Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Nebraska’s 2nd district

Serving since Jan 3, 2017119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide B001298FEC H6NE02125

Portrait of Don Bacon, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
9.1%
of statements claim credit, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans

9.1% of 12,804 statements claim credit (1,167 statements); the average for House Republicans is 37%. Ranks 220th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Bacon’s posts on X, press releases, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it claims credit for an accomplishment. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 36% of Bacon’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (average 68%). 12% of Bacon’s statements contain a personal attack, 5.5 times the House Republican average of 2.1%.

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

Credit claiming

9.1%

House Republicans average 37% · ranks 220th of 221

Policy discussion

36%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 218th of 221

Personal attacks

12%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 4th of 221

Party unity

90.8%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 216th of 221 · 43 votes against the majority of House Republicans

CSIP ideology

+0.57

More liberal than 94% of House Republicans · ± 0.01

Out of committee

3.7%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 197th of 216

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Bacon says

Bacon attacks opponents personally more than 98% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 12% of 12,804 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 4th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Bacon’s 12,804 statements in the 119th Congress (12,584 posts on X, 159 press releases, 39 Congressional Record speeches, 22 newsletters) 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 House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Bacon
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion4,586 statements
36%
68%
218th of 221
Personal attacks1,496 statements
12%
2%
4th of 221
Policy criticism1,179 statements
9%
15%
181st of 221
Credit claiming1,167 statements
9%
37%
220th of 221
Bipartisanship542 statements
4%
9%
174th of 221
Show the data
Bacon's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowBaconPeers
Policy discussion36%68%
Personal attacks12%2%
Policy criticism9%15%
Credit claiming9%37%
Bipartisanship4%9%
12,804

statements classified

12,584 posts on X, 159 press releases, 39 Congressional Record speeches, 22 newsletters.

posts on X: 12,584 (98.3%)posts on X 12,584press releases: 159 (1.2%)Congressional Record speeches: 39 (0.3%)newsletters: 22 (0.2%)
Show the data
Bacon's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X12,584
press releases159
Congressional Record speeches39
newsletters22
How to read the bars

The thick bar is Bacon; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Bacon does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.

Extreme labels

Bacon used extreme labels in 1.4% of statements, below the peer average. 174 statements, most often aimed at far right; peers 3.0%.

  1. “communist”16
  2. “woke”16
  3. “extreme”15
  4. “far left”15
  5. “far right”12

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. far right9
  2. left6
  3. Woke Right6
  4. Far Left5
  5. Dems4
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 119th Congress

Statements2025-01: 3662025-02: 5412025-03: 8082025-04: 3992025-05: 5112025-06: 5392025-07: 7312025-08: 4622025-09: 5412025-10: 7222025-11: 6602025-12: 5772026-01: 7652026-02: 6312026-03: 7362026-04: 3942026-05: 4472026-06: 6122026-07: 6602026-08: 5612026-09: 5542026-10: 587peak 808 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 18.4% · Dec ’25 · latest 17.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 6.6% of 366Personal attacks, 2025-02: 12.9% of 541Personal attacks, 2025-03: 10.2% of 808Personal attacks, 2025-04: 10.3% of 399Personal attacks, 2025-05: 5.7% of 511Personal attacks, 2025-06: 13.0% of 539Personal attacks, 2025-07: 14.9% of 731Personal attacks, 2025-08: 13.9% of 462Personal attacks, 2025-09: 8.7% of 541Personal attacks, 2025-10: 9.1% of 722Personal attacks, 2025-11: 9.8% of 660Personal attacks, 2025-12: 18.4% of 577Personal attacks, 2026-01: 13.6% of 765Personal attacks, 2026-02: 9.3% of 631Personal attacks, 2026-03: 8.4% of 736Personal attacks, 2026-04: 6.9% of 394Personal attacks, 2026-05: 11.4% of 447Personal attacks, 2026-06: 14.5% of 612Personal attacks, 2026-07: 13.0% of 660Personal attacks, 2026-08: 12.5% of 561Personal attacks, 2026-09: 13.5% of 554Personal attacks, 2026-10: 17.0% of 587Policy criticismpeak 19.1% · Oct ’25 · latest 4.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 9.3% of 366Policy criticism, 2025-02: 8.0% of 541Policy criticism, 2025-03: 3.3% of 808Policy criticism, 2025-04: 8.3% of 399Policy criticism, 2025-05: 10.6% of 511Policy criticism, 2025-06: 6.9% of 539Policy criticism, 2025-07: 9.6% of 731Policy criticism, 2025-08: 13.4% of 462Policy criticism, 2025-09: 13.5% of 541Policy criticism, 2025-10: 19.1% of 722Policy criticism, 2025-11: 13.3% of 660Policy criticism, 2025-12: 9.2% of 577Policy criticism, 2026-01: 5.1% of 765Policy criticism, 2026-02: 18.5% of 631Policy criticism, 2026-03: 10.7% of 736Policy criticism, 2026-04: 8.4% of 394Policy criticism, 2026-05: 8.1% of 447Policy criticism, 2026-06: 10.0% of 612Policy criticism, 2026-07: 5.5% of 660Policy criticism, 2026-08: 4.5% of 561Policy criticism, 2026-09: 2.9% of 554Policy criticism, 2026-10: 4.3% of 587Policy discussionpeak 46.8% · Jan ’26 · latest 38.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 36.1% of 366Policy discussion, 2025-02: 29.4% of 541Policy discussion, 2025-03: 24.0% of 808Policy discussion, 2025-04: 39.9% of 399Policy discussion, 2025-05: 40.9% of 511Policy discussion, 2025-06: 33.2% of 539Policy discussion, 2025-07: 44.9% of 731Policy discussion, 2025-08: 34.2% of 462Policy discussion, 2025-09: 34.6% of 541Policy discussion, 2025-10: 36.6% of 722Policy discussion, 2025-11: 27.3% of 660Policy discussion, 2025-12: 41.9% of 577Policy discussion, 2026-01: 46.8% of 765Policy discussion, 2026-02: 38.0% of 631Policy discussion, 2026-03: 28.7% of 736Policy discussion, 2026-04: 23.6% of 394Policy discussion, 2026-05: 32.4% of 447Policy discussion, 2026-06: 28.9% of 612Policy discussion, 2026-07: 36.4% of 660Policy discussion, 2026-08: 46.5% of 561Policy discussion, 2026-09: 43.9% of 554Policy discussion, 2026-10: 38.7% of 587Bipartisanshippeak 10.6% · Nov ’25 · latest 1.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 3.0% of 366Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 2.2% of 541Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 2.9% of 808Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.0% of 399Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.5% of 511Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.0% of 539Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.2% of 731Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 2.6% of 462Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 7.2% of 541Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 9.4% of 722Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 10.6% of 660Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 3.8% of 577Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 2.6% of 765Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 3.3% of 631Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 4.2% of 736Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 2.8% of 394Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 3.1% of 447Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 5.1% of 612Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 1.7% of 660Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 2.1% of 561Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 2.2% of 554Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 1.9% of 587Credit claimingpeak 17.5% · Jan ’25 · latest 4.8%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 17.5% of 366Credit claiming, 2025-02: 7.8% of 541Credit claiming, 2025-03: 8.2% of 808Credit claiming, 2025-04: 12.3% of 399Credit claiming, 2025-05: 13.5% of 511Credit claiming, 2025-06: 8.5% of 539Credit claiming, 2025-07: 12.9% of 731Credit claiming, 2025-08: 11.3% of 462Credit claiming, 2025-09: 11.5% of 541Credit claiming, 2025-10: 7.8% of 722Credit claiming, 2025-11: 8.5% of 660Credit claiming, 2025-12: 9.4% of 577Credit claiming, 2026-01: 7.1% of 765Credit claiming, 2026-02: 9.0% of 631Credit claiming, 2026-03: 8.7% of 736Credit claiming, 2026-04: 9.6% of 394Credit claiming, 2026-05: 7.2% of 447Credit claiming, 2026-06: 9.0% of 612Credit claiming, 2026-07: 6.2% of 660Credit claiming, 2026-08: 7.0% of 561Credit claiming, 2026-09: 8.8% of 554Credit claiming, 2026-10: 4.8% of 587Extreme labelspeak 3.9% · Oct ’25 · latest 1.4%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.1% of 366Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.2% of 541Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.0% of 808Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.8% of 399Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.2% of 511Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.1% of 539Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.5% of 731Extreme labels, 2025-08: 1.1% of 462Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.5% of 541Extreme labels, 2025-10: 3.9% of 722Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.5% of 660Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.9% of 577Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.4% of 765Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.6% of 631Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.8% of 736Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.8% of 394Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.7% of 447Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.8% of 612Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.6% of 660Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.4% of 561Extreme labels, 2026-09: 1.6% of 554Extreme labels, 2026-10: 1.4% of 587Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Bacon, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
ColumnStatementsPersonal attacksPolicy criticismPolicy discussionBipartisanshipCredit claimingExtreme labels
Jan ’253666.6%9.3%36.1%3.0%17.5%1.1%
Feb ’2554112.9%8.0%29.4%2.2%7.8%0.2%
Mar ’2580810.2%3.3%24.0%2.9%8.2%1.0%
Apr ’2539910.3%8.3%39.9%6.0%12.3%0.8%
May ’255115.7%10.6%40.9%6.5%13.5%1.2%
Jun ’2553913.0%6.9%33.2%3.0%8.5%1.1%
Jul ’2573114.9%9.6%44.9%5.2%12.9%1.5%
Aug ’2546213.9%13.4%34.2%2.6%11.3%1.1%
Sep ’255418.7%13.5%34.6%7.2%11.5%1.5%
Oct ’257229.1%19.1%36.6%9.4%7.8%3.9%
Nov ’256609.8%13.3%27.3%10.6%8.5%3.5%
Dec ’2557718.4%9.2%41.9%3.8%9.4%0.9%
Jan ’2676513.6%5.1%46.8%2.6%7.1%0.4%
Feb ’266319.3%18.5%38.0%3.3%9.0%1.6%
Mar ’267368.4%10.7%28.7%4.2%8.7%1.8%
Apr ’263946.9%8.4%23.6%2.8%9.6%0.8%
May ’2644711.4%8.1%32.4%3.1%7.2%0.7%
Jun ’2661214.5%10.0%28.9%5.1%9.0%1.8%
Jul ’2666013.0%5.5%36.4%1.7%6.2%0.6%
Aug ’2656112.5%4.5%46.5%2.1%7.0%0.4%
Sep ’2655413.5%2.9%43.9%2.2%8.8%1.6%
Oct ’2658717.0%4.3%38.7%1.9%4.8%1.4%
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 119th Congress, 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%.

In Bacon’s words

Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned

Credit claiming

Bacon, Bell Introduce Bipartisan Resolution to Establish a National Day of the Deployed The bipartisan resolution designates October 26 as a day of recognition honoring all U.S. service members deployed overseas and their families Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representatives Don Bacon (R-NE-02) and Wesle…

Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security · Source

Personal attacks

The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Tommy10, SA Gunnison, JRWYFreedom, miklyn34 · Source

Extreme label

The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Engleman; target: Engleman · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · target: Tommy10, SA Gunnison, JRWYFreedom, miklyn34Source

  2. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · target: ElonSource

  3. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Engleman · target: EnglemanSource

  4. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · target: Elon MuskSource

  5. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · target: ElonSource

All 12,804 statements

Newest first, the 119th Congress

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: 12,584 posts on X, 159 press releases, 39 Congressional Record speeches, 22 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

International Affairs is what Bacon talks about most: 34% of policy statements, 3.7 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 117th of 221).

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 Bacon talks about. The bills Bacon sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Bacon talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%38%
Bacon
Peers
International Affairs1,575 statements
34%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security1,551 statements
34%
24%
Government Operations and Politics461 statements
10%
19%
Health399 statements
9%
15%
Economics and Public Finance383 statements
8%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Bacon talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowBaconPeers
International Affairs34%9%
Armed Forces and National Security34%24%
Government Operations and Politics10%19%
Health9%15%
Economics and Public Finance8%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Bacon’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for 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 38%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onInternational AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 34% (House Republicans 9%)34%International Affairs, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 6%)8%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 34% (House Republicans 24%)34%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 17% (House Republicans 8%)17%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 10% (House Republicans 19%)10%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 12%)7%HealthHealth, talks about: 9% (House Republicans 15%)9%Health, legislates on: 18% (House Republicans 11%)18%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 8% (House Republicans 19%)8%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%
Show the data
Bacon's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
International Affairs34%9%8%6%
Armed Forces and National Security34%24%17%8%
Government Operations and Politics10%19%7%12%
Health9%15%18%11%
Economics and Public Finance8%19%1%2%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 117th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Bacon legislates on exactly the areas Bacon 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 Bacon sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Bacon sits at +0.57 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 94% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.55 to +0.58, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,322 donors and 5,033 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”.

+0.57

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.55 to +0.58. From 4,322 donors and 5,033 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Bacon +0.6House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Bacon, 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 Bacon’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 Bacon sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Bacon +0.6All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Bacon's CSIP score of +0.57 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Bacon
House Republicans221+1.06%
All House439+0.353%
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 Bacon 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 Bacon.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Bacon raised $1.4M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 6.0% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 46% of itemized individual money came from Nebraska.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission 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.

Election cycle
$1.4M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 162 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $380.6K (27.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $24.5K (1.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $24.5K (1.7%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)PACs and other committees: $527.8K (37.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $479.0K (33.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)27 squares$380.6K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$24.5K
  • PACs and other committees37 squares$527.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)34 squares$479.0K
Show the data
Sources of Bacon's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$380.6K27.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$24.5K1.7%
PACs and other committees$527.8K37.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$479.0K33.9%
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. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $3.8M$3.8M20202022 cycle: $3.9M$3.9M20222024 cycle: $6.4M$6.4M20242026 cycle: $1.4M$1.4M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Bacon's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.8M
2022 cycle$3.9M
2024 cycle$6.4M
2026 cycle$1.4M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 46% came from Nebraska.

  1. Nebraska$98.8K
  2. Florida$20.7K
  3. New York$17.3K
  4. Virginia$13.1K
  5. California$9,621

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.

0%60%
Bacon
Median
2026
6%
9%
2024
5%
9%
2022
14%
9%
2020
19%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowBaconMedian
2026 cycle6%9%
2024 cycle5%9%
2022 cycle14%9%
2020 cycle19%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $5,400NHWashington: $26WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $1,300ILWisconsin: $324WIMichigan: $4,000MINew York: $17.3KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: $3,700ORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: $2,000SDIowa: $1,752IAIndiana: $3,064INOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $34PANew Jersey: $2,500NJConnecticut: $1,624CTCalifornia: $9,621CAUtah: $7,000UTColorado: $4,100CONebraska: $98.8KNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $312KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $13.1KVAMaryland: $2,541MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $6,000AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $520ARTennessee: $1,000TNNorth Carolina: $1,774NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $8,729DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $200MSAlabama: $7,000ALGeorgia: $1,272GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $5,728TXFlorida: $20.7KFL
Show the data
Bacon's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Nebraska$98.8K
Florida$20.7K
New York$17.3K
Virginia$13.1K
California$9,621
District of Columbia$8,729
Utah$7,000
Alabama$7,000
Arizona$6,000
Texas$5,728
New Hampshire$5,400
Colorado$4,100
Michigan$4,000
Oregon$3,700
Indiana$3,064
Maryland$2,541
New Jersey$2,500
South Dakota$2,000
North Carolina$1,774
Iowa$1,752
Connecticut$1,624
Illinois$1,300
Georgia$1,272
Tennessee$1,000
Arkansas$520
Wisconsin$324
Kentucky$312
Mississippi$200
Pennsylvania$34
Washington$26
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
OhioNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
HawaiiNo data
162

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

46%

from Nebraska

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 Nebraska. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.7%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.7%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 8.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 6.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 10%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 44%44%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 24%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 1.7%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Bacon's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.50: 8.5% between −0.25 and 0.00, 6.3% between 0.00 and +0.25, 10% between +0.25 and +0.50, 44% between +0.50 and +0.75, 24% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.7%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.7%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.008.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.256.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5010%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7544%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0024%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.251.7%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Bacon’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Bacon’s own score is +0.57.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$114.9K 52 donors
  2. PRESIDENT$25.3K 6 donors
  3. OWNER$16.3K 6 donors
  4. CEO$16.1K 9 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$16.1K 4 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. FOREVER YOUTH ORGANIZATION UTILIZING A NEW GENERATION PAC$10.0K
  2. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE$10.0K
  3. THE EYE OF THE TIGER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. NATIONAL ACTIVE AND RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COM (NARFE-PAC)$7,500
  5. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS--PAC OF AAOS$6,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Bacon voted with the majority of House Republicans on 90.8% of party-line votes and missed 0.3% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Bacon voted against the majority of House Republicans 43 times.

674 roll calls Bacon could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Republicans. 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 Bacon voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

43

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 90.8%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 216th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Bacon
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.7%
96.3%
21st of 221
Party unity
90.8%
97.1%
216th of 221
Show the data
Bacon's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowBaconPeers
Attendance99.7%96.3%
Party unity90.8%97.1%
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 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · 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 Bacon most often

  1. Carlos GimenezR627 shared votes97%
  2. Glenn ThompsonR664 shared votes96%
  3. Dan NewhouseR656 shared votes96%
  4. David JoyceR650 shared votes96%
  5. Mario Diaz-BalartR646 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Bacon least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD656 shared votes30%
  2. Delia RamirezD639 shared votes31%
  3. Adelita GrijalvaD388 shared votes31%
  4. Gregorio CasarD573 shared votes32%
  5. Summer LeeD672 shared votes32%
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

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Bacon sponsored 54 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 728 others. 3.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 197th of 216).

The bills Bacon sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, 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 119th Congress

Sponsored54 billsSponsored, Introduced: 5454Sponsored, In committee: 5454Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored728 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 728728Cosponsored, In committee: 728728Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4949Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Bacon sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored5454200
Cosponsored7287284953
How to read the blocks

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

3.7%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 197th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Bacon, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Brian Fitzpatrick133
  2. Michael Lawler99
  3. Josh Gottheimer83
  4. Eugene Vindman72
  5. Donald Davis61
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 Bacon’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
H.R. 10866Ronald Reagan Peace Through Strength Act of 2026CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10870Military Domestic Violence Survivors Support ActCosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10849Small Business and Defense Industrial Base Support ActCosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 19, 2026
H.R. 10828To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10796United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation ActSponsorOct 13, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 13, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 64 times in 90 days. Bacon’s official site had 43 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Bacon posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Bacon’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 Bacon posts with a vision model.

Websites

  • Official site

    bacon.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    43

    pages crawled

    64

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    donjbacon.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    13

    pages crawled

    4

    changes 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 Bacon posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A man speaks to students seated in rows of chairs in a school gymnasium. Basketball hoops, school banners, a scoreboard, a podium, and large wall graphics are visible. There is text on the walls and signs.
    A man speaks to students seated in rows of chairs in a school gymnasium. Basketball hoops, school banners, a scoreboard, a podium, and large wall graphics are visible. There is text on the walls and signs.View post
  • A uniformed sheriff’s deputy escorts a handcuffed man in a suit outside a building, with another person behind them. A sign is attached to a chain-link fence.
    A uniformed sheriff’s deputy escorts a handcuffed man in a suit outside a building, with another person behind them. A sign is attached to a chain-link fence.View post
  • A smartphone screenshot of a Fox News article page, with a sign-in prompt over recommended videos, a news headline, publication details, sharing icons, and the beginning of the article. Text appears throughout.
    A smartphone screenshot of a Fox News article page, with a sign-in prompt over recommended videos, a news headline, publication details, sharing icons, and the beginning of the article. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A smartphone screenshot of a Gemini Auto conversation showing a numbered list of U.S. representatives and descriptions of their legislative effectiveness. The fourth entry is partly cut off at the bottom. Text is visible throughout.
    A smartphone screenshot of a Gemini Auto conversation showing a numbered list of U.S. representatives and descriptions of their legislative effectiveness. The fourth entry is partly cut off at the bottom. Text is visible throughout.View post
  • Four men in business attire pose for a photograph outside a modern glass-fronted building while a photographer aims a camera at them. A podium and speaker are nearby. No prominent text is visible.
    Four men in business attire pose for a photograph outside a modern glass-fronted building while a photographer aims a camera at them. A podium and speaker are nearby. No prominent text is visible.View post
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.

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 Bacon is most unusual among 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
B001298
Bioguide
B001298
FEC candidate ids
H6NE02125

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 (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
  • Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
  • Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; 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.
  • ImagesOct 28, 2026todayImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.

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