7.0% of 313 statements claim credit (22 statements); the average for House Democrats is 23%. Ranks 214th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Fields’s Congressional Record speeches, posts on X, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it claims credit for an accomplishment. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against House Democrats. 8.3% of Fields’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats (average 28%). 55% of Fields’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats (average 73%).
The measures on which Fields 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.
Credit claiming
House Democrats average 23% · ranks 214th of 216
Policy criticism
House Democrats average 28% · ranks 213th of 216
Policy discussion
House Democrats average 73% · ranks 213th of 216
Extreme labels
House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 215th of 216
Personal attacks
House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 206th of 216
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Fields, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Fields is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Fields attacks opponents personally less than 94% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0.6% of 313 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 206th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Fields’s 313 statements in the 119th Congress (148 posts on X, 137 Congressional Record speeches, 24 press releases, 4 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Fields | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 55% | 73% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 28% |
| Credit claiming | 7% | 23% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 7% |
statements classified
148 posts on X, 137 Congressional Record speeches, 24 press releases, 4 newsletters.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 148 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 137 |
| press releases | 24 |
| newsletters | 4 |
The thick bar is Fields; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Fields does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Fields used no extreme labels in 313 statements. The peer average is 1.9%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 5.3% | 52.6% | 5.3% | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 60.0% | 6.7% | 13.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 31.6% | 68.4% | 5.3% | 21.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 60.0% | 5.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 58.3% | 8.3% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’25 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’25 | 8 | — (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 | 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) |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’26 | 13 | 7.7% | 30.8% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’26 | 18 | 5.6% | 5.6% | 66.7% | 5.6% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 8 | — (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 | 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) |
| Jul ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 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) |
| Sep ’26 | 68 | 0.0% | 1.5% | 36.8% | 1.5% | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 51 | 0.0% | 2.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 2.0% | 0.0% |
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 12 months are hatched here.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
CONGRESSMAN FIELDS ANNOUNCES $1.8 MILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDING FOR NORTHWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY EQUIPMENT EXPANSION NATCHITOCHES, LA — Congressman Cleo Fields (LA-06) today announced that Northwestern State University has been awarded $1.8 million in federal funding through the U.S. Department of Com…
Sep 1, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Education; Science, Technology, Communications; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Policy criticism
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Honorable Foster L Campbell, Jr. on the occasion of 50 years of continuous elective service to the people of Louisiana, first as a state senator and currently as Public Service Commissioner. Born on January 6, 1947, in Shreveport and raised in Bossier Parish, F…
Oct 22, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Commerce; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Energy; Finance and Financial Sector; Environmental Protection; Families; Government Operations and Politics; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Personal attacks
CONGRESSMAN FIELDS’ STATEMENT ON THE FIRING OF ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Cleo Fields released the following statement in response to the firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi: “Today's news that President Trump has fired Attorney General Pam Bondi is deeply trou…
Apr 2, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Law; Government Operations and Politics; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: Pam Bondi · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Press releases
CONGRESSMAN FIELDS’ STATEMENT ON THE FIRING OF ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Cleo Fields released the following statement in response to the firing of Attorney General Pam Bondi: “Today's news that President Trump has fired Attorney General Pam Bondi is deeply troubling — not because of who is leaving, but because of why. I have been deeply critical of Attorney General Bondi's handl…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Law · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Pam BondiSource
Press releases
Congressman Cleo Fields Condemns President Trump's Racist AI Video Targeting Former President First Lady, Barack and Michelle Obama Baton Rouge, LA – Congressman Cleo Fields released the following statement in response to the racist, AI-generated video posted by President Donald Trump, targeting former President and First Lady, Barack and Michelle Obama: “The racist video that targeted the former President and First…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource
Newest first, the 119th Congress
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 148 posts on X, 137 Congressional Record speeches, 24 press releases, 4 newsletters.
Education is what Fields talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 3.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 153rd 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 Fields talks about. The bills Fields sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Fields | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 33% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 31% | 20% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 21% | 13% |
| Health | 19% | 26% |
| Families | 14% | 4% |
The thick bar is the share of Fields’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 36%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 33% | 10% | 9% | 5% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 31% | 20% | 12% | 11% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 21% | 13% | 5% | 5% |
| Health | 19% | 26% | 14% | 16% |
| Families | 14% | 4% | 0% | 1% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 153rd of 216.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Fields legislates on exactly the areas Fields 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 Fields sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Fields sits at −0.58 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 91% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.61 to −0.55, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,043 donors and 1,274 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.61 to −0.55. From 1,043 donors and 1,274 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Fields, 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 Fields’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Fields |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 91% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 45% |
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 Fields 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 Fields.
Fields raised $854.7K in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 44% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 84% of itemized individual money came from Louisiana.
Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 189 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $367.9K | 43.0% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $293.3K | 34.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $181.0K | 21.2% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $12.6K | 1.5% |
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Total receipts, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $1.2M |
| 2026 cycle | $854.7K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 84% came from Louisiana.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
| Row | Fields | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 44% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 1% | 13% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Louisiana | $287.4K |
| California | $9,799 |
| Texas | $6,105 |
| New York | $5,250 |
| Illinois | $5,200 |
| Indiana | $5,000 |
| Tennessee | $3,600 |
| Massachusetts | $3,275 |
| Virginia | $3,100 |
| Florida | $2,915 |
| Maryland | $1,500 |
| Washington | $1,350 |
| New Mexico | $640 |
| Vermont | $500 |
| New Jersey | $500 |
| District of Columbia | $500 |
| Pennsylvania | $350 |
| Colorado | $350 |
| Kentucky | $269 |
| New Hampshire | $250 |
| Arizona | $250 |
| North Carolina | $250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Louisiana
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Louisiana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 4.7% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 9.6% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 52% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 9.9% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 7.7% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 6.0% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 4.3% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 4.7% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 1.2% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Fields’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Fields’s own score is −0.58.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Fields voted with the majority of House Democrats on 98.0% of party-line votes and missed 3.0% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Fields voted against the majority of House Democrats 11 times.
674 roll calls Fields 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 Fields voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 98.0%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 120th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Fields, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Fields | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.0% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 98.0% | 96.4% |
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.J.Res. 213 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision” On Passage | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Fields most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Fields least often
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Fields sponsored 9 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 380 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).
The bills Fields sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Counts for the 119th Congress
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 380 | 380 | 16 | 2 | 2 |
Ink blocks are bills Fields sponsored, ochre blocks bills Fields cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Fields, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Fields’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10486 | Relief Without Delay Act | Cosponsor | Sep 17, 2026 | In committee | Emergency Management | Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Science, Space, and Technology, and Financial Services, 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. Sep 17, 2026 |
| H.R. 10455 | Debt-Free College Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Education | Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 16, 2026 |
| H.R. 10476 | Glaucoma Vision Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Oversight and Government Reform, 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. Sep 16, 2026 |
| H.R. 10253 | To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1706 South Burnside Avenue in Gonzales, Louisiana, as the "Cpl. Lawrence Brown 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 |
| H.R. 9958 | Head Start Expansion and Improvement Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Jul 27, 2026 | In committee | Education | Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Jul 27, 2026 |
A site that changed 53 times in 90 days. Fields’s official site had 23 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Fields posted on Sep 24, 2026.
The lab crawls Fields’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 Fields posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline is the measure on which Fields is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
