Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Mississippi’s 3rd district

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

Bioguide G000591FEC H8MS03125

Portrait of Michael Guest, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
6.1%
of statements criticize a policy, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans

6.1% of 1,039 statements criticize a policy (63 statements); the average for House Republicans is 15%. Ranks 206th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Guest’s press releases, Congressional Record speeches, posts on X and newsletters and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. 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. 43% of the 14 bills Guest sponsored got out of committee, in the top tenth of House Republicans. 56% of Guest’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 68%).

The measures on which Guest 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 criticism

6.1%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 206th of 221

Out of committee

43%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 14th of 216

Policy discussion

56%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 197th of 221

Small donations, 2026

1.2%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 184th of 220

Bipartisanship

4.1%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 176th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.08

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Guest says

Guest attacks opponents personally less than 75% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 1,039 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 168th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Guest’s 1,039 statements in the 119th Congress (852 posts on X, 90 Congressional Record speeches, 82 newsletters, 15 press releases) 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%
Guest
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion578 statements
56%
68%
197th of 221
Credit claiming339 statements
33%
37%
146th of 221
Policy criticism63 statements
6%
15%
206th of 221
Bipartisanship43 statements
4%
9%
176th of 221
Personal attacks4 statements
0%
2%
168th of 221
Show the data
Guest's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowGuestPeers
Policy discussion56%68%
Credit claiming33%37%
Policy criticism6%15%
Bipartisanship4%9%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,039

statements classified

852 posts on X, 90 Congressional Record speeches, 82 newsletters, 15 press releases.

posts on X: 852 (82.0%)posts on X 852Congressional Record speeches: 90 (8.7%)newsletters: 82 (7.9%)press releases: 15 (1.4%)
Show the data
Guest's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X852
Congressional Record speeches90
newsletters82
press releases15
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Guest used extreme labels in 1.7% of statements, below the peer average. 18 statements, most often aimed at far-left; peers 3.0%.

  1. “far left”6
  2. “woke”5
  3. “radical”3
  4. “communist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. far-left1
  2. gender ideology1
  3. left1
  4. local prosecutors1
  5. programs1
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: 822025-02: 442025-03: 382025-04: 302025-05: 262025-06: 282025-07: 252025-08: 82025-09: 232025-10: 212025-11: 722025-12: 302026-01: 352026-02: 702026-03: 622026-04: 582026-05: 622026-06: 742026-07: 832026-08: 462026-09: 742026-10: 48peak 83 · Jul ’26Personal attackspeak 4.0% · Sep ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.3% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 46Personal attacks, 2026-09: 4.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 48Policy criticismpeak 23.8% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 8.5% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-02: 13.6% of 44Policy criticism, 2025-03: 5.3% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-04: 16.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-05: 15.4% of 26Policy criticism, 2025-06: 7.1% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-07: 4.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-09: 8.7% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-10: 23.8% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-11: 6.9% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-12: 3.3% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-01: 5.7% of 35Policy criticism, 2026-02: 7.1% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-03: 14.5% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-04: 3.5% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-05: 1.6% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-06: 4.0% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-07: 1.2% of 83Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 46Policy criticism, 2026-09: 0.0% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 48Policy discussionpeak 72.0% · Jul ’25 · latest 70.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 53.7% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-02: 56.8% of 44Policy discussion, 2025-03: 52.6% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-04: 50.0% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-05: 65.4% of 26Policy discussion, 2025-06: 60.7% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-07: 72.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-09: 43.5% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-10: 61.9% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-11: 38.9% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-12: 50.0% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-01: 68.6% of 35Policy discussion, 2026-02: 52.9% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-03: 56.5% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-04: 63.8% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-05: 51.6% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-06: 48.6% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-07: 53.0% of 83Policy discussion, 2026-08: 67.4% of 46Policy discussion, 2026-09: 52.7% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-10: 70.8% of 48Bipartisanshippeak 16.1% · May ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 0.0% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 2.3% of 44Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 5.3% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 0.0% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 0.0% of 26Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 0.0% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 0.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 9.5% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 12.5% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 3.3% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 0.0% of 35Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 4.3% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 8.1% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 1.7% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 16.1% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 4.0% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 4.8% of 83Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 2.2% of 46Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 1.4% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 48Credit claimingpeak 52.6% · Mar ’25 · latest 12.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 51.2% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-02: 52.3% of 44Credit claiming, 2025-03: 52.6% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-04: 30.0% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-05: 50.0% of 26Credit claiming, 2025-06: 46.4% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-07: 52.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-09: 34.8% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-10: 38.1% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-11: 27.8% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-12: 23.3% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-01: 34.3% of 35Credit claiming, 2026-02: 37.1% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-03: 25.8% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-04: 17.2% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-05: 30.6% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-06: 40.5% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-07: 24.1% of 83Credit claiming, 2026-08: 23.9% of 46Credit claiming, 2026-09: 12.2% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-10: 12.5% of 48Extreme labelspeak 15.8% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 6.1% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.3% of 44Extreme labels, 2025-03: 15.8% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-07: 4.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-12: 3.3% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.6% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.6% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.4% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2026-08: 2.2% of 46Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 48Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Guest, 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 ’25820.0%8.5%53.7%0.0%51.2%6.1%
Feb ’25440.0%13.6%56.8%2.3%52.3%2.3%
Mar ’25380.0%5.3%52.6%5.3%52.6%15.8%
Apr ’25303.3%16.7%50.0%0.0%30.0%0.0%
May ’25260.0%15.4%65.4%0.0%50.0%0.0%
Jun ’25280.0%7.1%60.7%0.0%46.4%0.0%
Jul ’25250.0%4.0%72.0%0.0%52.0%4.0%
Aug ’258— (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 ’25230.0%8.7%43.5%0.0%34.8%0.0%
Oct ’25210.0%23.8%61.9%9.5%38.1%0.0%
Nov ’25720.0%6.9%38.9%12.5%27.8%0.0%
Dec ’25300.0%3.3%50.0%3.3%23.3%3.3%
Jan ’26350.0%5.7%68.6%0.0%34.3%0.0%
Feb ’26700.0%7.1%52.9%4.3%37.1%0.0%
Mar ’26620.0%14.5%56.5%8.1%25.8%1.6%
Apr ’26580.0%3.5%63.8%1.7%17.2%0.0%
May ’26620.0%1.6%51.6%16.1%30.6%1.6%
Jun ’26740.0%4.0%48.6%4.0%40.5%1.4%
Jul ’26830.0%1.2%53.0%4.8%24.1%0.0%
Aug ’26460.0%0.0%67.4%2.2%23.9%2.2%
Sep ’26744.0%0.0%52.7%1.4%12.2%0.0%
Oct ’26480.0%0.0%70.8%0.0%12.5%0.0%
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%. One month is hatched here.

In Guest’s words

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

Policy criticism

Trump Accounts | Dear Friend, Thank you for reading this weekly eNewsletter. If you know someone who might enjoy reading this update, please be sure to forward it to them. I am thankful to serve Mississippi. As always, you can reach me via my Contact page or by calling 202-225-5031. Be sure to foll…

Jul 8, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Taxation; Education; Law; Armed Forces and National Security; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement

Personal attacks

Mr. Speaker, the allegations in this matter do not implicate a quid pro quo sexual harassment but, rather, that Edwards' conduct and behavior create a hostile work environment. Under Federal law, a hostile work environment must be objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person…

Sep 1, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Labor and Employment; Government Operations and Politics; target: Edwards · Source

Extreme label

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

Aug 28, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “woke” aimed at programs · 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. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, the allegations in this matter do not implicate a quid pro quo sexual harassment but, rather, that Edwards' conduct and behavior create a hostile work environment. Under Federal law, a hostile work environment must be objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive and one that the victim, in fact, did perceive to be so. Determining whether an employee w…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Labor and Employment · Government Operations and Politics · target: EdwardsSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Committee on Ethics conducted a monthslong investigation into the activity of Mr. Edwards, and the committee released a report on August 3 and made the following findings. First, the committee found no--and I do repeat the word ``no''-- evidence that Mr. Edwards engaged in sexual activity or that he explicitly propositioned any individuals under his employme…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · target: EdwardsSource

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Committee on Ethics, I rise in support of the resolutions which call for Michael Joseph and Hector Roos to be held in contempt of Congress for their failure to comply with documentary and testimonial subpoenas issued on September 11, 2025, and August 12, 2026, respectively. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that e…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Law · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Hector Roos, Michael JosephSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Joe BidenSource

All 1,039 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: 852 posts on X, 90 Congressional Record speeches, 82 newsletters, 15 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Immigration is what Guest talks about most: 28% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 134th 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 Guest talks about. The bills Guest sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Guest talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Guest
Peers
Immigration164 statements
28%
13%
Armed Forces and National Security158 statements
27%
24%
Crime and Law Enforcement129 statements
22%
12%
Economics and Public Finance110 statements
19%
19%
Government Operations and Politics96 statements
17%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Guest talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowGuestPeers
Immigration28%13%
Armed Forces and National Security27%24%
Crime and Law Enforcement22%12%
Economics and Public Finance19%19%
Government Operations and Politics17%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Guest’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 onImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 28% (House Republicans 13%)28%Immigration, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 5%)5%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 27% (House Republicans 24%)27%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 13% (House Republicans 8%)13%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 22% (House Republicans 12%)22%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 9%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 19%)19%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 19%)17%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 15% (House Republicans 12%)15%
Show the data
Guest's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Immigration28%13%5%5%
Armed Forces and National Security27%24%13%8%
Crime and Law Enforcement22%12%12%9%
Economics and Public Finance19%19%1%2%
Government Operations and Politics17%19%15%12%
0.63

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 134th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Guest sits at +1.08 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 61% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.06 to +1.09, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,229 donors and 3,711 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”.

+1.08

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.06 to +1.09. From 1,229 donors and 3,711 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Guest +1.1House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Guest, 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 Guest’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 Guest sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Guest +1.1All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Guest's CSIP score of +1.08 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Guest
House Republicans221+1.061%
All House439+0.380%
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 Guest 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 Guest.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Guest raised $1.1M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 1.2% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 63% of itemized individual money came from Mississippi.

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
$1.1M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 314 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): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $598.5K (55.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $7,434 (0.7%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)PACs and other committees: $482.3K (44.3%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)55 squares$598.5K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$7,434
  • PACs and other committees44 squares$482.3K
Show the data
Sources of Guest's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$598.5K55.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$7,4340.7%
PACs and other committees$482.3K44.3%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $802.9K$802.9K20202022 cycle: $1.4M$1.4M20222024 cycle: $926.0K$926.0K20242026 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Guest's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$802.9K
2022 cycle$1.4M
2024 cycle$926.0K
2026 cycle$1.1M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 63% came from Mississippi.

  1. Mississippi$285.9K
  2. Virginia$45.6K
  3. District of Columbia$35.0K
  4. California$31.0K
  5. Illinois$15.0K

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%
Guest
Median
2026
1%
9%
2024
2%
9%
2022
7%
9%
2020
7%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowGuestMedian
2026 cycle1%9%
2024 cycle2%9%
2022 cycle7%9%
2020 cycle7%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $500MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $1,000NHWashington: $1,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $15.0KILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $1,020MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $500INOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: $750PANew Jersey: $500NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $31.0KCAUtah: $3,000UTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $1,000KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $45.6KVAMaryland: $6,000MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $7,500AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: $1,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $35.0KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $7,000LAMississippi: $285.9KMSAlabama: $2,393ALGeorgia: $5,041GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $5,000TXFlorida: $1,000FL
Show the data
Guest's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Mississippi$285.9K
Virginia$45.6K
District of Columbia$35.0K
California$31.0K
Illinois$15.0K
Arizona$7,500
Louisiana$7,000
Maryland$6,000
Georgia$5,041
Texas$5,000
Utah$3,000
Alabama$2,393
Massachusetts$1,020
New Hampshire$1,000
Washington$1,000
Kentucky$1,000
South Carolina$1,000
Florida$1,000
Pennsylvania$750
Maine$500
Indiana$500
New Jersey$500
AlaskaNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
OhioNo data
ConnecticutNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
HawaiiNo data
314

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

63%

from Mississippi

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.1%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 3.4%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.6%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 5.4%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 3.0%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 37%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 48%48%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Guest's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 5.4% between +0.25 and +0.50, 37% between +0.75 and +1.00, 48% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.1%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.503.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.6%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.505.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.753.0%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0037%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2548%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Guest’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Guest’s own score is +1.08.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. OWNER$62.3K 30 donors
  2. CEO$50.3K 18 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$35.5K 23 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$35.0K 15 donors
  5. RETIRED$18.3K 22 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AIRBUS AMERICAS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  4. ANTI-WOKE FUND$10.0K
  5. CONSERVATIVES HARVESTING SUCCESS PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ERGON$28.0K 4 donors
  2. SEEMANN COMPOSITES$21.0K 5 donors
  3. ANDURIL INDUSTRIES, INC.$17.5K 3 donors
  4. BGR GROUP$5,000 4 donors
  5. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$5,000 7 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Guest voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.4% of party-line votes and missed 1.3% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Guest voted against the majority of House Republicans 14 times.

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

14

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.4%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 96th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Guest
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.6%
96.3%
75th of 221
Party unity
98.4%
97.1%
96th of 221
Show the data
Guest's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowGuestPeers
Attendance98.6%96.3%
Party unity98.4%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 Guest most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR511 shared votes100%
  2. Matt Van EppsR354 shared votes99%
  3. Robert LattaR663 shared votes98%
  4. Burgess OwensR648 shared votes98%
  5. Cliff BentzR662 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Guest least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD378 shared votes24%
  2. Rashida TlaibD647 shared votes24%
  3. Delia RamirezD630 shared votes25%
  4. Gregorio CasarD565 shared votes25%
  5. Frederica WilsonD479 shared votes25%
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

Guest sponsored 14 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 286 others. 43% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 14th of 216).

The bills Guest 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

Sponsored14 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1414Sponsored, In committee: 1414Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 66Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored286 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 286286Cosponsored, In committee: 286286Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3838Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Guest sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1414600
Cosponsored2862863843
How to read the blocks

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

43%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 14th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Mary Miller20
  2. Andy Harris19
  3. August Pfluger II19
  4. John McGuire18
  5. Barry Moore18
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 Guest’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.Res. 1628Supporting the designation of the week beginning on October 10, 2026, as "National Wildlife Refuge Week".CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10739Strengthening the Medical Examiner and Coroner System Act of 2026SponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10478Aid and Attendance Assistance for Veterans ActCosponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 17, 2026
H.Res. 1552Supporting the designation of the week of September 20 through September 26, 2026, as "Gold Star Families Remembrance Week".CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 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.Res. 1512Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the admission of women to the United States service academies and honoring the pioneering women of the Class of 1980.CosponsorSep 4, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Sep 4, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 66 times in 90 days. Guest’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Guest posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    guest.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    36

    pages crawled

    66

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    michaelguest.ms

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    16

    pages crawled

    12

    changes in 90 days

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 Guest posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Five men pose for a photo inside a modern concrete entry facility, beneath two large bronze seals and a wall sign. There is text on the wall.
    Five men pose for a photo inside a modern concrete entry facility, beneath two large bronze seals and a wall sign. There is text on the wall.View post
  • A political voter-information flyer from Congressman Michael Guest’s office, with a silhouette of Mississippi and rows of ballot-box illustrations decorating the top and bottom. It explains voting options and deadlines, Election Day hours, accepted voter identification, and where to find more information. Text is prominent throughout.
    A political voter-information flyer from Congressman Michael Guest’s office, with a silhouette of Mississippi and rows of ballot-box illustrations decorating the top and bottom. It explains voting options and deadlines, Election Day hours, accepted voter identification, and where to find more information. Text is prominent throughout.View post
  • A blue political graphic featuring a framed portrait of John Hancock, an image of his signature, a Mississippi-shaped silhouette, and a congressional campaign logo. Several text elements appear.
    A blue political graphic featuring a framed portrait of John Hancock, an image of his signature, a Mississippi-shaped silhouette, and a congressional campaign logo. Several text elements appear.View post
  • A political infographic from Congressman Michael Guest’s office provides a guide to voting in Mississippi in 2026. It lists instructions for absentee voting by mail and in person, election-day voting hours, accepted forms of ID, and a website for more information. The design has a white background, blue text, a Mississippi silhouette, and ballot-box illustrations along the top and bottom. Text is present throughout.
    A political infographic from Congressman Michael Guest’s office provides a guide to voting in Mississippi in 2026. It lists instructions for absentee voting by mail and in person, election-day voting hours, accepted forms of ID, and a website for more information. The design has a white background, blue text, a Mississippi silhouette, and ballot-box illustrations along the top and bottom. Text is present throughout.View post
  • Two adults pose together in an office or airport service area, with a flight information screen on the wall behind them and paperwork spread across a desk. Text appears on the screen and documents.
    Two adults pose together in an office or airport service area, with a flight information screen on the wall behind them and paperwork spread across a desk. Text appears on the screen and documents.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 Guest 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
G000591
Bioguide
G000591
FEC candidate ids
H8MS03125

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