Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Kansas’s 3rd district

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

Bioguide D000629FEC H8KS03155

Portrait of Sharice Davids, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.2%
of statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

0.2% of 1,966 statements contain a personal attack (4 statements); the average for House Democrats is 6.6%. Ranks 213th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Davids’s press releases, posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 28% of Davids’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.9 times the House Democrat average of 9.8%. 44% of Davids’s statements claim credit, 1.9 times the House Democrat average of 23%.

The measures on which Davids 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.

Personal attacks

0.2%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 213th of 216

Bipartisanship

28%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 4th of 216

Credit claiming

44%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 7th of 216

Extreme labels

4.4%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 15th of 216

Small donations, 2026

37%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 22nd of 214

CSIP ideology

−0.73

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Davids says

Davids attacks opponents personally less than 98% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 1,966 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 213th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Davids’s 1,966 statements in the 119th Congress (1,574 posts on X, 316 press releases, 43 newsletters, 33 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.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Davids
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,548 statements
79%
73%
52nd of 216
Credit claiming868 statements
44%
23%
7th of 216
Bipartisanship557 statements
28%
10%
4th of 216
Policy criticism375 statements
19%
28%
167th of 216
Personal attacks4 statements
0%
7%
213th of 216
Show the data
Davids's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowDavidsPeers
Policy discussion79%73%
Credit claiming44%23%
Bipartisanship28%10%
Policy criticism19%28%
Personal attacks0%7%
1,966

statements classified

1,574 posts on X, 316 press releases, 43 newsletters, 33 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,574 (80.1%)posts on X 1,574press releases: 316 (16.1%)newsletters: 43 (2.2%)Congressional Record speeches: 33 (1.7%)
Show the data
Davids's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,574
press releases316
newsletters43
Congressional Record speeches33
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Davids used extreme labels in 4.4% of statements, 2.3 times the peer average. 86 statements, most often aimed at Medicaid cuts; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”85
  2. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Medicaid cuts10
  2. budget law6
  3. policies6
  4. politicians5
  5. Republicans5
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: 642025-02: 862025-03: 912025-04: 882025-05: 842025-06: 902025-07: 872025-08: 782025-09: 742025-10: 842025-11: 702025-12: 862026-01: 1072026-02: 952026-03: 1042026-04: 1202026-05: 1112026-06: 1152026-07: 982026-08: 762026-09: 892026-10: 69peak 120 · Apr ’26Personal attackspeak 1.9% · Mar ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 64Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 86Personal attacks, 2025-03: 1.1% of 91Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.1% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 90Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 87Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 86Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 107Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 95Personal attacks, 2026-03: 1.9% of 104Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 120Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 111Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 115Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 98Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 76Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 89Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 69Policy criticismpeak 39.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 10.1%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 6.3% of 64Policy criticism, 2025-02: 29.1% of 86Policy criticism, 2025-03: 18.7% of 91Policy criticism, 2025-04: 36.4% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-05: 17.9% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-06: 24.4% of 90Policy criticism, 2025-07: 26.4% of 87Policy criticism, 2025-08: 15.4% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-09: 10.8% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-10: 39.3% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-11: 28.6% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.3% of 86Policy criticism, 2026-01: 14.0% of 107Policy criticism, 2026-02: 21.1% of 95Policy criticism, 2026-03: 16.4% of 104Policy criticism, 2026-04: 17.5% of 120Policy criticism, 2026-05: 11.7% of 111Policy criticism, 2026-06: 17.4% of 115Policy criticism, 2026-07: 16.3% of 98Policy criticism, 2026-08: 15.8% of 76Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.1% of 89Policy criticism, 2026-10: 10.1% of 69Policy discussionpeak 89.7% · Jul ’25 · latest 85.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 68.8% of 64Policy discussion, 2025-02: 83.7% of 86Policy discussion, 2025-03: 75.8% of 91Policy discussion, 2025-04: 79.5% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-05: 84.5% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-06: 84.4% of 90Policy discussion, 2025-07: 89.7% of 87Policy discussion, 2025-08: 76.9% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-09: 77.0% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-10: 82.1% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-11: 84.3% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-12: 82.6% of 86Policy discussion, 2026-01: 88.8% of 107Policy discussion, 2026-02: 73.7% of 95Policy discussion, 2026-03: 75.0% of 104Policy discussion, 2026-04: 80.8% of 120Policy discussion, 2026-05: 66.7% of 111Policy discussion, 2026-06: 64.3% of 115Policy discussion, 2026-07: 71.4% of 98Policy discussion, 2026-08: 82.9% of 76Policy discussion, 2026-09: 80.9% of 89Policy discussion, 2026-10: 85.5% of 69Bipartisanshippeak 41.9% · Sep ’25 · latest 24.6%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 25.0% of 64Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 39.5% of 86Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 34.1% of 91Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 25.0% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 32.1% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 18.9% of 90Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 35.6% of 87Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 17.9% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 41.9% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 35.7% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 31.4% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 38.4% of 86Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 27.1% of 107Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 33.7% of 95Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 29.8% of 104Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 26.7% of 120Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 21.6% of 111Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 26.1% of 115Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 22.4% of 98Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 10.5% of 76Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 27.0% of 89Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 24.6% of 69Credit claimingpeak 60.9% · Jul ’25 · latest 37.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 53.1% of 64Credit claiming, 2025-02: 54.6% of 86Credit claiming, 2025-03: 41.8% of 91Credit claiming, 2025-04: 40.9% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-05: 48.8% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-06: 47.8% of 90Credit claiming, 2025-07: 60.9% of 87Credit claiming, 2025-08: 59.0% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-09: 50.0% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-10: 30.9% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-11: 37.1% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-12: 53.5% of 86Credit claiming, 2026-01: 37.4% of 107Credit claiming, 2026-02: 39.0% of 95Credit claiming, 2026-03: 51.9% of 104Credit claiming, 2026-04: 48.3% of 120Credit claiming, 2026-05: 33.3% of 111Credit claiming, 2026-06: 39.1% of 115Credit claiming, 2026-07: 30.6% of 98Credit claiming, 2026-08: 30.3% of 76Credit claiming, 2026-09: 50.6% of 89Credit claiming, 2026-10: 37.7% of 69Extreme labelspeak 11.5% · Aug ’25 · latest 4.3%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.7% of 64Extreme labels, 2025-02: 3.5% of 86Extreme labels, 2025-03: 5.5% of 91Extreme labels, 2025-04: 4.5% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-05: 8.3% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.3% of 90Extreme labels, 2025-07: 11.5% of 87Extreme labels, 2025-08: 11.5% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-09: 8.1% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.2% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-11: 1.4% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.2% of 86Extreme labels, 2026-01: 4.7% of 107Extreme labels, 2026-02: 4.2% of 95Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 104Extreme labels, 2026-04: 3.3% of 120Extreme labels, 2026-05: 6.3% of 111Extreme labels, 2026-06: 3.5% of 115Extreme labels, 2026-07: 3.1% of 98Extreme labels, 2026-08: 4.0% of 76Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 89Extreme labels, 2026-10: 4.3% of 69Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Davids, 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 ’25640.0%6.3%68.8%25.0%53.1%4.7%
Feb ’25860.0%29.1%83.7%39.5%54.6%3.5%
Mar ’25911.1%18.7%75.8%34.1%41.8%5.5%
Apr ’25881.1%36.4%79.5%25.0%40.9%4.5%
May ’25840.0%17.9%84.5%32.1%48.8%8.3%
Jun ’25900.0%24.4%84.4%18.9%47.8%3.3%
Jul ’25870.0%26.4%89.7%35.6%60.9%11.5%
Aug ’25780.0%15.4%76.9%17.9%59.0%11.5%
Sep ’25740.0%10.8%77.0%41.9%50.0%8.1%
Oct ’25840.0%39.3%82.1%35.7%30.9%1.2%
Nov ’25700.0%28.6%84.3%31.4%37.1%1.4%
Dec ’25860.0%16.3%82.6%38.4%53.5%1.2%
Jan ’261070.0%14.0%88.8%27.1%37.4%4.7%
Feb ’26950.0%21.1%73.7%33.7%39.0%4.2%
Mar ’261041.9%16.4%75.0%29.8%51.9%0.0%
Apr ’261200.0%17.5%80.8%26.7%48.3%3.3%
May ’261110.0%11.7%66.7%21.6%33.3%6.3%
Jun ’261150.0%17.4%64.3%26.1%39.1%3.5%
Jul ’26980.0%16.3%71.4%22.4%30.6%3.1%
Aug ’26760.0%15.8%82.9%10.5%30.3%4.0%
Sep ’26890.0%10.1%80.9%27.0%50.6%0.0%
Oct ’26690.0%10.1%85.5%24.6%37.7%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 Davids’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Davids, Kansas Farm Leaders Discuss Protecting North American Trade, Fighting Tariffs, Supporting Rural Communities OLATHE, KS — Today, Representative Sharice Davids joined Kansas farmers, agribusiness leaders, and the Kansas Farm Bureau for a roundtable discussion on the future of agricultural trad…

Oct 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Commerce; Economics and Public Finance; Foreign Trade and International Finance · Source

Personal attacks

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

Mar 5, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; bipartisanship; target: Kristi Noem · Source

Extreme label

Davids Demands Accountability Following ICE Sweeps in Southwest Kansas, Citing Threats to Ag Economy and Grocery Prices Today, Representative Sharice Davids called on Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to answer for the economic fallout of recent Immigration and Customs Enfor…

Oct 15, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Immigration; Agriculture and Food; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Commerce; extreme label “extreme” aimed at ICE operations · 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 · bipartisanship · target: Kristi NoemSource

  2. Press releases

    Davids Demands Truth for Seniors on Social Security Tax Trump previously dismissed Social Security as a “scam” This week, Representative Sharice Davids demanded that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Frank Bisignano immediately clarify conflicting public statements regarding federal taxes on Social Security benefits. In recent months, the president and other admini…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Taxation · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  3. Press releases

    U.S. Reps. Davids, Cleaver Join Town Hall, Highlight Work for KC Region and Pushback Against Extreme Trump Policies KANSAS CITY, MO – Tonight, U.S. Representatives Sharice Davids (D-KS-03) and Emanuel Cleaver II (D-MO-05) joined KCUR for a livestreamed town hall to discuss their efforts to deliver results for the Kansas City region and push back against the Trump Administration’s extreme policies, including cuts to S…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Health · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · Law · Taxation · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Trump policies · target: Donald TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: TrumpSource

All 1,966 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: 1,574 posts on X, 316 press releases, 43 newsletters, 33 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Davids talks about most: 27% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.61 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 195th 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 Davids talks about. The bills Davids sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Davids talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Davids
Peers
Health419 statements
27%
26%
Economics and Public Finance357 statements
23%
20%
Agriculture and Food319 statements
21%
9%
Transportation and Public Works250 statements
16%
5%
Commerce192 statements
12%
5%
Show the data
Policy areas Davids talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowDavidsPeers
Health27%26%
Economics and Public Finance23%20%
Agriculture and Food21%9%
Transportation and Public Works16%5%
Commerce12%5%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Davids’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.

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 Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 27% (House Democrats 26%)27%Health, legislates on: 26% (House Democrats 16%)26%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 20%)23%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 9%)21%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 4%)10%Transportation and PublicWorksTransportation and Public Works, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 5%)16%Transportation and Public Works, legislates on: 3% (House Democrats 3%)3%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 12% (House Democrats 5%)12%Commerce, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 2%)4%
Show the data
Davids's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health27%26%26%16%
Economics and Public Finance23%20%0%1%
Agriculture and Food21%9%10%4%
Transportation and Public Works16%5%3%3%
Commerce12%5%4%2%
0.61

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 195th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Davids sits at −0.73 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 81% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.75 to −0.72, which understates the uncertainty; from 10,168 donors and 3,839 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

−0.73

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.75 to −0.72. From 10,168 donors and 3,839 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Davids −0.7House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Davids, 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 Davids’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 Davids sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Davids −0.7All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Davids's CSIP score of −0.73 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Davids
House Democrats217−1.081%
All House439+0.340%
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 Davids 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 Davids.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Davids raised $4.7M in the 2026 cycle, 2.4 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 37% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 57% of itemized individual money came from Kansas.

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
$4.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 2,304 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.2M (47.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (28.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (23.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $35.5K (0.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)48 squares$2.2M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)28 squares$1.3M
  • PACs and other committees23 squares$1.1M
  • Party committees$41
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$35.5K
Show the data
Sources of Davids's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.2M47.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.3M28.1%
PACs and other committees$1.1M23.4%
Party committees$410.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$35.5K0.8%
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $5.8M$5.8M20202022 cycle: $7.9M$7.9M20222024 cycle: $6.0M$6.0M20242026 cycle: $4.7M$4.7M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Davids's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$5.8M
2022 cycle$7.9M
2024 cycle$6.0M
2026 cycle$4.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 57% came from Kansas.

  1. Kansas$907.5K
  2. California$138.4K
  3. Missouri$74.2K
  4. District of Columbia$72.8K
  5. New York$64.8K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Davids
Median
2026
37%
13%
2024
23%
13%
2022
21%
13%
2020
23%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowDavidsMedian
2026 cycle37%13%
2024 cycle23%13%
2022 cycle21%13%
2020 cycle23%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,730AKMaine: $14.3KMEVermont: $1,325VTNew Hampshire: $5,800NHWashington: $24.7KWAIdaho: $500IDMontana: $150MTNorth Dakota: $500NDMinnesota: $4,312MNIllinois: $23.2KILWisconsin: $11.5KWIMichigan: $6,330MINew York: $64.8KNYRhode Island: $2,650RIMassachusetts: $43.6KMAOregon: $6,245ORNevada: $1,700NVWyoming: $175WYSouth Dakota: $655SDIowa: $1,167IAIndiana: $4,375INOhio: $3,500OHPennsylvania: $6,333PANew Jersey: $5,071NJConnecticut: $3,335CTCalifornia: $138.4KCAUtah: $700UTColorado: $15.4KCONebraska: $2,530NEMissouri: $74.2KMOKentucky: $7,650KYWest Virginia: $500WVVirginia: $13.2KVAMaryland: $29.9KMDDelaware: $1,000DEArizona: $5,666AZNew Mexico: $8,642NMKansas: $907.5KKSArkansas: $575ARTennessee: $7,883TNNorth Carolina: $5,025NCSouth Carolina: $1,500SCDistrict of Columbia: $72.8KDCOklahoma: $2,100OKLouisiana: $1,000LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $1,529ALGeorgia: $1,800GAHawaii: $295HITexas: $29.8KTXFlorida: $23.1KFL
Show the data
Davids's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Kansas$907.5K
California$138.4K
Missouri$74.2K
District of Columbia$72.8K
New York$64.8K
Massachusetts$43.6K
Maryland$29.9K
Texas$29.8K
Washington$24.7K
Illinois$23.2K
Florida$23.1K
Colorado$15.4K
Maine$14.3K
Virginia$13.2K
Wisconsin$11.5K
New Mexico$8,642
Tennessee$7,883
Kentucky$7,650
Pennsylvania$6,333
Michigan$6,330
Oregon$6,245
New Hampshire$5,800
Arizona$5,666
New Jersey$5,071
North Carolina$5,025
Indiana$4,375
Minnesota$4,312
Ohio$3,500
Connecticut$3,335
Rhode Island$2,650
Nebraska$2,530
Oklahoma$2,100
Georgia$1,800
Alaska$1,730
Nevada$1,700
Alabama$1,529
South Carolina$1,500
Vermont$1,325
Iowa$1,167
Delaware$1,000
Louisiana$1,000
Utah$700
South Dakota$655
Arkansas$575
Idaho$500
North Dakota$500
West Virginia$500
Hawaii$295
Wyoming$175
Montana$150
MississippiNo data
2,304

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

57%

from Kansas

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.0%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.5%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 16%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 50%50%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 29%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.4%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.2%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Davids's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +1.00: 16% between −1.25 and −1.00, 50% between −1.00 and −0.75, 29% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.0%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.5%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0016%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7550%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5029%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.2%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Davids’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Davids’s own score is −0.73.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$682.6K 1,210 donors
  2. RETIRED$173.0K 256 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$98.8K 119 donors
  4. CEO$41.8K 32 donors
  5. REAL ESTATE BROKER$38.4K 73 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$10.0K
  2. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION - COPE$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SKINPAC)$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS HEALTH SYSTEM$5,451 12 donors
  2. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS$4,800 13 donors
  3. HALLMARK CARDS INC$3,825 3 donors
  4. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION$2,200 3 donors
  5. T-MOBILE US INC$2,170 6 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Davids voted with the majority of House Democrats on 92.5% of party-line votes and missed 0.7% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Davids voted against the majority of House Democrats 38 times.

674 roll calls Davids 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 Davids voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

38

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 92.5%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 187th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Davids
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.2%
96.9%
57th of 217
Party unity
92.5%
96.4%
187th of 217
Show the data
Davids's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowDavidsPeers
Attendance99.2%96.9%
Party unity92.5%96.4%
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
NayWith 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
NayWith 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
NayWith 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 Davids most often

  1. Eric SorensenD663 shared votes96%
  2. Joseph MorelleD654 shared votes96%
  3. Greg StantonD654 shared votes96%
  4. Maggie GoodlanderD663 shared votes96%
  5. Chris PappasD665 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Davids least often

  1. Chip RoyR633 shared votes20%
  2. Ralph NormanR597 shared votes22%
  3. Eric BurlisonR637 shared votes22%
  4. Josh BrecheenR640 shared votes22%
  5. Keith SelfR654 shared votes23%
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

Davids sponsored 37 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 503 others. 5.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 72nd of 207).

The bills Davids 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

Sponsored37 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3737Sponsored, In committee: 3737Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored503 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 503503Cosponsored, In committee: 503503Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2525Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Davids sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3737200
Cosponsored5035032522
How to read the blocks

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

5.4%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 72nd of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton46
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick44
  3. Eugene Vindman43
  4. Donald Davis34
  5. Angie Craig30
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 Davids’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. 10751Tribal Oral Health Sovereignty ActCosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 6, 2026
H.R. 10753Tribal Veterans Voucher Flexibility ActCosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Oct 6, 2026
H.R. 10725GAP ActSponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 5, 2026
H.R. 10726Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Coverage Act of 2026SponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 5, 2026
H.R. 10727Access to Community Care Act of 2026SponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 5, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 81 times in 90 days. Davids’s official site had 37 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Davids posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Social accounts

Images Davids posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of six adults pose indoors in a veterans' post or community hall. One man holds a folded American flag, and the walls behind them display framed certificates, plaques, photographs, and other memorabilia. There is text on signs, clothing, and wall displays.
    A group of six adults pose indoors in a veterans' post or community hall. One man holds a folded American flag, and the walls behind them display framed certificates, plaques, photographs, and other memorabilia. There is text on signs, clothing, and wall displays.View post
  • Two women sit side by side at a table in an office and smile at the camera. There is some visible text on their clothing and objects in the room.
    Two women sit side by side at a table in an office and smile at the camera. There is some visible text on their clothing and objects in the room.View post
  • Two women stand and talk in the foreground of a meeting room, while several people sit around tables in the background. One woman holds papers and the other holds a phone. There is no prominent visible text.
    Two women stand and talk in the foreground of a meeting room, while several people sit around tables in the background. One woman holds papers and the other holds a phone. There is no prominent visible text.View post
  • Two women stand indoors, smiling as they jointly hold a clear award plaque. An American flag and another flag stand behind them, with a framed picture on the wall and a display cabinet to the right. There is text on the plaque, clothing, and items in the cabinet.
    Two women stand indoors, smiling as they jointly hold a clear award plaque. An American flag and another flag stand behind them, with a framed picture on the wall and a display cabinet to the right. There is text on the plaque, clothing, and items in the cabinet.View post
  • A plain white image with a large black heading and a long quotation about insurance coverage for specialized pediatric care at Children's Mercy, attributed to a representative. No other visual elements are present.
    A plain white image with a large black heading and a long quotation about insurance coverage for specialized pediatric care at Children's Mercy, attributed to a representative. No other visual elements are present.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 Davids 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 …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
D000629
Bioguide
D000629
FEC candidate ids
H8KS03155

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