Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 9, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Health · Source
92%
of itemized money from Massachusetts donors, in the top 5% of House Democrats
92% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Massachusetts. Ranks 4th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. 470 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Massachusetts, ranked among House Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against House Democrats. The policy areas Lynch talks about and legislates on agree at 0.73 on a 0–1 scale, in the top tenth of House Democrats. 13% of the 15 bills Lynch sponsored got out of committee, in the top tenth of House Democrats.
The measures on which Lynch 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.
From Massachusetts, 2026
92%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 4th of 214 House Democrats
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.73
House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 15th of 216
Out of committee
13%
House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 21st of 207
Attendance
94.9%
House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 186th of 217 · 674 roll calls
Extreme labels
0.4%
House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 186th of 216
CSIP ideology
−0.86
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 Lynch, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Lynch is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Lynch says
Lynch claims credit about as often as the median House Democrat. Credit claiming in 20% of 557 statements, against 23% for the average House Democrat; 126th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Lynch’s 557 statements in the 119th Congress (498 posts on X, 33 Congressional Record speeches, 25 press releases, 1 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Lynch
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion374 statements
67%
73%
176th of 216
Policy criticism160 statements
29%
28%
105th of 216
Credit claiming111 statements
20%
23%
126th of 216
Bipartisanship56 statements
10%
10%
80th of 216
Personal attacks37 statements
7%
7%
88th of 216
Show the data
| Row | Lynch | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 67% | 73% |
| Policy criticism | 29% | 28% |
| Credit claiming | 20% | 23% |
| Bipartisanship | 10% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 7% | 7% |
557
statements classified
498 posts on X, 33 Congressional Record speeches, 25 press releases, 1 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 498 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 33 |
| press releases | 25 |
| newsletters | 1 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Lynch; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Lynch does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Lynch used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 19% of the peer average. 2 statements; peers 1.9%.
- “extreme”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 11 | 9.1% | 27.3% | 81.8% | 36.4% | 45.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 39 | 7.7% | 48.7% | 82.0% | 12.8% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 45 | 2.2% | 37.8% | 62.2% | 6.7% | 15.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 32 | 12.5% | 40.6% | 71.9% | 6.3% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 31 | 9.7% | 32.3% | 67.7% | 3.2% | 19.4% | 3.2% |
| Jun ’25 | 49 | 10.2% | 24.5% | 57.1% | 20.4% | 18.4% | 2.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 25 | 4.0% | 36.0% | 76.0% | 0.0% | 16.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 23.1% | 69.2% | 7.7% | 38.5% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 40 | 5.0% | 22.5% | 55.0% | 10.0% | 22.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 15.4% | 50.0% | 3.9% | 26.9% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 33.3% | 61.1% | 11.1% | 27.8% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 16 | 12.5% | 12.5% | 62.5% | 25.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 19 | 5.3% | 10.5% | 63.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 33.3% | 61.1% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 25 | 12.0% | 28.0% | 56.0% | 8.0% | 12.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 26 | 19.2% | 26.9% | 80.8% | 7.7% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 19 | 5.3% | 21.1% | 42.1% | 15.8% | 21.1% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 70.0% | 23.3% | 40.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 24 | 4.2% | 37.5% | 79.2% | 12.5% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 21 | 14.3% | 28.6% | 95.2% | 4.8% | 19.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 19 | 5.3% | 21.1% | 79.0% | 5.3% | 15.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 72.7% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 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%.
In Lynch’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 14, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 12, 2025 · Posts on X · extreme label “extreme” · Source
Examples by category
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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: 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: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · Law · 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 · Armed Forces and National Security · Law · 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 · Finance and Financial Sector · Commerce · target: Russ Vought, Donald TrumpSource
All 557 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: 498 posts on X, 33 Congressional Record speeches, 25 press releases, 1 newsletters.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Lynch talks about most: 28% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.73 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 15th 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 Lynch talks about. The bills Lynch sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Lynch talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Lynch
Peers
Government Operations and Politics104 statements
28%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security81 statements
22%
16%
Health61 statements
16%
26%
Crime and Law Enforcement35 statements
9%
9%
Economics and Public Finance34 statements
9%
20%
Show the data
| Row | Lynch | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 28% | 20% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 22% | 16% |
| Health | 16% | 26% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 9% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 9% | 20% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Lynch’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.
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 Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 28% | 20% | 17% | 11% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 22% | 16% | 6% | 7% |
| Health | 16% | 26% | 17% | 16% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 9% | 9% | 10% | 7% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 9% | 20% | 1% | 1% |
0.73
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 15th of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Lynch legislates on exactly the areas Lynch 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 Lynch sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Lynch sits at −0.86 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 67% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.88 to −0.84, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,036 donors and 7,327 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
−0.86
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.88 to −0.84. From 2,036 donors and 7,327 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Lynch, 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 Lynch’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 Lynch sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Lynch |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 66% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 33% |
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 Lynch 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 Lynch.
Money
Lynch raised $1.1M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 5.2% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 92% of itemized individual money came from Massachusetts.
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.
$1.1M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 470 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)56 squares$589.2K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$32.6K
- PACs and other committees40 squares$415.5K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$15.4K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $589.2K | 56.0% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $32.6K | 3.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $415.5K | 39.5% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $15.4K | 1.5% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $911.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $962.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $710.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $1.1M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 92% came from Massachusetts.
- Massachusetts$486.7K
- New York$8,500
- Rhode Island$7,000
- New Hampshire$6,250
- California$6,000
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
0%60%
Lynch
Median
2026
5%
13%
2024
1%
13%
2022
1%
13%
2020
3%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Lynch | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 5% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 1% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 1% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 3% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Massachusetts | $486.7K |
| New York | $8,500 |
| Rhode Island | $7,000 |
| New Hampshire | $6,250 |
| California | $6,000 |
| New Jersey | $2,500 |
| Connecticut | $2,000 |
| Texas | $2,000 |
| Virginia | $1,500 |
| District of Columbia | $1,250 |
| Maine | $1,000 |
| Maryland | $1,000 |
| Illinois | $500 |
| Nevada | $500 |
| Missouri | $500 |
| Pennsylvania | $250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Florida | No data |
470
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
92%
from Massachusetts
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 Massachusetts. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 1.9% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 6.1% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 81% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 7.2% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 1.8% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 0.4% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 1.0% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 0.2% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.1% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.0% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Lynch’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Lynch’s own score is −0.86.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- ATTORNEY$54.8K 51 donors
- NOT EMPLOYED$49.8K 33 donors
- REAL ESTATE$44.8K 32 donors
- OWNER$32.8K 17 donors
- PRESIDENT$24.5K 24 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
- CARPENTERS LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS$10.0K
- ERNST & YOUNG POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS INTERESTED IN REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION PAC$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- MONARC DEVELOPMENT$17.5K 4 donors
- SULLIVAN AND SULLIVAN LLP$7,500 3 donors
- NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT$5,200 8 donors
- REDGATE$4,500 7 donors
- HYM$4,000 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Lynch voted with the majority of House Democrats on 96.0% of party-line votes and missed 5.0% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Lynch voted against the majority of House Democrats 21 times.
674 roll calls Lynch 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 Lynch voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
21
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 96.0%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 160th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Lynch, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Lynch
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.9%
96.9%
186th of 217
Party unity
96.0%
96.4%
160th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Lynch | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 94.9% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 96.0% | 96.4% |
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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.J.Res. 213 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision” On Passage | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Lynch most often
- Analilia MejiaD175 shared votes98%
- William KeatingD615 shared votes98%
- Christian MenefeeD238 shared votes97%
- Seth MagazinerD625 shared votes97%
- Richard NealD608 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Lynch least often
- Chip RoyR608 shared votes18%
- Ralph NormanR569 shared votes19%
- Josh BrecheenR618 shared votes20%
- Eric BurlisonR615 shared votes20%
- Andy BiggsR576 shared votes20%
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
Legislation
Lynch sponsored 15 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 536 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 21st of 207).
The bills Lynch 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 15 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 536 | 536 | 17 | 5 | 4 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Lynch sponsored, ochre blocks bills Lynch cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
13%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 21st of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Lynch, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Eleanor Norton84
- Rashida Tlaib54
- André Carson34
- Shri Thanedar29
- Raja Krishnamoorthi27
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 Lynch’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10841 | Securing Elections From AI Deception Act | Cosponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 19, 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.R. 10740 | To designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Immigration | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 5, 2026 |
| H.R. 10640 | Urban Health Transformation Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred 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 1, 2026 |
| H.R. 10642 | STS Act | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and 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 1, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 87 times in 90 days. Lynch’s official site had 62 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Lynch posted on Oct 14, 2026.
The lab crawls Lynch’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 Lynch posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 62
pages crawled
87changes in 90 days
- 41
pages crawled
58changes 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.
Social accounts
- XRepStephenLynch
- Facebookrepstephenlynch
- Instagramrepstephenlynch
- YouTubeRepLynch
- Emailma08slima@mail.house.gov
Images Lynch posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A group of seven people pose with ceremonial shovels beside a strip of freshly turned soil, with a shuttle bus and several large business signs behind them. The image contains text on the signs and bus.View post 
A pink awareness poster with large white lettering and a logo at the bottom. It contains text.View post 
A formal letter on Congress of the United States letterhead, dated October 5, 2026. It is addressed to three United States Postal Service officials and urges them to stop plans to close post offices in Massachusetts. The visible letter continues beyond the bottom edge. The page contains extensive text.View post 
A cropped page from a formal letter or report, with several paragraphs of black serif text discussing USPS post office closures and public hearings in Massachusetts. Two numbered footnotes appear at the bottom.View post 
A page from a formal letter about postal service and post office closures, with a numbered list of requests and several handwritten signatures near the bottom.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.
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 Lynch 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- L000562
- Bioguide
- L000562
- FEC candidate ids
- H2MA09072, S0MA00083
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