99% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Illinois. Ranks 1st of 214, where 1st is the highest share. 38 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Illinois, ranked among House Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
6 measures against House Democrats. Davis raised $100.6K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats (median $2.0M). 13% of Davis’s statements use bipartisan language, in the top quarter of House Democrats (average 9.8%).
The measures on which Davis sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From Illinois, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1st of 214 House Democrats
Raised, 2026
House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 213th of 214
Party unity
House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 22nd of 217 · 10 votes against the majority of House Democrats
Bipartisanship
House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 39th of 216
Attendance
House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 173rd of 217 · 674 roll calls
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Davis, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Davis is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Davis attacks opponents personally less than 76% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 2.9% of 243 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 166th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Davis’s 243 statements in the 119th Congress (90 Congressional Record speeches, 78 posts on X, 41 press releases, 34 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Davis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 74% | 73% |
| Policy criticism | 29% | 28% |
| Credit claiming | 25% | 23% |
| Bipartisanship | 13% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 7% |
statements classified
90 Congressional Record speeches, 78 posts on X, 41 press releases, 34 newsletters.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| Congressional Record speeches | 90 |
| posts on X | 78 |
| press releases | 41 |
| newsletters | 34 |
The thick bar is Davis; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Davis does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Davis used extreme labels in 2.1% of statements, close to the peer average. 5 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’25 | 15 | 6.7% | 20.0% | 66.7% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 27 | 7.4% | 33.3% | 44.4% | 33.3% | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 17 | 11.8% | 64.7% | 88.2% | 23.5% | 52.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 21.4% | 92.9% | 7.1% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 22 | 4.5% | 40.9% | 90.9% | 4.5% | 27.3% | 9.1% |
| Jul ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 15.4% | 92.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 7.7% |
| Aug ’25 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 58.3% | 91.7% | 8.3% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 79.2% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 86.4% | 13.6% | 18.2% | 9.1% |
| Feb ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 42.9% | 92.9% | 28.6% | 35.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 12 | 8.3% | 25.0% | 41.7% | 8.3% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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%. 11 months are hatched here; 3 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that transcends politics because it is about life itself--protecting mothers, protecting babies, and protecting the healthcare that millions of American families rely on through Medicaid. Medicaid is not an abstract government program. It is the foundati…
Jul 14, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Personal attacks
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to HR 8872. Democrats strongly oppose fraud, and that is why Representative Judy Chu and I introduced HR 2108, the TANF State Expenditure Integrity Act, which would give the US Department of Health and H…
Jun 3, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Government Operations and Politics; Economics and Public Finance; Families · Source
Extreme label
STATEMENT FROM CONGRESSMAN DANNY K. DAVIS ON PASSAGE OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TAX CREDIT EXTENSION Today’s victory proves a simple truth: when Democrats stay unified, listen to the people, and remain focused on results, we win. A people united will never be defeated. Democrats are on a roll, and t…
Jan 8, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Taxation; extreme label “far right” aimed at Republicans · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to HR 8872. Democrats strongly oppose fraud, and that is why Representative Judy Chu and I introduced HR 2108, the TANF State Expenditure Integrity Act, which would give the US Department of Health and Human Services specific authority to monitor sub-grantee expenditures, to ensure that they are consistent with TANF's pur…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · FamiliesSource
Newsletters
Congressman Danny K. Davis Condemns Unilateral Military Threats, Urges Diplomacy Over War in U.S.-Iran Relations Dear , Once again, President Trump has overstepped his bounds and is acting like a king, dictator, or something worse, without any interaction or discussion with Congress. He has attacked congressional intelligence. Like the song said WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing but to kill, maim, and mai…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald Trump
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned by President Trump's chaotic, contradictory, and harmful trade policy that affect American families and my state of Illinois. His emergency powers to impose tariffs have disrupted business and commerce to operate successfully during a time of inconsistent policy initiatives with major trading partners like Canada, China, and Mexico. What is more alarming is that this trade policy al…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · Agriculture and Food · CommerceSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, back in 2021, when we passed the bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress felt it was necessary to pay for what we spent. That is a novel concept around here these days, I know. As part of the offsets to that truly bipartisan bill, we made some changes around tax reporting for the sale of cryptocurrency. Under the tax system, taxpayers are required t…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Transportation and Public Works · Taxation · Finance and Financial Sector · Economics and Public Finance · Crime and Law EnforcementSource
Newest first, the 119th Congress
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 90 Congressional Record speeches, 78 posts on X, 41 press releases, 34 newsletters.
Health is what Davis talks about most: 49% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 152nd of 216).
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 Davis talks about. The bills Davis sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Davis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 49% | 26% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 39% | 20% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 26% | 20% |
| Taxation | 26% | 6% |
| Families | 24% | 4% |
The thick bar is the share of Davis’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 54%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 49% | 26% | 17% | 16% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 39% | 20% | 0% | 1% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 26% | 20% | 9% | 11% |
| Taxation | 26% | 6% | 11% | 6% |
| Families | 24% | 4% | 4% | 1% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 152nd of 216.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Davis legislates on exactly the areas Davis 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 Davis sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Davis sits at −1.14 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 71% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.16 to −1.11, which understates the uncertainty; from 662 donors and 7,118 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.16 to −1.11. From 662 donors and 7,118 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Davis, 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 Davis’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Davis |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 29% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 14% |
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 Davis 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 Davis.
Davis raised $100.6K in the 2026 cycle, 5.1% of the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 15% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 99% of itemized individual money came from Illinois.
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.
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 38 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $41.5K | 41.3% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $7,299 | 7.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $27.1K | 26.9% |
| The candidate’s own money and loans | $6,000 | 6.0% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $18.7K | 18.5% |
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.
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $550.0K |
| 2022 cycle | $682.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $933.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $100.6K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 99% came from Illinois.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
| Row | Davis | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 15% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 8% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 10% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 18% | 13% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Illinois | $36.6K |
| Washington | $250 |
| Indiana | $250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Illinois
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Illinois. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.7% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 60% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 29% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 9.4% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Davis’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Davis’s own score is −1.14.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Davis voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 4.1% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Davis voted against the majority of House Democrats 10 times.
674 roll calls Davis could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. 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 Davis voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 99.7%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 22nd of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Davis, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Davis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.8% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 99.7% | 96.4% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Nay | 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 | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Nay | 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 |
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Davis most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Davis least often
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Davis sponsored 22 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 611 others. 4.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 85th of 207).
The bills Davis 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.
Counts for the 119th Congress
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 22 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 611 | 611 | 17 | 6 | 4 |
Ink blocks are bills Davis sponsored, ochre blocks bills Davis cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 85th of 207.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Davis, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Davis’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10640 | Urban Health Transformation Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 1, 2026 |
| H.R. 10651 | End Tax Breaks for Dark Money Act | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Taxation | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 1, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1603 | Expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States. | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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 1, 2026 |
| H.R. 10531 | Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Centers Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026 |
| H.R. 10582 | Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Taxation | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 24, 2026 |
A site that changed 42 times in 90 days. Davis’s official site had 41 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Davis posted on Apr 14, 2026.
The lab crawls Davis’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 Davis posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
The latest 24, with model-written 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 is the measure on which Davis is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
