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.
0
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).
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
Bacon
House Republicans, average of 221
0%20%40%60%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.
Row
Bacon
Peers
Policy discussion
36%
68%
Personal attacks
12%
2%
Policy criticism
9%
15%
Credit claiming
9%
37%
Bipartisanship
4%
9%
12,804
statements classified
12,584 posts on X, 159 press releases, 39 Congressional Record speeches, 22 newsletters.
posts on X
press releases
Congressional Record speeches
newsletters
+ Show the data
Bacon's statements by source
Part
Value
posts on X
12,584
press releases
159
Congressional Record speeches
39
newsletters
22
+ − 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%.
“communist”16
“woke”16
“extreme”15
“far left”15
“far right”12
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
far right9
left6
Woke Right6
Far Left5
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
+ 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.
Column
Statements
Personal attacks
Policy criticism
Policy discussion
Bipartisanship
Credit claiming
Extreme labels
Jan ’25
366
6.6%
9.3%
36.1%
3.0%
17.5%
1.1%
Feb ’25
541
12.9%
8.0%
29.4%
2.2%
7.8%
0.2%
Mar ’25
808
10.2%
3.3%
24.0%
2.9%
8.2%
1.0%
Apr ’25
399
10.3%
8.3%
39.9%
6.0%
12.3%
0.8%
May ’25
511
5.7%
10.6%
40.9%
6.5%
13.5%
1.2%
Jun ’25
539
13.0%
6.9%
33.2%
3.0%
8.5%
1.1%
Jul ’25
731
14.9%
9.6%
44.9%
5.2%
12.9%
1.5%
Aug ’25
462
13.9%
13.4%
34.2%
2.6%
11.3%
1.1%
Sep ’25
541
8.7%
13.5%
34.6%
7.2%
11.5%
1.5%
Oct ’25
722
9.1%
19.1%
36.6%
9.4%
7.8%
3.9%
Nov ’25
660
9.8%
13.3%
27.3%
10.6%
8.5%
3.5%
Dec ’25
577
18.4%
9.2%
41.9%
3.8%
9.4%
0.9%
Jan ’26
765
13.6%
5.1%
46.8%
2.6%
7.1%
0.4%
Feb ’26
631
9.3%
18.5%
38.0%
3.3%
9.0%
1.6%
Mar ’26
736
8.4%
10.7%
28.7%
4.2%
8.7%
1.8%
Apr ’26
394
6.9%
8.4%
23.6%
2.8%
9.6%
0.8%
May ’26
447
11.4%
8.1%
32.4%
3.1%
7.2%
0.7%
Jun ’26
612
14.5%
10.0%
28.9%
5.1%
9.0%
1.8%
Jul ’26
660
13.0%
5.5%
36.4%
1.7%
6.2%
0.6%
Aug ’26
561
12.5%
4.5%
46.5%
2.1%
7.0%
0.4%
Sep ’26
554
13.5%
2.9%
43.9%
2.2%
8.8%
1.6%
Oct ’26
587
17.0%
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
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
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Tommy10, SA Gunnison, JRWYFreedom, miklyn34Source ↗
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
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.
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
Bacon
House Republicans average
0%9%19%28%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.
Row
Bacon
Peers
International Affairs
34%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security
34%
24%
Government Operations and Politics
10%
19%
Health
9%
15%
Economics and Public Finance
8%
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.
Statements
Bills
House Republicans
+ Show the data
Bacon's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area
Talks about
House Republicans, talks about
Legislates on
House Republicans, legislates on
International Affairs
34%
9%
8%
6%
Armed Forces and National Security
34%
24%
17%
8%
Government Operations and Politics
10%
19%
7%
12%
Health
9%
15%
18%
11%
Economics and Public Finance
8%
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.
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.
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
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
+ Show the data
Bacon's CSIP score of +0.57 placed against House Republicans, All House.
Group
Officials
Median
Share left of Bacon
House Republicans
221
+1.0
6%
All House
439
+0.3
53%
+ − 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.
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.
$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)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
Source
Amount
Share
Itemized individual (over $200)
$380.6K
27.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)
$24.5K
1.7%
PACs and other committees
$527.8K
37.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)
$479.0K
33.9%
+ − 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.
+ Show the data
Bacon's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
Item
Value
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.
Nebraska$98.8K
Florida$20.7K
New York$17.3K
Virginia$13.1K
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.
Bacon
Median
0%20%40%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
Row
Bacon
Median
2026 cycle
6%
9%
2024 cycle
5%
9%
2022 cycle
14%
9%
2020 cycle
19%
9%
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Itemized dollars$26$98.8Kno data
+ Show the data
Bacon's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State
Value
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
Alaska
No data
Maine
No data
Vermont
No data
Idaho
No data
Montana
No data
North Dakota
No data
Minnesota
No data
Rhode Island
No data
Massachusetts
No data
Nevada
No data
Wyoming
No data
Ohio
No data
Missouri
No data
West Virginia
No data
Delaware
No data
New Mexico
No data
Kansas
No data
South Carolina
No data
Oklahoma
No data
Louisiana
No data
Hawaii
No 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
+ 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.
Item
Value
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%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00
24%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.25
1.7%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.50
0.1%
+ − 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.
RETIRED$114.9K 52 donors
PRESIDENT$25.3K 6 donors
OWNER$16.3K 6 donors
CEO$16.1K 9 donors
EXECUTIVE$16.1K 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
FOREVER YOUTH ORGANIZATION UTILIZING A NEW GENERATION PAC$10.0K
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE$10.0K
THE EYE OF THE TIGER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
NATIONAL ACTIVE AND RETIRED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COM (NARFE-PAC)$7,500
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.
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.
Bacon
House Republicans, average of 221
80%90%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.
Row
Bacon
Peers
Attendance
99.7%
96.3%
Party unity
90.8%
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
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
Yea
With majority
Passed
D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay
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
Yea
With majority
Passed
D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay
became 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
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.
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
Sponsored
Cosponsored
+ Show the data
Bills Bacon sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role
Introduced
In committee
Passed one chamber
Passed both chambers
Became law
Sponsored
54
54
2
0
0
Cosponsored
728
728
49
5
3
+ − 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.
Democrat
Republican
Brian Fitzpatrick133
Michael Lawler99
Josh Gottheimer83
Eugene Vindman72
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
Referred 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
To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.
Cosponsor
Oct 15, 2026
In committee
Unassigned
Referred 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
United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Act
Sponsor
Oct 13, 2026
In committee
Unassigned
Referred 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
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.
“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.
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 ↗
02
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 ↗
03
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 ↗
04
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 ↗
05
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.
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 …”).
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.
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