19, 2026 |
| B 26-0828 | Porchfest Permitting Temporary Amendment Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Final Reading, CC Oct 20, 2026 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. George’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls George’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 George posts with a vision model.
Official site
dccouncil.gov/council/ward-4-councilmember-janeese-lewis-georgeLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from George’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
209 turns, Mar 2, 2021 to Oct 6, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which George is most unusual among District of Columbia Legislature, 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
