of statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans
0% of 243 statements contain a personal attack (0 statements); the average for House Republicans is 2.1%. Ranks 216th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Ellzey’s posts on X, newsletters, press releases and Congressional Record speeches 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 Republicans and ranked against the same group.
0
At a glance
6 measures against House Republicans. 0% of Ellzey’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (average 3.0%). 49% of Ellzey’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 68%).
The measures on which Ellzey sits furthest from the middle of House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Personal attacks
0%
House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 216th of 221
Extreme labels
0%
House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 216th of 221
Policy discussion
49%
House Republicans average 68% · ranks 206th of 221
Policy criticism
7.0%
House Republicans average 15% · ranks 200th of 221
From Texas, 2026
23%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 193rd of 216 House Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.98
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Ellzey, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Ellzey is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Ellzey attacks opponents personally less than 97% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 243 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 216th of 221.
An AI model reads each of Ellzey’s 243 statements in the 119th Congress (187 posts on X, 22 newsletters, 20 press releases, 14 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
Ellzey
House Republicans, average of 221
0%20%40%60%80%
Ellzey
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion120 statements
49%
68%
206th of 221
Credit claiming80 statements
33%
37%
142nd of 221
Bipartisanship22 statements
9%
9%
84th of 221
Policy criticism17 statements
7%
15%
200th of 221
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
216th of 221
+ Show the data
Ellzey's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
Row
Ellzey
Peers
Policy discussion
49%
68%
Credit claiming
33%
37%
Bipartisanship
9%
9%
Policy criticism
7%
15%
Personal attacks
0%
2%
243
statements classified
187 posts on X, 22 newsletters, 20 press releases, 14 Congressional Record speeches.
posts on X
newsletters
press releases
Congressional Record speeches
+ Show the data
Ellzey's statements by source
Part
Value
posts on X
187
newsletters
22
press releases
20
Congressional Record speeches
14
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is Ellzey; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Ellzey does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Ellzey used no extreme labels in 243 statements. The peer average is 3.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
+ − What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
+ Show the data
Monthly rates for Ellzey, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column
Statements
Personal attacks
Policy criticism
Policy discussion
Bipartisanship
Credit claiming
Extreme labels
Jan ’25
35
0.0%
8.6%
28.6%
8.6%
34.3%
0.0%
Feb ’25
16
0.0%
12.5%
43.8%
25.0%
43.8%
0.0%
Mar ’25
17
0.0%
5.9%
29.4%
0.0%
29.4%
0.0%
Apr ’25
18
0.0%
22.2%
77.8%
22.2%
50.0%
0.0%
May ’25
25
0.0%
0.0%
44.0%
12.0%
8.0%
0.0%
Jun ’25
17
0.0%
11.8%
52.9%
5.9%
23.5%
0.0%
Jul ’25
12
0.0%
8.3%
50.0%
8.3%
66.7%
0.0%
Aug ’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)
Sep ’25
11
0.0%
0.0%
72.7%
18.2%
27.3%
0.0%
Oct ’25
4
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
Nov ’25
11
0.0%
9.1%
54.5%
0.0%
27.3%
0.0%
Dec ’25
4
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
Jan ’26
13
0.0%
7.7%
76.9%
15.4%
53.8%
0.0%
Feb ’26
13
0.0%
7.7%
53.8%
0.0%
53.8%
0.0%
Mar ’26
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)
Apr ’26
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)
May ’26
6
— (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
6
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
Jul ’26
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)
Aug ’26
3
— (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
3
— (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
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)
+ − 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%. 11 months are hatched here.
In Ellzey’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
Congressman Jake Ellzey Newsletter
| Dear , Recent News It's been a busy and productive start to the summer, and there's plenty more ahead. Here in Washington, the House Appropriations Committee has advanced all 12 annual funding bills out of committee, just as Congress is supposed to do through re…
Jun 30, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Families; Health; Housing and Community Development
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 2, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy; Water Resources Development; Commerce · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 12, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 243 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: 187 posts on X, 22 newsletters, 20 press releases, 14 Congressional Record speeches.
Armed Forces and National Security is what Ellzey talks about most: 49% of policy statements, 2.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.60 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 175th of 221).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Ellzey talks about. The bills Ellzey sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Ellzey talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
Ellzey
House Republicans average
0%14%27%41%54%
Ellzey
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security59 statements
49%
24%
Economics and Public Finance27 statements
23%
19%
Health19 statements
16%
15%
Government Operations and Politics18 statements
15%
19%
Immigration18 statements
15%
13%
+ Show the data
Policy areas Ellzey talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
Row
Ellzey
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security
49%
24%
Economics and Public Finance
23%
19%
Health
16%
15%
Government Operations and Politics
15%
19%
Immigration
15%
13%
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Ellzey’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 54%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.
Statements
Bills
House Republicans
+ Show the data
Ellzey's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area
Talks about
House Republicans, talks about
Legislates on
House Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security
49%
24%
12%
8%
Economics and Public Finance
23%
19%
0%
2%
Health
16%
15%
9%
11%
Government Operations and Politics
15%
19%
13%
12%
Immigration
15%
13%
8%
5%
0.60
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 175th of 221.
+ − What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Ellzey legislates on exactly the areas Ellzey 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 Ellzey sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ellzey sits at +0.98 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 54% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.96 to +0.99, which understates the uncertainty; from 12,392 donors and 2,628 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”.
+0.98
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.96 to +0.99. From 12,392 donors and 2,628 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Ellzey, 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 Ellzey’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 Ellzey sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
+ Show the data
Ellzey's CSIP score of +0.98 placed against House Republicans, All House.
Group
Officials
Median
Share left of Ellzey
House Republicans
221
+1.0
46%
All House
439
+0.3
73%
+ − 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 Ellzey 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 Ellzey.
Ellzey raised $5.5M in the 2026 cycle, 2.6 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 26% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 23% of itemized individual money came from Texas.
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.
$5.5M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 2,717 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
Itemized individual (over $200)25 squares$1.4M
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)8 squares$472.8K
PACs and other committees18 squares$984.2K
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)49 squares$2.7M
+ Show the data
Sources of Ellzey's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source
Amount
Share
Itemized individual (over $200)
$1.4M
24.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)
$472.8K
8.6%
PACs and other committees
$984.2K
17.8%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)
$2.7M
48.8%
+ − 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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.
+ Show the data
Ellzey's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
Item
Value
2022 cycle
$7.2M
2024 cycle
$6.9M
2026 cycle
$5.5M
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 23% came from Texas.
Texas$260.1K
Florida$128.4K
California$104.2K
Virginia$96.6K
District of Columbia$54.3K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.
Ellzey
Median
0%20%40%60%
Ellzey
Median
2026
26%
9%
2024
44%
9%
2022
55%
9%
+ Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
Row
Ellzey
Median
2026 cycle
26%
9%
2024 cycle
44%
9%
2022 cycle
55%
9%
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Itemized dollars$50$260.1Kno data
+ Show the data
Ellzey's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State
Value
Texas
$260.1K
Florida
$128.4K
California
$104.2K
Virginia
$96.6K
District of Columbia
$54.3K
Maryland
$46.3K
Ohio
$32.4K
Arizona
$30.4K
Massachusetts
$29.0K
Illinois
$25.5K
Michigan
$24.9K
New York
$22.2K
North Carolina
$21.5K
Georgia
$20.5K
Colorado
$20.3K
Pennsylvania
$15.0K
Oklahoma
$14.9K
Tennessee
$13.4K
Connecticut
$12.3K
Washington
$11.4K
Wisconsin
$11.4K
Utah
$10.9K
Nevada
$10.5K
Oregon
$9,811
New Jersey
$9,724
Indiana
$9,596
Missouri
$8,805
Minnesota
$8,372
Alabama
$8,234
Kansas
$8,052
South Carolina
$7,534
Louisiana
$5,732
Hawaii
$5,394
Mississippi
$4,324
West Virginia
$4,146
Arkansas
$4,035
Wyoming
$3,373
Kentucky
$3,291
Maine
$3,214
Nebraska
$3,159
New Mexico
$2,935
Montana
$2,760
Idaho
$2,307
Iowa
$1,808
New Hampshire
$1,660
South Dakota
$1,647
Alaska
$1,619
North Dakota
$560
Rhode Island
$434
Vermont
$111
Delaware
$98
2,717
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
23%
from Texas
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 Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
+ Show the data
Ideology of Ellzey's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.75: 6.5% between +0.50 and +0.75, 45% between +0.75 and +1.00, 36% between +1.00 and +1.25.
Item
Value
CSIP −1.00 to −0.75
0.0%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.50
0.7%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.25
0.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.00
1.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.25
3.2%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50
4.0%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75
6.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00
45%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.25
36%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.50
1.4%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.75
0.1%
+ − How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Ellzey’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Ellzey’s own score is +0.98.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
RETIRED$588.6K 2,220 donors
CEO$68.2K 40 donors
CONSULTANT$66.4K 41 donors
PRESIDENT$35.8K 21 donors
LOBBYIST$20.3K 13 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
AIRBUS AMERICAS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL PAC$10.0K
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
ALLEN CONTROL SYSTEMS$33.3K 5 donors
BLUE WATER AUTONOMY$14.4K 3 donors
CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$8,500 8 donors
BGR GROUP$7,500 6 donors
NOMINAL$6,500 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Ellzey voted with the majority of House Republicans on 96.8% of party-line votes and missed 1.5% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Ellzey voted against the majority of House Republicans 16 times.
674 roll calls Ellzey could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Republicans. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Ellzey voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
16
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 96.8%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 167th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Ellzey, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Ellzey
House Republicans, average of 221
80%90%100%
Ellzey
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.5%
96.3%
82nd of 221
Party unity
96.8%
97.1%
167th of 221
+ Show the data
Ellzey's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
Row
Ellzey
Peers
Attendance
98.5%
96.3%
Party unity
96.8%
97.1%
+ − What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
Yea
With majority
Passed
D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
Yea
With majority
Passed
D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay
became law · party crossover
+ − How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Ellzey most often
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Ellzey sponsored 4 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 202 others.
The bills Ellzey sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the 119th Congress
Sponsored
Cosponsored
+ Show the data
Bills Ellzey sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role
Introduced
In committee
Passed one chamber
Passed both chambers
Became law
Sponsored
4
4
0
0
0
Cosponsored
202
202
28
1
1
+ − How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Ellzey sponsored, ochre blocks bills Ellzey cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Ellzey, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
Republican
Randy Weber Sr.24
August Pfluger II19
Brian Babin18
Dan Crenshaw18
Craig Goldman17
+ − 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 Ellzey’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
To amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to promote transparency in science, and for other purposes.
Cosponsor
Oct 5, 2026
In committee
Unassigned
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Oct 5, 2026
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4650 East Rosedale Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the "Dionne Phillips Bagsby Post Office Building".
Cosponsor
Sep 3, 2026
In committee
Government Operations and Politics
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 3, 2026
A site that changed 75 times in 90 days. Ellzey’s official site had 37 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Ellzey posted on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Ellzey’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 Ellzey posts with a vision model.
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Two men in suits pose for a photo in a wood-paneled room, standing beside a chair and a wall display featuring an airplane. There is text on the display and a small sign above it.View post ↗
02
A large blue-and-white government aircraft is parked on an airport tarmac with a set of boarding stairs beside it. An American flag and a blue flag fly nearby, with vehicles, light poles, a fence, grass, and a partly cloudy sky in the scene. Text is visible on the aircraft.View post ↗
03
A group of officials and reporters stand beside a large blue-and-white airplane. A suited man in the center points toward the camera, with microphones and a raised hand visible in the foreground. There is text on the airplane stairs and a seal on the aircraft.View post ↗
04
A group of officials and security personnel disembark from an airplane using mobile stairs at an airport. A man in a dark suit walks on the wet tarmac, with vehicles and a fire-rescue truck nearby. Text is visible on the stairs and truck.View post ↗
05
A memorial graphic honoring those who died and the heroes of September 11. The background shows a United States flag with several lit candles. White lettering is overlaid, with a small campaign-style logo at the bottom.View post ↗
+ − About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Ellzey is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
Roll calls (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages 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
