Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Virginia’s 6th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2019119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide C001118FEC H8VA06104

Portrait of Ben Cline, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.9×
the House Republican rate of policy criticism

28% of 1,490 statements criticize a policy (424 statements); the average for House Republicans is 15%. Ranks 9th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Cline’s posts on X, newsletters, press releases and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. 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. 8.5% of Cline’s statements use an extreme label, 2.8 times the House Republican average of 3.0%. 80% of Cline’s statements discuss policy, in the top tenth of House Republicans (average 68%).

The measures on which Cline 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.

Policy criticism

28%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 9th of 221

Extreme labels

8.5%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 11th of 221

Policy discussion

80%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 18th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.38

More conservative than 90% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

From Virginia, 2026

79%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 20th of 216 House Republicans

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.71

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 26th of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Cline says

Cline criticizes policies more than 95% of House Republicans. Policy criticism in 28% of 1,490 statements, against 15% for the average House Republican; 9th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Cline’s 1,490 statements in the 119th Congress (1,239 posts on X, 119 Congressional Record speeches, 78 newsletters, 54 press releases) 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%
Cline
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,189 statements
80%
68%
18th of 221
Credit claiming695 statements
47%
37%
46th of 221
Policy criticism424 statements
28%
15%
9th of 221
Bipartisanship94 statements
6%
9%
132nd of 221
Personal attacks38 statements
3%
2%
59th of 221
Show the data
Cline's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowClinePeers
Policy discussion80%68%
Credit claiming47%37%
Policy criticism28%15%
Bipartisanship6%9%
Personal attacks3%2%
1,490

statements classified

1,239 posts on X, 119 Congressional Record speeches, 78 newsletters, 54 press releases.

posts on X: 1,239 (83.2%)posts on X 1,239Congressional Record speeches: 119 (8.0%)newsletters: 78 (5.2%)press releases: 54 (3.6%)
Show the data
Cline's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,239
Congressional Record speeches119
newsletters78
press releases54
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Cline used extreme labels in 8.5% of statements, 2.8 times the peer average. 127 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”73
  2. “far left”11
  3. “extreme”10
  4. “woke”9
  5. “communist”8

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats15
  2. Left12
  3. gender ideology3
  4. socialism3
  5. Abigail Spanberger2
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: 722025-02: 602025-03: 672025-04: 692025-05: 822025-06: 622025-07: 812025-08: 452025-09: 762025-10: 842025-11: 582025-12: 732026-01: 722026-02: 762026-03: 592026-04: 592026-05: 752026-06: 532026-07: 802026-08: 442026-09: 742026-10: 69peak 84 · Oct ’25Personal attackspeak 8.5% · Mar ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.8% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-02: 8.3% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-03: 4.5% of 67Personal attacks, 2025-04: 4.3% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.4% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.2% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.2% of 81Personal attacks, 2025-08: 4.4% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.3% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-10: 2.4% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.4% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-01: 2.8% of 72Personal attacks, 2026-02: 1.3% of 76Personal attacks, 2026-03: 8.5% of 59Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.7% of 59Personal attacks, 2026-05: 4.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2026-06: 1.9% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-07: 1.3% of 80Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 69Policy criticismpeak 50.8% · Mar ’26 · latest 5.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 44.4% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-02: 30.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-03: 28.4% of 67Policy criticism, 2025-04: 42.0% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-05: 23.2% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-06: 27.4% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-07: 30.9% of 81Policy criticism, 2025-08: 31.1% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-09: 34.2% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-10: 47.6% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-11: 29.3% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-12: 32.9% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-01: 11.1% of 72Policy criticism, 2026-02: 43.4% of 76Policy criticism, 2026-03: 50.8% of 59Policy criticism, 2026-04: 18.6% of 59Policy criticism, 2026-05: 29.3% of 75Policy criticism, 2026-06: 30.2% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-07: 10.0% of 80Policy criticism, 2026-08: 4.5% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-09: 13.5% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-10: 5.8% of 69Policy discussionpeak 90.9% · Aug ’26 · latest 71.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 70.8% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-02: 90.0% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-03: 71.6% of 67Policy discussion, 2025-04: 81.2% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-05: 73.2% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-06: 88.7% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-07: 84.0% of 81Policy discussion, 2025-08: 77.8% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-09: 73.7% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-10: 85.7% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-11: 74.1% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-12: 84.9% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-01: 83.3% of 72Policy discussion, 2026-02: 73.7% of 76Policy discussion, 2026-03: 81.4% of 59Policy discussion, 2026-04: 84.8% of 59Policy discussion, 2026-05: 77.3% of 75Policy discussion, 2026-06: 77.4% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-07: 85.0% of 80Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.9% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-09: 79.7% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-10: 71.0% of 69Bipartisanshippeak 18.6% · Mar ’26 · latest 2.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 8.3% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.7% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 4.5% of 67Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 7.2% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.1% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 4.8% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 7.4% of 81Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 4.0% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 4.8% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.9% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 9.6% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 8.3% of 72Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 10.5% of 76Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 18.6% of 59Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 6.8% of 59Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 1.3% of 75Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 13.2% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 2.5% of 80Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 4.0% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 2.9% of 69Credit claimingpeak 61.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 31.9%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 50.0% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-02: 61.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-03: 44.8% of 67Credit claiming, 2025-04: 47.8% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-05: 45.1% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-06: 48.4% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-07: 54.3% of 81Credit claiming, 2025-08: 46.7% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-09: 48.7% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-10: 36.9% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-11: 51.7% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-12: 61.6% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-01: 50.0% of 72Credit claiming, 2026-02: 39.5% of 76Credit claiming, 2026-03: 27.1% of 59Credit claiming, 2026-04: 47.5% of 59Credit claiming, 2026-05: 49.3% of 75Credit claiming, 2026-06: 49.1% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-07: 50.0% of 80Credit claiming, 2026-08: 38.6% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-09: 43.2% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-10: 31.9% of 69Extreme labelspeak 17.0% · Mar ’26 · latest 4.3%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 16.7% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-02: 11.7% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-03: 11.9% of 67Extreme labels, 2025-04: 13.0% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-05: 11.0% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-06: 9.7% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-07: 12.3% of 81Extreme labels, 2025-08: 11.1% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-09: 6.6% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-10: 8.3% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-11: 8.6% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.7% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-01: 5.6% of 72Extreme labels, 2026-02: 7.9% of 76Extreme labels, 2026-03: 17.0% of 59Extreme labels, 2026-04: 8.5% of 59Extreme labels, 2026-05: 2.7% of 75Extreme labels, 2026-06: 9.4% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-07: 5.0% of 80Extreme labels, 2026-08: 4.5% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-09: 1.4% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-10: 4.3% of 69Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Cline, 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 ’25722.8%44.4%70.8%8.3%50.0%16.7%
Feb ’25608.3%30.0%90.0%6.7%61.7%11.7%
Mar ’25674.5%28.4%71.6%4.5%44.8%11.9%
Apr ’25694.3%42.0%81.2%7.2%47.8%13.0%
May ’25822.4%23.2%73.2%6.1%45.1%11.0%
Jun ’25623.2%27.4%88.7%4.8%48.4%9.7%
Jul ’25811.2%30.9%84.0%7.4%54.3%12.3%
Aug ’25454.4%31.1%77.8%0.0%46.7%11.1%
Sep ’25761.3%34.2%73.7%4.0%48.7%6.6%
Oct ’25842.4%47.6%85.7%4.8%36.9%8.3%
Nov ’25580.0%29.3%74.1%6.9%51.7%8.6%
Dec ’25731.4%32.9%84.9%9.6%61.6%2.7%
Jan ’26722.8%11.1%83.3%8.3%50.0%5.6%
Feb ’26761.3%43.4%73.7%10.5%39.5%7.9%
Mar ’26598.5%50.8%81.4%18.6%27.1%17.0%
Apr ’26591.7%18.6%84.8%6.8%47.5%8.5%
May ’26754.0%29.3%77.3%1.3%49.3%2.7%
Jun ’26531.9%30.2%77.4%13.2%49.1%9.4%
Jul ’26801.3%10.0%85.0%2.5%50.0%5.0%
Aug ’26440.0%4.5%90.9%0.0%38.6%4.5%
Sep ’26740.0%13.5%79.7%4.0%43.2%1.4%
Oct ’26690.0%5.8%71.0%2.9%31.9%4.3%
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 Cline’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Cline Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Streamline Copyright Registration for Photographers WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Ben Cline (VA-06), alongside Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37), introduced the Visual Artists Copyright Reform Act (VACRA), bipartisan legislation aimed at mak…

Oct 19, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Commerce; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Policy criticism

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

Oct 24, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Energy · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Immigration; extreme label “radical” aimed at left · 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 · policy discussion · Health · target: FauciSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: Dr. FauciSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Steve DescanoSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Biden AdministrationSource

  5. Posts on X

    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 · Taxation · target: DemocratsSource

All 1,490 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: 1,239 posts on X, 119 Congressional Record speeches, 78 newsletters, 54 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Immigration is what Cline talks about most: 23% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 26th 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 Cline talks about. The bills Cline sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Cline talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Cline
Peers
Immigration274 statements
23%
13%
Armed Forces and National Security262 statements
22%
24%
Government Operations and Politics244 statements
21%
19%
Crime and Law Enforcement228 statements
19%
12%
Economics and Public Finance217 statements
18%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Cline talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowClinePeers
Immigration23%13%
Armed Forces and National Security22%24%
Government Operations and Politics21%19%
Crime and Law Enforcement19%12%
Economics and Public Finance18%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Cline’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 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 23% (House Republicans 13%)23%Immigration, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 5%)9%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 22% (House Republicans 24%)22%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 8%)4%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 19%)21%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 18% (House Republicans 12%)18%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 12%)19%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 9%)10%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 19%)18%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 2%)5%
Show the data
Cline's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Immigration23%13%9%5%
Armed Forces and National Security22%24%4%8%
Government Operations and Politics21%19%18%12%
Crime and Law Enforcement19%12%10%9%
Economics and Public Finance18%19%5%2%
0.71

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 26th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Cline sits at +1.38 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 90% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.36 to +1.39, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,263 donors and 3,827 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”.

+1.38

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.36 to +1.39. From 1,263 donors and 3,827 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Cline +1.4House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Cline, 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 Cline’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 Cline sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Cline +1.4All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Cline's CSIP score of +1.38 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Cline
House Republicans221+1.090%
All House439+0.395%
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 Cline 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 Cline.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Cline raised $1.9M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 8.2% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 79% of itemized individual money came from Virginia.

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
$1.9M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 399 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): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $903.4K (47.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $81.0K (4.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $81.0K (4.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $81.0K (4.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $81.0K (4.2%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $780.9K (40.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $143.0K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $143.0K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $143.0K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $143.0K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $143.0K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $143.0K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $143.0K (7.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $143.0K (7.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)47 squares$903.4K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)4 squares$81.0K
  • PACs and other committees41 squares$780.9K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)8 squares$143.0K
Show the data
Sources of Cline's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$903.4K47.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$81.0K4.2%
PACs and other committees$780.9K40.9%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$143.0K7.5%
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: $900.3K$900.3K20202022 cycle: $993.3K$993.3K20222024 cycle: $1.0M$1.0M20242026 cycle: $1.9M$1.9M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Cline's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$900.3K
2022 cycle$993.3K
2024 cycle$1.0M
2026 cycle$1.9M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 79% came from Virginia.

  1. Virginia$562.1K
  2. Texas$24.1K
  3. District of Columbia$20.5K
  4. Florida$17.2K
  5. Tennessee$16.0K

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%
Cline
Median
2026
8%
9%
2024
11%
9%
2022
13%
9%
2020
11%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowClineMedian
2026 cycle8%9%
2024 cycle11%9%
2022 cycle13%9%
2020 cycle11%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $15.6KNYRhode Island: $284RIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: $7,000WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $3,875PANew Jersey: $2,455NJConnecticut: $500CTCalifornia: $11.5KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $562.1KVAMaryland: $12.5KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $3,500AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $7,000ARTennessee: $16.0KTNNorth Carolina: $541NCSouth Carolina: $2,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $20.5KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $825MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $2,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $24.1KTXFlorida: $17.2KFL
Show the data
Cline's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Virginia$562.1K
Texas$24.1K
District of Columbia$20.5K
Florida$17.2K
Tennessee$16.0K
New York$15.6K
Maryland$12.5K
California$11.5K
Wyoming$7,000
Arkansas$7,000
Pennsylvania$3,875
Arizona$3,500
New Jersey$2,455
South Carolina$2,000
Georgia$2,000
Mississippi$825
North Carolina$541
Connecticut$500
Rhode Island$284
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
399

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

79%

from Virginia

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.8%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 5.4%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 26%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 22%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 38%38%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Cline's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.75 to +1.75: 5.4% between +0.50 and +0.75, 26% between +0.75 and +1.00, 22% between +1.00 and +1.25, 38% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.755.4%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0026%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2522%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5038%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Cline’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Cline’s own score is +1.38.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$200.4K 126 donors
  2. CEO$73.5K 23 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$49.3K 24 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$36.7K 24 donors
  5. CONSULTANT$22.9K 25 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALTRIA GROUP, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ALTRIAPAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. BUCKEYE LIBERTY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Cline voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.1% of party-line votes and missed 1.0% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cline voted against the majority of House Republicans 43 times.

674 roll calls Cline 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 Cline 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 99.1%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 44th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Cline
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.9%
96.3%
55th of 221
Party unity
99.1%
97.1%
44th of 221
Show the data
Cline's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowClinePeers
Attendance98.9%96.3%
Party unity99.1%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 Cline most often

  1. Clay FullerR199 shared votes98%
  2. Mike JohnsonR520 shared votes98%
  3. Mike Collins Jr.R653 shared votes98%
  4. Wesley HuntR508 shared votes98%
  5. Russell FryR662 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Cline least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD651 shared votes19%
  2. Adelita GrijalvaD382 shared votes19%
  3. Delia RamirezD634 shared votes20%
  4. Gregorio CasarD570 shared votes20%
  5. Brittany PettersenD564 shared votes20%
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

Cline sponsored 30 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 278 others. 6.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 174th of 216).

The bills Cline 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

Sponsored30 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3030Sponsored, In committee: 3030Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored278 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 278278Cosponsored, In committee: 278278Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3939Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Cline sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3030110
Cosponsored2782783954
How to read the blocks

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

6.7%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 174th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Barry Moore33
  2. Sheri Biggs27
  3. Glenn Grothman26
  4. John McGuire26
  5. Andrew Ogles IV26
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 Cline’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. 10843VACRASponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 19, 2026
H.R. 10575Deterring Extraterritorial Foreign Exploitation of Networks Damaging Intellectual Property (DEFEND IP) Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCommerceReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10581Shenandoah VALOR ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1584Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10377MAGA ActCosponsorSep 15, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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. Sep 15, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 42 times in 90 days. Cline’s official site had 39 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Cline posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    cline.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    39

    pages crawled

    42

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    bencline.com

    Last crawled Oct 11, 2026

    1

    pages crawled

    0

    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.

Images Cline posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A commemorative graphic shows a smiling young woman embracing a uniformed service member outdoors, with another young person nearby and an American flag visible. Large lettering and a campaign-style logo appear across the bottom.
    A commemorative graphic shows a smiling young woman embracing a uniformed service member outdoors, with another young person nearby and an American flag visible. Large lettering and a campaign-style logo appear across the bottom.View post
  • A man and a woman shake hands at an outdoor community event under a tent. Other attendees, tables, chairs, flowers, and event materials are visible. There is text on the tents and signs.
    A man and a woman shake hands at an outdoor community event under a tent. Other attendees, tables, chairs, flowers, and event materials are visible. There is text on the tents and signs.View post
  • A man in a suit speaks at a clear lectern on a raised stage inside a large white tent. A microphone, two potted yellow flowers, and a sign on an easel are on the stage. Text appears on the lectern and sign.
    A man in a suit speaks at a clear lectern on a raised stage inside a large white tent. A microphone, two potted yellow flowers, and a sign on an easel are on the stage. Text appears on the lectern and sign.View post
  • Three adults pose for a photograph outdoors on a sunny day, with trees and a clear blue sky behind them. There is some text on the clothing and on a partially obscured sign.
    Three adults pose for a photograph outdoors on a sunny day, with trees and a clear blue sky behind them. There is some text on the clothing and on a partially obscured sign.View post
  • Four adults stand beneath an outdoor event tent, smiling and talking. Parked vehicles and trees are visible in the background. There is some text on a sign and a tent canopy.
    Four adults stand beneath an outdoor event tent, smiling and talking. Parked vehicles and trees are visible in the background. There is some text on a sign and a tent canopy.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 Cline 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
C001118
Bioguide
C001118
FEC candidate ids
H8VA06104

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