Agreement 0.76 on a 0–1 scale; the average for House Democrats is 0.67. Ranks 2nd of 216, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Green’s statements matches the mix in the bills Green sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among House Democrats.
6 measures against House Democrats. 4.0% of Green’s statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 9.8%). 14% of Green’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 28%).
The measures on which Green 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.
Talk-to-bills agreement
House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 2nd of 216
Party unity
House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 10th of 217 · 13 votes against the majority of House Democrats
Bipartisanship
House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 191st of 216
Policy criticism
House Democrats average 28% · ranks 189th of 216
From Texas, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 26th of 214 House Democrats
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Green, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Green is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Green stresses bipartisanship less than 87% of House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 4.0% of 1,415 statements, against 9.8% for the average House Democrat; 191st of 216.
An AI model reads each of Green’s 1,415 statements in the 119th Congress (726 posts on X, 304 press releases, 282 newsletters, 103 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Green | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 69% | 73% |
| Credit claiming | 15% | 23% |
| Policy criticism | 14% | 28% |
| Personal attacks | 8% | 7% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 10% |
statements classified
726 posts on X, 304 press releases, 282 newsletters, 103 Congressional Record speeches.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 726 |
| press releases | 304 |
| newsletters | 282 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 103 |
The thick bar is Green; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Green does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Green used extreme labels in 1.9% of statements, close to the peer average. 27 statements, most often aimed at President; peers 1.9%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 55 | 1.8% | 21.8% | 56.4% | 9.1% | 20.0% | 3.6% |
| Feb ’25 | 77 | 5.2% | 23.4% | 61.0% | 5.2% | 10.4% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 74 | 4.0% | 25.7% | 55.4% | 6.8% | 17.6% | 2.7% |
| Apr ’25 | 64 | 4.7% | 21.9% | 62.5% | 4.7% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 77 | 14.3% | 16.9% | 66.2% | 2.6% | 19.5% | 5.2% |
| Jun ’25 | 82 | 13.4% | 14.6% | 69.5% | 2.4% | 21.9% | 6.1% |
| Jul ’25 | 50 | 4.0% | 22.0% | 88.0% | 0.0% | 6.0% | 4.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 34 | 11.8% | 8.8% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 2.9% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 54 | 5.6% | 18.5% | 74.1% | 1.8% | 16.7% | 9.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 46 | 4.3% | 17.4% | 58.7% | 4.3% | 10.9% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 29 | 6.9% | 27.6% | 69.0% | 6.9% | 3.5% | 3.5% |
| Dec ’25 | 71 | 15.5% | 7.0% | 67.6% | 4.2% | 22.5% | 1.4% |
| Jan ’26 | 81 | 2.5% | 8.6% | 79.0% | 3.7% | 7.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 67 | 9.0% | 19.4% | 67.2% | 3.0% | 25.4% | 3.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 53 | 9.4% | 22.6% | 69.8% | 11.3% | 15.1% | 1.9% |
| Apr ’26 | 68 | 5.9% | 13.2% | 60.3% | 1.5% | 16.2% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 72 | 6.9% | 11.1% | 69.4% | 2.8% | 25.0% | 1.4% |
| Jun ’26 | 90 | 8.9% | 11.1% | 80.0% | 12.2% | 18.9% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 88 | 5.7% | 9.1% | 72.7% | 3.4% | 10.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 69 | 10.1% | 2.9% | 79.7% | 0.0% | 21.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 75 | 9.3% | 2.7% | 77.3% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 1.3% |
| Oct ’26 | 39 | 5.1% | 2.6% | 79.5% | 0.0% | 5.1% | 0.0% |
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
Reps. Tlaib and Green lead letter demanding release of DACA recipient in ICE custody Ya’akub Ira Vijandre has now been in ICE custody for a year for ‘liking’ a social media post WASHINGTON – U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib (MI-12) and Al Green (TX-09) joined by 21 Members of Congress demanded the release o…
Oct 8, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; Immigration; Law; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; International Affairs · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 10, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Emergency Management · Source
Extreme label
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: H Res. 1486. Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. Resolve…
Sep 14, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; Immigration; Law; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at Radical Left; target: Donald Trump · 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
ICYMI: The Newsmax article below, titled “Trump on Pardon Power: I Don't Want My People to Go Through This." I have been warning, including by way of my last articles of impeachment filed on August 24, 2026, and in a statement at the Homeland Security Committee shadow hearing on October 15, 2026, in Austin, that President Trump is participating in a cover-up and will shield ICE officers from accountability for unjust…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Law · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: TrumpSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise unbought, unbossed, a liberated, unelected Democrat. I rise notwithstanding the fact that I have been censured but not silenced. I rise because as a person who has been censured and not silenced, I understand the value and the worth in having the opportunity to speak. I continue to speak because I made a commitment to my constituents that I would work hard as long as I am in the Congress…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Health · Housing and Community Development · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · Law · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
Press releases
Congressman Al Green Will Host Press Conference to Announce Impeachment Vote to Hold President Trump Accountable for High Crimes and Misdemeanors (Washington, D.C.) — On Monday, September 14, 2026, Congressman Al Green will be joined by John Bonifaz, Co-Founder and President of Free Speech For People;Jessica Denson, Founder of the Removal Coalition; Bruce Fein, former Associate Deputy Attorney General under President…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Law · 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: 726 posts on X, 304 press releases, 282 newsletters, 103 Congressional Record speeches.
Government Operations and Politics is what Green talks about most: 34% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.76 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 2nd 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 Green talks about. The bills Green sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Green | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 34% | 20% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 27% | 13% |
| Immigration | 14% | 11% |
| Finance and Financial Sector | 12% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 12% | 16% |
The thick bar is the share of Green’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 38%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 34% | 20% | 22% | 11% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 27% | 13% | 15% | 5% |
| Immigration | 14% | 11% | 4% | 4% |
| Finance and Financial Sector | 12% | 2% | 7% | 3% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 12% | 16% | 4% | 7% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 2nd of 216.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Green legislates on exactly the areas Green 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 Green sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Green sits at −0.92 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 58% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.94 to −0.90, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,317 donors and 7,384 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 −0.94 to −0.90. From 1,317 donors and 7,384 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Green, 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 Green’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 Green |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 58% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 29% |
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 Green 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 Green.
Green raised $1.7M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 26% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 84% 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.
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 573 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) | $918.0K | 53.1% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $316.6K | 18.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $84.0K | 4.9% |
| The candidate’s own money and loans | $400.0K | 23.1% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $11.8K | 0.7% |
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $476.6K |
| 2022 cycle | $412.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $392.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $1.7M |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 84% came from Texas.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
| Row | Green | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 26% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 5% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 2% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 11% | 13% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Texas | $879.3K |
| California | $41.1K |
| Louisiana | $12.3K |
| Massachusetts | $12.0K |
| Illinois | $9,800 |
| Indiana | $9,650 |
| Oklahoma | $9,250 |
| New York | $9,230 |
| Washington | $9,125 |
| Tennessee | $8,000 |
| Florida | $7,375 |
| Maryland | $7,050 |
| District of Columbia | $6,500 |
| New Jersey | $5,750 |
| Kentucky | $5,000 |
| Georgia | $1,700 |
| Virginia | $1,557 |
| Colorado | $1,500 |
| New Mexico | $1,100 |
| Wisconsin | $1,050 |
| Arkansas | $1,000 |
| Arizona | $865 |
| Minnesota | $800 |
| Oregon | $750 |
| Nevada | $560 |
| Michigan | $545 |
| Wyoming | $500 |
| Ohio | $500 |
| Connecticut | $500 |
| Missouri | $500 |
| South Carolina | $500 |
| Montana | $325 |
| Pennsylvania | $265 |
| Rhode Island | $250 |
| Hawaii | $250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Texas
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 Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.75 to −1.50 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.2% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 13% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 78% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 6.1% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 1.6% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 0.0% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.2% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 0.4% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Green’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Green’s own score is −0.92.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Green voted with the majority of House Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 0.7% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Green voted against the majority of House Democrats 13 times.
674 roll calls Green 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 Green 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 100%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 10th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Green, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Green | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.2% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 100% | 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 | Nay | Against 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 Green most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Green 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
Green sponsored 53 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 334 others. 1.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 129th of 207).
The bills Green 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 | 53 | 53 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 334 | 334 | 5 | 1 | 1 |
Ink blocks are bills Green sponsored, ochre blocks bills Green 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 129th of 207.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Green, 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 Green’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10907 | To prohibit interference in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10820 | Epstein Wall Street Records Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Finance and Financial Sector | Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Oct 15, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1627 | Reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives to preserve and expand pathways to citizenship. | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Immigration | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026 |
| H.R. 10401 | No ICE Deaths in the Dark Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 15, 2026 | In committee | Immigration | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 15, 2026 |
| H.R. 10252 | Launching with Healthcare Act | Cosponsor | Sep 3, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 3, 2026 |
A site that changed 126 times in 90 days. Green’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Green posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Green’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 Green 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 Green 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
