63% of 566 statements claim credit (358 statements); the average for House Republicans is 37%. Ranks 4th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of James’s posts on X, press releases, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches 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 Republicans and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against House Republicans. 64% of James’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top 5% of House Republicans (median 9.4%). James missed 9.9% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 96.3%).
The measures on which James 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.
Credit claiming
House Republicans average 37% · ranks 4th of 221
Small donations, 2026
House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 3rd of 220
Attendance
House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 205th of 221 · 674 roll calls
Raised, 2026
House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 206th of 220
Policy discussion
House Republicans average 68% · ranks 19th of 221
CSIP ideology
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 James, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which James is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
James attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 1.1% of 566 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 118th of 221.
An AI model reads each of James’s 566 statements in the 119th Congress (424 posts on X, 74 newsletters, 56 press releases, 12 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | James | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 80% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 63% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 21% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 8% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
statements classified
424 posts on X, 74 newsletters, 56 press releases, 12 Congressional Record speeches.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 424 |
| newsletters | 74 |
| press releases | 56 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 12 |
The thick bar is James; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means James does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
James used extreme labels in 5.1% of statements, above the peer average. 29 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.
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 | 36 | 0.0% | 33.3% | 69.4% | 2.8% | 69.4% | 5.6% |
| Feb ’25 | 25 | 4.0% | 24.0% | 100.0% | 12.0% | 76.0% | 16.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 72.7% | 31.8% | 63.6% | 4.5% |
| Apr ’25 | 16 | 6.3% | 18.8% | 81.3% | 25.0% | 81.3% | 25.0% |
| May ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 71.4% | 4.8% | 57.1% | 4.8% |
| Jun ’25 | 45 | 4.4% | 13.3% | 97.8% | 11.1% | 62.2% | 6.7% |
| Jul ’25 | 22 | 4.5% | 9.1% | 77.3% | 4.5% | 72.7% | 13.6% |
| Aug ’25 | 17 | 5.9% | 29.4% | 88.2% | 5.9% | 70.6% | 11.8% |
| Sep ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 66.7% | 14.3% | 57.1% | 4.8% |
| Oct ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 37.0% | 74.1% | 7.4% | 59.3% | 11.1% |
| Nov ’25 | 30 | 0.0% | 23.3% | 76.7% | 10.0% | 63.3% | 3.3% |
| Dec ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 31.4% | 82.9% | 5.7% | 71.4% | 2.9% |
| Jan ’26 | 43 | 0.0% | 16.3% | 86.1% | 7.0% | 55.8% | 2.3% |
| Feb ’26 | 68 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 67.7% | 4.4% | 58.8% | 1.5% |
| Mar ’26 | 38 | 0.0% | 36.8% | 84.2% | 5.3% | 63.2% | 2.6% |
| Apr ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 6.9% | 79.3% | 0.0% | 51.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 34 | 0.0% | 2.9% | 76.5% | 2.9% | 58.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 15.0% | 85.0% | 10.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 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) |
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%. 4 months are hatched here.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
Data centers vs. your electric bills [Rep. John James newsletter banner image] Families should not have to pay higher electric prices due to data centers. Last month, I voted in favor of legislation to help ensure that companies profiting off of data centers are the ones paying the cost of the el…
Oct 27, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy; Environmental Protection; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 26, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; target: Joe Biden · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 18, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Democrats · 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.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Joe BidenSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · International Affairs · extreme label “far left” aimed at Biden · target: BidenSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: DemocratSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · target: BidenSource
Newsletters
Service Before Self: Michigan isn't Afraid of the Future, but we Demand to be a Part of it 96 Service Before Self: Michigan isn't Afraid of the Future, but we Demand to be a Part of it Since my first day in office, I have been committed to protecting Michigan jobs and Michigan manufacturing. The Biden Administration attempted to institute a number of harmful rules, including electric vehicle mandates and unfeasible…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Transportation and Public Works · Environmental Protection · Commerce · Armed Forces and National Security · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Labor and Employment
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: 424 posts on X, 74 newsletters, 56 press releases, 12 Congressional Record speeches.
Armed Forces and National Security is what James talks about most: 29% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.62 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 164th 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 James talks about. The bills James sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | James | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 29% | 24% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 24% | 19% |
| Commerce | 21% | 9% |
| Health | 21% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 19% |
The thick bar is the share of James’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.
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.
| Area | Talks about | House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 29% | 24% | 15% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 24% | 19% | 0% | 2% |
| Commerce | 21% | 9% | 4% | 2% |
| Health | 21% | 15% | 15% | 11% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 19% | 8% | 12% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 164th of 221.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means James legislates on exactly the areas James 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 James sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
James sits at +0.79 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 79% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.77 to +0.81, which understates the uncertainty; from 6,698 donors and 1,812 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 +0.77 to +0.81. From 6,698 donors and 1,812 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is James, 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 James’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 James |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 21% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 60% |
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 James 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 James.
James raised $552.0K in the 2026 cycle, 26% of the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 64% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less.
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 32 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $12.7K | 2.3% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $22.1K | 4.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $224.5K | 40.7% |
| Party committees | $5,000 | 0.9% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $287.8K | 52.1% |
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $48.7M |
| 2022 cycle | $7.0M |
| 2024 cycle | $9.5M |
| 2026 cycle | $552.0K |
Itemized contributions by donor state.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.
| Row | James | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 64% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 53% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 50% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 49% | 9% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Utah | $12.4K |
| Wisconsin | $3,000 |
| Georgia | $359 |
| Oregon | $300 |
| Iowa | $252 |
| Kansas | $200 |
| North Carolina | $197 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
No itemized individual money.
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.8% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 93% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 6.3% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of James’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; James’s own score is +0.79.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
James voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.1% of party-line votes and missed 9.9% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, James voted against the majority of House Republicans 16 times.
674 roll calls James 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 James voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 97.1%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 155th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is James, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | James | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 90.0% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 97.1% | 97.1% |
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 | Did not vote | — | 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 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | 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 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 James most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as James 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
James sponsored 28 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 129 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 131st of 216).
The bills James 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 | 28 | 28 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 129 | 129 | 14 | 2 | 2 |
Ink blocks are bills James sponsored, ochre blocks bills James 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 Republicans average 17%. Ranks 131st of 216.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with James, 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 James’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10759 | Tariff Relief for American Development and Employment Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 6, 2026 | In committee | Foreign Trade and International Finance | Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, 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 6, 2026 |
| H.R. 10560 | Skilled JOBS Act | Sponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment | Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 24, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1511 | Recognizing the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, honoring the memory of the victims, recognizing the courage and sacrifice of the heroes who answered the call to serve, acknowledging the charitable organizations that continue to support survivors and victims' families | Cosponsor | Sep 3, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement | Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Armed Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Veterans' Affairs, Homeland Security, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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 3, 2026 |
| H.R. 9988 | FASTER Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Jul 30, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Jul 30, 2026 |
| H.R. 9895 | American Dream Accounts Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Jul 23, 2026 | In committee | Taxation | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Jul 23, 2026 |
A site that changed 26 times in 90 days. James’s official site had 22 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images James posted on Oct 5, 2026.
The lab crawls James’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 James 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 James 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
