21% of 1,322 statements use bipartisan language (283 statements); the average for House Democrats is 9.8%. Ranks 11th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Dingell’s press releases, posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against House Democrats. The policy areas Dingell talks about and legislates on agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats. 0.5% of Dingell’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 1.9%).
The measures on which Dingell 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.
Bipartisanship
House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 11th of 216
Talk-to-bills agreement
House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 179th of 216
Extreme labels
House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 175th of 216
Personal attacks
House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 170th of 216
Credit claiming
House Democrats average 23% · ranks 55th of 216
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Dingell, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Dingell is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Dingell attacks opponents personally less than 78% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 2.5% of 1,322 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 170th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Dingell’s 1,322 statements in the 119th Congress (840 posts on X, 338 press releases, 78 newsletters, 66 Congressional Record speeches) 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 | Dingell | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 71% | 73% |
| Policy criticism | 33% | 28% |
| Credit claiming | 28% | 23% |
| Bipartisanship | 21% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 7% |
statements classified
840 posts on X, 338 press releases, 78 newsletters, 66 Congressional Record speeches.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 840 |
| press releases | 338 |
| newsletters | 78 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 66 |
The thick bar is Dingell; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Dingell does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Dingell used extreme labels in 0.5% of statements, 28% of the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at appropriations cuts; 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 | 81 | 4.9% | 28.4% | 72.8% | 22.2% | 44.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 67 | 4.5% | 47.8% | 74.6% | 23.9% | 28.4% | 1.5% |
| Mar ’25 | 65 | 4.6% | 23.1% | 56.9% | 23.1% | 18.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 105 | 0.0% | 26.7% | 71.4% | 23.8% | 21.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 84 | 1.2% | 30.9% | 67.9% | 21.4% | 26.2% | 2.4% |
| Jun ’25 | 77 | 1.3% | 27.3% | 70.1% | 22.1% | 32.5% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 89 | 0.0% | 42.7% | 66.3% | 15.7% | 21.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 60 | 0.0% | 21.7% | 53.3% | 6.7% | 20.0% | 1.7% |
| Sep ’25 | 46 | 0.0% | 41.3% | 73.9% | 19.6% | 26.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 52.8% | 69.4% | 19.4% | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 35.0% | 57.5% | 22.5% | 20.0% | 2.5% |
| Dec ’25 | 46 | 4.3% | 37.0% | 80.4% | 41.3% | 43.5% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 38 | 0.0% | 18.4% | 71.0% | 15.8% | 26.3% | 2.6% |
| Feb ’26 | 40 | 2.5% | 35.0% | 62.5% | 25.0% | 20.0% | 2.5% |
| Mar ’26 | 60 | 5.0% | 33.3% | 60.0% | 11.7% | 18.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 65 | 10.8% | 30.8% | 61.5% | 15.4% | 27.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 53 | 1.9% | 34.0% | 84.9% | 43.4% | 41.5% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 47 | 8.5% | 48.9% | 93.6% | 34.0% | 38.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 47 | 4.3% | 36.2% | 80.8% | 25.5% | 34.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 59 | 0.0% | 30.5% | 89.8% | 11.9% | 20.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 67 | 0.0% | 34.3% | 77.6% | 20.9% | 23.9% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 50 | 2.0% | 26.0% | 84.0% | 14.0% | 44.0% | 0.0% |
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 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%.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
Dingell, Colleagues Express Concerns to CMS Regarding Complex Rehabilitation Technology Coverage U.S. Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01), and colleagues expressed concerns about significant gaps in Medicare’s coverage and reimbursement framework for complex rehabi…
Oct 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Health · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 12, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Donald Trump · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 25, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Immigration; extreme label “extreme” aimed at ICE · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource
Newsletters
Dingell Update 7.28.26 Dear Friend, The past week was one of the most intense and emotional I have experienced in some time. It began with a heavy legislative agenda in Washington, included serving on the Democratic National Committee Rules & Bylaws Committee as we voted on recommendations for the 2028 Democratic presidential nominating process, and ended with family and friends gathering to celebrate the remarkable…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Health · Government Operations and Politics · Energy · Finance and Financial Sector · Education · Transportation and Public Works · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Law · Labor and Employment · Science, Technology, Communications · International Affairs · Commerce · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Armed Forces and National Security · Environmental Protection · Agriculture and Food · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Economics and Public Finance · Crime and Law Enforcement · 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 · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Housing and Community Development · target: Donald TrumpSource
Newsletters
Dingell Update: 6.15.2026 [Representative Debbie Dingell]<https://debbiedingell.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=32553-2388603> Helping You<https://debbiedingell.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=32554-2388603> Email Debbie<https://debbiedingell.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=32555-2388603> Invite Debbie To A Meeting<https://debbiedingell.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=32556-2388603> Ne…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Environmental Protection · Crime and Law Enforcement · Health · Water Resources Development · Immigration · Labor and Employment · Science, Technology, Communications · Transportation and Public Works · target: Bill Pulte
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: 840 posts on X, 338 press releases, 78 newsletters, 66 Congressional Record speeches.
Health is what Dingell talks about most: 38% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 179th 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 Dingell talks about. The bills Dingell sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Dingell | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 38% | 26% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 20% |
| Environmental Protection | 19% | 5% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 19% | 6% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 20% |
The thick bar is the share of Dingell’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 42%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 38% | 26% | 34% | 16% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 20% | 0% | 1% |
| Environmental Protection | 19% | 5% | 4% | 3% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 19% | 6% | 3% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 20% | 7% | 11% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 179th of 216.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Dingell legislates on exactly the areas Dingell 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 Dingell sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Dingell sits at −0.97 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 54% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.98 to −0.95, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,178 donors and 6,207 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.98 to −0.95. From 2,178 donors and 6,207 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Dingell, 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 Dingell’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 Dingell |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 54% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 27% |
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 Dingell 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 Dingell.
Dingell raised $1.4M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 17% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 57% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
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 371 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) | $402.4K | 28.6% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $85.2K | 6.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $910.1K | 64.8% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $7,687 | 0.5% |
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 | $1.6M |
| 2022 cycle | $1.4M |
| 2024 cycle | $1.5M |
| 2026 cycle | $1.4M |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 57% came from Michigan.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
| Row | Dingell | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 17% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 16% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 17% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 17% | 13% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $178.6K |
| District of Columbia | $49.8K |
| Virginia | $18.0K |
| Florida | $15.2K |
| Maryland | $13.1K |
| Texas | $12.0K |
| New York | $7,000 |
| Connecticut | $6,000 |
| California | $3,800 |
| Illinois | $1,500 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,300 |
| Washington | $1,000 |
| Delaware | $1,000 |
| Colorado | $500 |
| South Carolina | $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 |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Michigan
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 Michigan. 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 | 0.4% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 15% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 61% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 9.2% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 4.0% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 8.0% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.2% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 0.7% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 1.3% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Dingell’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Dingell’s own score is −0.97.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Dingell voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 3.1% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Dingell voted against the majority of House Democrats 7 times.
674 roll calls Dingell 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 Dingell 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 99.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 66th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Dingell, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Dingell | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.8% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 99.3% | 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 | Yea | With 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 | Yea | Against 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 Dingell most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Dingell 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
Dingell sponsored 88 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 612 others. 3.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 104th of 207).
The bills Dingell 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 | 88 | 88 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 612 | 612 | 24 | 5 | 4 |
Ink blocks are bills Dingell sponsored, ochre blocks bills Dingell 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 104th of 207.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Dingell, 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 Dingell’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10865 | Samier Amer Foster Care Improvement Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Families | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10875 | To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | 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 22, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1635 | Supporting the designation of October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day". | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10841 | Securing Elections From AI Deception Act | Cosponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 19, 2026 |
| H.R. 10814 | To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide further transparency and accountability for the use of content that is generated by artificial intelligence (generative AI) in political advertisements by requiring such advertisements to include a statement within the contents of the adv | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on House Administration. Oct 15, 2026 |
A site that changed 66 times in 90 days. Dingell’s official site had 37 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Dingell posted on Oct 24, 2026.
The lab crawls Dingell’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 Dingell 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 Dingell 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
