Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Colorado’s 8th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2025119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide E000300FEC H4CO08034

Portrait of Gabe Evans, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
88%
of statements discuss policy, in the top 5% of House Republicans

88% of 623 statements discuss policy (546 statements); the average for House Republicans is 68%. Ranks 5th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Evans’s newsletters, posts on X, press releases and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 17% of Evans’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.9 times the House Republican average of 8.9%. Evans raised $7.2M in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of House Republicans (median $2.2M).

The measures on which Evans sits furthest from the middle of House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Policy discussion

88%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 5th of 221

Attendance

100%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 6th of 221 · 674 roll calls

Bipartisanship

17%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 21st of 221

Raised, 2026

$7.2M

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 20th of 220

Party unity

95.9%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 185th of 221 · 19 votes against the majority of House Republicans

CSIP ideology

+0.69

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 Evans, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Evans is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Evans says

Evans stresses bipartisanship more than 90% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 17% of 623 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 21st of 221.

An AI model reads each of Evans’s 623 statements in the 119th Congress (484 posts on X, 53 press releases, 52 newsletters, 34 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

0%80%
Evans
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion546 statements
88%
68%
5th of 221
Credit claiming268 statements
43%
37%
75th of 221
Policy criticism137 statements
22%
15%
33rd of 221
Bipartisanship107 statements
17%
9%
21st of 221
Personal attacks7 statements
1%
2%
114th of 221
Show the data
Evans's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowEvansPeers
Policy discussion88%68%
Credit claiming43%37%
Policy criticism22%15%
Bipartisanship17%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
623

statements classified

484 posts on X, 53 press releases, 52 newsletters, 34 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 484 (77.7%)posts on X 484press releases: 53 (8.5%)newsletters: 52 (8.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 34 (5.5%)
Show the data
Evans's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X484
press releases53
newsletters52
Congressional Record speeches34
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Evans used extreme labels in 4.0% of statements, above the peer average. 25 statements, most often aimed at Colorado Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “extreme”12
  2. “radical”12
  3. “communist”4

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Colorado Democrats3
  2. Colorado Dems3
  3. Democrats3
  4. climate agenda2
  5. Biden mandates1
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: 02025-02: 12025-03: 02025-04: 42025-05: 112025-06: 92025-07: 62025-08: 32025-09: 22025-10: 22025-11: 22025-12: 542026-01: 762026-02: 662026-03: 712026-04: 562026-05: 612026-06: 492026-07: 452026-08: 262026-09: 572026-10: 22peak 76 · Jan ’26Personal attackspeak 4.0% · Jan ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 11Personal attacks, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.8% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-01: 4.0% of 76Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-03: 1.4% of 71Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.8% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 22Policy criticismpeak 35.6% · Jul ’26 · latest 9.1%Policy criticism, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-05: 18.2% of 11Policy criticism, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-12: 25.9% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-01: 15.8% of 76Policy criticism, 2026-02: 15.2% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-03: 23.9% of 71Policy criticism, 2026-04: 25.0% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-05: 16.4% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-06: 18.4% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-07: 35.6% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-08: 19.2% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-09: 31.6% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-10: 9.1% of 22Policy discussionpeak 96.4% · Apr ’26 · latest 86.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-05: 63.6% of 11Policy discussion, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-12: 90.7% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-01: 82.9% of 76Policy discussion, 2026-02: 83.3% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-03: 91.5% of 71Policy discussion, 2026-04: 96.4% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-05: 83.6% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-06: 91.8% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-07: 93.3% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-08: 88.5% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-09: 86.0% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-10: 86.4% of 22Bipartisanshippeak 36.4% · May ’25 · latest 9.1%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 36.4% of 11Bipartisanship, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 14.8% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 9.2% of 76Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 7.6% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 8.5% of 71Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 26.8% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 13.1% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 16.3% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 28.9% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 7.7% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 33.3% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 9.1% of 22Credit claimingpeak 66.7% · Sep ’26 · latest 31.8%Credit claiming, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-05: 54.5% of 11Credit claiming, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-12: 42.6% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-01: 42.1% of 76Credit claiming, 2026-02: 33.3% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-03: 25.4% of 71Credit claiming, 2026-04: 46.4% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-05: 31.1% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-06: 46.9% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-07: 55.6% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-08: 26.9% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-09: 66.7% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-10: 31.8% of 22Extreme labelspeak 18.2% · May ’25 · latest 4.5%Extreme labels, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-02: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-05: 18.2% of 11Extreme labels, 2025-06: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-07: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-11: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.8% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-01: 11.8% of 76Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.5% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-03: 7.0% of 71Extreme labels, 2026-04: 1.8% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-07: 6.7% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-09: 1.8% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-10: 4.5% of 22Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Evans, 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 ’250— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Feb ’251— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Mar ’250— (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 ’254— (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 ’25110.0%18.2%63.6%36.4%54.5%18.2%
Jun ’259— (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 ’256— (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 ’253— (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 ’252— (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 ’252— (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 ’252— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Dec ’25541.8%25.9%90.7%14.8%42.6%1.8%
Jan ’26764.0%15.8%82.9%9.2%42.1%11.8%
Feb ’26660.0%15.2%83.3%7.6%33.3%1.5%
Mar ’26711.4%23.9%91.5%8.5%25.4%7.0%
Apr ’26561.8%25.0%96.4%26.8%46.4%1.8%
May ’26610.0%16.4%83.6%13.1%31.1%0.0%
Jun ’26490.0%18.4%91.8%16.3%46.9%0.0%
Jul ’26450.0%35.6%93.3%28.9%55.6%6.7%
Aug ’26260.0%19.2%88.5%7.7%26.9%0.0%
Sep ’26570.0%31.6%86.0%33.3%66.7%1.8%
Oct ’26220.0%9.1%86.4%9.1%31.8%4.5%
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%. 10 months are hatched here; 2 of them have no statements.

In Evans’s words

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

Personal attacks

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

Apr 25, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Finance and Financial Sector; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: Jared Polis · Source

Bipartisanship

?? Congressman Gabe Evans Newsletter, October 13, 2026 [Rep. Gabe Evans's header image] Hello, Over the past two weeks, I’ve met with farmers, small business owners, students, energy workers, and some of the brightest innovators in our state. Whether we’re talking about keeping family farms in b…

Oct 13, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Education; Energy; Environmental Protection; Health; Water Resources Development; Labor and Employment; Science, Technology, Communications; Transportation and Public Works

Extreme label

Congressman Gabe Evans Introduces Resolution Standing Up for American Farmers and Ranchers WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Gabe Evans introduced a pro-animal agriculture resolution to stand united with America’s livestock producers and recognize the critical role animal agriculture plays in feeding C…

Oct 8, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; extreme label “extreme, radical” aimed at politicians · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Finance and Financial Sector · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Jared PolisSource

  2. Press releases

    Congressman Gabe Evans Votes to Reopen DHS — Rejecting Senate Proposals That Omit Funding for Key Law Enforcement Agencies WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman Gabe Evans voted to advance a 60-day continuing resolution (CR) to reopen the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), rejecting a Senate proposal that excludes funding for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). “…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Immigration · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Science, Technology, Communications · Government Operations and Politics · Transportation and Public Works · extreme label “radical” aimed at Senate Democrats · target: Senate DemocratsSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Transportation and Public Works · target: Several membersSource

  4. Newsletters

    ?? Congressman Gabe Evans Newsletter, January 12, 2026 | | Hello, Welcome back to our newsletter! Keep reading to see what my team and I have been doing to fight for Coloradans in Congress! Let's get into the newsletter! | | ? Delivering Public Safety & Community Funding Wins for CO-08 | | I proudly voted to pass H.R. 6938, a consolidated appropriations package that funds crucial government operations including Comm…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Energy · Environmental Protection · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Health · Water Resources Development · Immigration · Transportation and Public Works · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Colorado Democrats · target: Colorado Democrats

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Taxation · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Colorado Democrats · target: Jared PolisSource

All 623 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: 484 posts on X, 53 press releases, 52 newsletters, 34 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Evans talks about most: 29% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 45th 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 Evans talks about. The bills Evans sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Evans talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Evans
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security158 statements
29%
24%
Energy135 statements
25%
9%
Crime and Law Enforcement125 statements
23%
12%
Economics and Public Finance112 statements
21%
19%
Commerce88 statements
16%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Evans talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowEvansPeers
Armed Forces and National Security29%24%
Energy25%9%
Crime and Law Enforcement23%12%
Economics and Public Finance21%19%
Commerce16%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Evans’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 29% (House Republicans 24%)29%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 8%)10%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 25% (House Republicans 9%)25%Energy, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 3%)7%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 23% (House Republicans 12%)23%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 13% (House Republicans 9%)13%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 19%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 9%)16%Commerce, legislates on: 3% (House Republicans 2%)3%
Show the data
Evans's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security29%24%10%8%
Energy25%9%7%3%
Crime and Law Enforcement23%12%13%9%
Economics and Public Finance21%19%1%2%
Commerce16%9%3%2%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 45th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Evans sits at +0.69 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 86% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.67 to +0.72, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,299 donors and 961 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”.

+0.69

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.67 to +0.72. From 2,299 donors and 961 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Evans +0.7House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Evans, 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 Evans’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 Evans sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Evans +0.7All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Evans's CSIP score of +0.69 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Evans
House Republicans221+1.014%
All House439+0.357%
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 Evans 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 Evans.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Evans raised $7.2M in the 2026 cycle, 3.4 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 39% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 45% of itemized individual money came from Colorado.

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
$7.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,510 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): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (27.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.3M (17.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (24.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (30.1%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)28 squares$2.0M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)17 squares$1.3M
  • PACs and other committees25 squares$1.8M
  • Party committees$10.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)30 squares$2.2M
Show the data
Sources of Evans's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.0M27.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.3M17.4%
PACs and other committees$1.8M24.6%
Party committees$10.0K0.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$2.2M30.1%
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $2.7M$2.7M20242026 cycle: $7.2M$7.2M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Evans's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$2.7M
2026 cycle$7.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 45% came from Colorado.

  1. Colorado$665.6K
  2. Texas$181.4K
  3. Florida$103.9K
  4. Virginia$81.9K
  5. California$50.0K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Evans
Median
2026
39%
9%
2024
23%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowEvansMedian
2026 cycle39%9%
2024 cycle23%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $130AKMaine: $1,545MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $824NHWashington: $6,502WAIdaho: $3,030IDMontana: $5,750MTNorth Dakota: $1,750NDMinnesota: $7,515MNIllinois: $18.4KILWisconsin: $9,506WIMichigan: $10.4KMINew York: $17.3KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $23.2KMAOregon: $4,345ORNevada: $7,562NVWyoming: $4,195WYSouth Dakota: $205SDIowa: $3,197IAIndiana: $10.4KINOhio: $14.2KOHPennsylvania: $28.1KPANew Jersey: $5,083NJConnecticut: $391CTCalifornia: $50.0KCAUtah: $16.9KUTColorado: $665.6KCONebraska: $7,718NEMissouri: $5,450MOKentucky: $5,350KYWest Virginia: $2,589WVVirginia: $81.9KVAMaryland: $22.0KMDDelaware: $1,049DEArizona: $7,269AZNew Mexico: $3,933NMKansas: $3,841KSArkansas: $4,770ARTennessee: $8,773TNNorth Carolina: $27.3KNCSouth Carolina: $4,370SCDistrict of Columbia: $15.5KDCOklahoma: $3,652OKLouisiana: $20.9KLAMississippi: $2,125MSAlabama: $11.1KALGeorgia: $6,792GAHawaii: $535HITexas: $181.4KTXFlorida: $103.9KFL
Show the data
Evans's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Colorado$665.6K
Texas$181.4K
Florida$103.9K
Virginia$81.9K
California$50.0K
Pennsylvania$28.1K
North Carolina$27.3K
Massachusetts$23.2K
Maryland$22.0K
Louisiana$20.9K
Illinois$18.4K
New York$17.3K
Utah$16.9K
District of Columbia$15.5K
Ohio$14.2K
Alabama$11.1K
Michigan$10.4K
Indiana$10.4K
Wisconsin$9,506
Tennessee$8,773
Nebraska$7,718
Nevada$7,562
Minnesota$7,515
Arizona$7,269
Georgia$6,792
Washington$6,502
Montana$5,750
Missouri$5,450
Kentucky$5,350
New Jersey$5,083
Arkansas$4,770
South Carolina$4,370
Oregon$4,345
Wyoming$4,195
New Mexico$3,933
Kansas$3,841
Oklahoma$3,652
Iowa$3,197
Idaho$3,030
West Virginia$2,589
Mississippi$2,125
North Dakota$1,750
Maine$1,545
Delaware$1,049
New Hampshire$824
Hawaii$535
Connecticut$391
South Dakota$205
Alaska$130
VermontNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
1,510

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

45%

from Colorado

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.2%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.6%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.7%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.6%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 29%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 44%44%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 19%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.2%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Evans's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 29% between +0.50 and +0.75, 44% between +0.75 and +1.00, 19% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.6%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.7%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.6%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7529%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0044%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2519%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.2%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Evans’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Evans’s own score is +0.69.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$587.2K 988 donors
  2. CEO$120.3K 46 donors
  3. OWNER$68.0K 28 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$66.2K 19 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$55.1K 16 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN RESORT DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION RESORT OWNERS COALITION PAC (ARDA-ROC PAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN REVIVAL PAC$10.0K
  5. ATMOS ENERGY CORPORATION PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. PIVOT ENERGY$17.4K 20 donors
  2. HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION$10.5K 3 donors
  3. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$6,400 6 donors
  4. WESTERN SUGAR COOPERATIVE$5,832 8 donors
  5. GENENTECH$4,000 12 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Evans voted with the majority of House Republicans on 95.9% of party-line votes and missed none of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Evans voted against the majority of House Republicans 19 times.

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

19

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 95.9%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 185th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Evans
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
96.3%
6th of 221
Party unity
95.9%
97.1%
185th of 221
Show the data
Evans's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowEvansPeers
Attendance100%96.3%
Party unity95.9%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Evans most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR521 shared votes99%
  2. Jack BergmanR658 shared votes98%
  3. J. HillR666 shared votes98%
  4. Ashley HinsonR663 shared votes98%
  5. Mike KellyR663 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Evans least often

  1. Rashida TlaibD658 shared votes26%
  2. Adelita GrijalvaD388 shared votes27%
  3. Delia RamirezD641 shared votes27%
  4. Gregorio CasarD575 shared votes28%
  5. Frederica WilsonD481 shared votes28%
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

Evans sponsored 29 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 266 others. 31% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 31st of 216).

The bills Evans 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

Sponsored29 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2929Sponsored, In committee: 2929Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 99Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored266 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 266266Cosponsored, In committee: 266266Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4747Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Evans sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2929900
Cosponsored2662664722
How to read the blocks

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

31%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 31st of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Jeff Hurd26
  2. Jeff Crank22
  3. August Pfluger II20
  4. Lauren Boebert19
  5. Brian Fitzpatrick16
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 Evans’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. 10773RELA Act of 2026CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10735To amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to require certain types of cattle to be included in a livestock pilot program, and for other purposes.SponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Oct 5, 2026
H.Res. 1598Expressing support for American animal agriculture and recognizing its integral role in strengthening food security, lowering food costs, and reinforcing economic growth in the United States.SponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10618STOP Medicaid Fraud Act of 2026SponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 28, 2026
H.Res. 1585Expressing support for "National Public Lands Day" and encouraging the people of the United States to visit public lands on this fee-free day and recognize their spiritual and cultural value, as well as their contribution to the economy of the United States.CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 53 times in 90 days. Evans’s official site had 25 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Evans posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Evans’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 Evans 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.

Images Evans posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of people pose together in an office or meeting room. Several wear branded company shirts, and framed posters are visible on the wall behind them.
    A group of people pose together in an office or meeting room. Several wear branded company shirts, and framed posters are visible on the wall behind them.View post
  • A news article graphic from a ranch radio station, with a headline about proposed legislation expanding livestock risk insurance for cattle producers, a photograph of black-and-white cattle, and several paragraphs of article text.
    A news article graphic from a ranch radio station, with a headline about proposed legislation expanding livestock risk insurance for cattle producers, a photograph of black-and-white cattle, and several paragraphs of article text.View post
  • A three-panel promotional graphic shows a crowded indoor event, a group of five people posing together with one person holding an award, and an organization logo with event branding. Text appears throughout.
    A three-panel promotional graphic shows a crowded indoor event, a group of five people posing together with one person holding an award, and an organization logo with event branding. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A collage of photos from a community event: people serve food, speakers address an audience, and an attendee records with a phone. A man speaks into a microphone onstage in the largest photo. Signs and banners with text are visible.
    A collage of photos from a community event: people serve food, speakers address an audience, and an attendee records with a phone. A man speaks into a microphone onstage in the largest photo. Signs and banners with text are visible.View post
  • Four adults pose together indoors for a group photo. Three wear matching pink shirts with name tags, and one wears a dark suit. A row of framed pictures hangs on the wall behind them. There is text on the shirts and name tags.
    Four adults pose together indoors for a group photo. Three wear matching pink shirts with name tags, and one wears a dark suit. A row of framed pictures hangs on the wall behind them. There is text on the shirts and name tags.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 Evans is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
E000300
Bioguide
E000300
FEC candidate ids
H4CO08034

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