Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Georgia’s 11th district

Serving since Jan 6, 2015119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide L000583FEC H4GA11061

Portrait of Barry Loudermilk, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
47%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top 5% of House Republicans

47% of 17 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for House Republicans is 17%. Ranks 9th of 216, where 1st is the highest share.

The share of bills Loudermilk sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked among House Republicans. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. Loudermilk raised $263.7K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (median $2.2M). 79% of Loudermilk’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Georgia, in the top tenth of House Republicans.

The measures on which Loudermilk 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.

Out of committee

47%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 9th of 216

Raised, 2026

$263.7K

House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 213th of 220

From Georgia, 2026

79%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 22nd of 216 House Republicans

Party unity

99.5%

House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 20th of 221 · 8 votes against the majority of House Republicans

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.58

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 191st of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.26

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Loudermilk says

Loudermilk attacks opponents personally about as often as the median House Republican. Personal attacks in 1.1% of 560 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 116th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Loudermilk’s 560 statements in the 119th Congress (422 posts on X, 76 newsletters, 51 press releases, 11 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.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Loudermilk
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion405 statements
72%
68%
82nd of 221
Credit claiming219 statements
39%
37%
99th of 221
Policy criticism124 statements
22%
15%
32nd of 221
Bipartisanship44 statements
8%
9%
107th of 221
Personal attacks6 statements
1%
2%
116th of 221
Show the data
Loudermilk's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowLoudermilkPeers
Policy discussion72%68%
Credit claiming39%37%
Policy criticism22%15%
Bipartisanship8%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
560

statements classified

422 posts on X, 76 newsletters, 51 press releases, 11 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 422 (75.4%)posts on X 422newsletters: 76 (13.6%)press releases: 51 (9.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 11 (2.0%)
Show the data
Loudermilk's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X422
newsletters76
press releases51
Congressional Record speeches11
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Loudermilk used extreme labels in 3.6% of statements, above the peer average. 20 statements, most often aimed at Democrat; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”9
  2. “far left”6
  3. “woke”3

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrat1
  2. government programming1
  3. government-funded programming1
  4. Green New Deal1
  5. Left1
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: 232025-02: 302025-03: 292025-04: 232025-05: 302025-06: 322025-07: 702025-08: 152025-09: 252025-10: 252025-11: 212025-12: 242026-01: 212026-02: 362026-03: 282026-04: 262026-05: 222026-06: 232026-07: 252026-08: 132026-09: 142026-10: 5peak 70 · Jul ’25Personal attackspeak 6.9% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.3% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-03: 6.9% of 29Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.1% of 32Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.4% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-10: 4.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 24Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 23Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 13Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 14Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 46.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 30.4% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-02: 46.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-03: 37.9% of 29Policy criticism, 2025-04: 13.0% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-05: 23.3% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-06: 21.9% of 32Policy criticism, 2025-07: 20.0% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-08: 13.3% of 15Policy criticism, 2025-09: 24.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-10: 28.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-11: 33.3% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-12: 12.5% of 24Policy criticism, 2026-01: 19.1% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-02: 25.0% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-03: 17.9% of 28Policy criticism, 2026-04: 19.2% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-05: 4.5% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-06: 26.1% of 23Policy criticism, 2026-07: 24.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 13Policy criticism, 2026-09: 0.0% of 14Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 90.5% · Jan ’26 · latest 71.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 69.6% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-02: 73.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-03: 75.9% of 29Policy discussion, 2025-04: 69.6% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-05: 73.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-06: 68.8% of 32Policy discussion, 2025-07: 80.0% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-08: 86.7% of 15Policy discussion, 2025-09: 60.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-10: 56.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-11: 61.9% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-12: 70.8% of 24Policy discussion, 2026-01: 90.5% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-02: 72.2% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-03: 71.4% of 28Policy discussion, 2026-04: 69.2% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-05: 77.3% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-06: 60.9% of 23Policy discussion, 2026-07: 76.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2026-08: 76.9% of 13Policy discussion, 2026-09: 71.4% of 14Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 28.6% · Mar ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 13.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 23.3% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 13.8% of 29Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 0.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 10.0% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.1% of 32Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 15Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 8.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 4.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 14.3% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 0.0% of 24Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 0.0% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.8% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 28.6% of 28Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.7% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 22.7% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 8.7% of 23Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 8.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 13Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 14Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 60.9% · Apr ’25 · latest 42.9%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 47.8% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-02: 50.0% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-03: 41.4% of 29Credit claiming, 2025-04: 60.9% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-05: 46.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-06: 31.3% of 32Credit claiming, 2025-07: 41.4% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-08: 53.3% of 15Credit claiming, 2025-09: 24.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-10: 16.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-11: 28.6% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-12: 41.7% of 24Credit claiming, 2026-01: 33.3% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-02: 30.6% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-03: 53.6% of 28Credit claiming, 2026-04: 34.6% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-05: 45.5% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-06: 39.1% of 23Credit claiming, 2026-07: 40.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2026-08: 15.4% of 13Credit claiming, 2026-09: 42.9% of 14Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 13.8% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.3% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-02: 10.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-03: 13.8% of 29Extreme labels, 2025-04: 4.3% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2025-07: 10.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-10: 4.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-11: 4.8% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 24Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.3% of 23Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2026-08: 7.7% of 13Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Loudermilk, 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 ’25234.3%30.4%69.6%13.0%47.8%4.3%
Feb ’25300.0%46.7%73.3%23.3%50.0%10.0%
Mar ’25296.9%37.9%75.9%13.8%41.4%13.8%
Apr ’25230.0%13.0%69.6%0.0%60.9%4.3%
May ’25300.0%23.3%73.3%10.0%46.7%0.0%
Jun ’25323.1%21.9%68.8%3.1%31.3%0.0%
Jul ’25701.4%20.0%80.0%0.0%41.4%10.0%
Aug ’25150.0%13.3%86.7%0.0%53.3%0.0%
Sep ’25250.0%24.0%60.0%8.0%24.0%0.0%
Oct ’25254.0%28.0%56.0%4.0%16.0%4.0%
Nov ’25210.0%33.3%61.9%14.3%28.6%4.8%
Dec ’25240.0%12.5%70.8%0.0%41.7%0.0%
Jan ’26210.0%19.1%90.5%0.0%33.3%0.0%
Feb ’26360.0%25.0%72.2%2.8%30.6%0.0%
Mar ’26280.0%17.9%71.4%28.6%53.6%0.0%
Apr ’26260.0%19.2%69.2%7.7%34.6%0.0%
May ’26220.0%4.5%77.3%22.7%45.5%0.0%
Jun ’26230.0%26.1%60.9%8.7%39.1%4.3%
Jul ’26250.0%24.0%76.0%8.0%40.0%0.0%
Aug ’26130.0%0.0%76.9%0.0%15.4%7.7%
Sep ’26140.0%0.0%71.4%0.0%42.9%0.0%
Oct ’265— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
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 Loudermilk’s words

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

Policy criticism

Rep. Loudermilk's Week In Review [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/27642/1738267422243-final-4.png] Friends, I hope you have had a great week! As your Representative in Congress, it’s a priority to keep you informed of how we're serving you. If you would like to stay up to date, check out our…

Jul 24, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Finance and Financial Sector; Armed Forces and National Security; Health; Labor and Employment; Government Operations and Politics; Education

Personal attacks

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

Oct 16, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Schumer · Source

Extreme label

Rep. Loudermilk's Week In Review [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/27642/1738267422243-final-4.png] Friends, I hope you have had a great week! As your Representative in Congress, it’s a priority to keep you informed of how we're serving you. If you would like to stay up to date, check out our…

Aug 14, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; Education; Immigration; Labor and Employment; Government Operations and Politics; Crime and Law Enforcement; International Affairs; extreme label “woke” aimed at Smithsonian

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. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: SchumerSource

  2. 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: ObamaSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: J6 committeeSource

  4. Newsletters

    Rep. Loudermilk's Week In Review 96 Friends, I hope you are doing well. A s your Representative in Congress, it's a priority to keep you informed of how we're serving you. If you would like to stay up to date, check out our website , and follow our Facebook , Twitter , and Instagram pages. Looking forward to seeing you in Georgia's 11th Congressional District or in Washington, DC soon. God Bless, Rep. Barry Loudermi…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Commerce · Education · Government Operations and Politics · Finance and Financial Sector · Energy · Environmental Protection · extreme label “far left”

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: government bureaucratsSource

All 560 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: 422 posts on X, 76 newsletters, 51 press releases, 11 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Loudermilk talks about most: 35% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.58 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 191st 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 Loudermilk talks about. The bills Loudermilk sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Loudermilk talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%39%
Loudermilk
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security143 statements
35%
24%
Government Operations and Politics125 statements
31%
19%
Economics and Public Finance85 statements
21%
19%
Immigration69 statements
17%
13%
Labor and Employment58 statements
14%
6%
Show the data
Policy areas Loudermilk talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowLoudermilkPeers
Armed Forces and National Security35%24%
Government Operations and Politics31%19%
Economics and Public Finance21%19%
Immigration17%13%
Labor and Employment14%6%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Loudermilk’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 39%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 35% (House Republicans 24%)35%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 8%)7%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 31% (House Republicans 19%)31%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 13% (House Republicans 12%)13%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 19%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Republicans 2%)0%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 17% (House Republicans 13%)17%Immigration, legislates on: 3% (House Republicans 5%)3%Labor and EmploymentLabor and Employment, talks about: 14% (House Republicans 6%)14%Labor and Employment, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 2%)2%
Show the data
Loudermilk's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security35%24%7%8%
Government Operations and Politics31%19%13%12%
Economics and Public Finance21%19%0%2%
Immigration17%13%3%5%
Labor and Employment14%6%2%2%
0.58

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 191st of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Loudermilk sits at +1.26 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 81% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.25 to +1.28, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,191 donors and 5,994 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”.

+1.26

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.25 to +1.28. From 1,191 donors and 5,994 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Loudermilk +1.3House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Loudermilk, 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 Loudermilk’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 Loudermilk sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Loudermilk +1.3All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Loudermilk's CSIP score of +1.26 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Loudermilk
House Republicans221+1.081%
All House439+0.390%
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 Loudermilk 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 Loudermilk.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Loudermilk raised $263.7K in the 2026 cycle, 12% of the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 6.6% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 79% of itemized individual money came from Georgia.

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
$263.7K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 35 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): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $31.8K (12.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $2,236 (0.8%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $164.3K (62.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $65.5K (24.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)12 squares$31.8K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$2,236
  • PACs and other committees62 squares$164.3K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)25 squares$65.5K
Show the data
Sources of Loudermilk's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$31.8K12.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$2,2360.8%
PACs and other committees$164.3K62.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$65.5K24.8%
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: $900.0K$900.0K20202022 cycle: $795.5K$795.5K20222024 cycle: $861.1K$861.1K20242026 cycle: $263.7K$263.7K2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Loudermilk's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$900.0K
2022 cycle$795.5K
2024 cycle$861.1K
2026 cycle$263.7K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 79% came from Georgia.

  1. Georgia$18.3K
  2. Virginia$2,000
  3. Maryland$1,000
  4. Rhode Island$1,000
  5. District of Columbia$500

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%
Loudermilk
Median
2026
7%
9%
2024
7%
9%
2022
11%
9%
2020
8%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowLoudermilkMedian
2026 cycle7%9%
2024 cycle7%9%
2022 cycle11%9%
2020 cycle8%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $500NYRhode Island: $1,000RIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $2,000VAMaryland: $1,000MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $500DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $18.3KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Loudermilk's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Georgia$18.3K
Virginia$2,000
Rhode Island$1,000
Maryland$1,000
New York$500
District of Columbia$500
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
35

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

79%

from Georgia

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 6.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 4.7%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 43%43%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 34%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 5.5%← More liberalMore conservative →
Show the data
Ideology of Loudermilk's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.50 to +1.50: 6.3% between +0.25 and +0.50, 43% between +0.75 and +1.00, 34% between +1.00 and +1.25, 5.5% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.506.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.754.7%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0043%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2534%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.505.5%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Loudermilk’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Loudermilk’s own score is +1.26.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$9,400 9 donors
  2. EXECUTIVE$3,000 3 donors
  3. REAL ESTATE$2,500 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$5,000
  2. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$5,000
  3. AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION PAC$5,000
  4. COX ENTERPRISES PAC (COXPAC) INC.$5,000
  5. NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Loudermilk voted with the majority of House Republicans on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 5.9% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Loudermilk voted against the majority of House Republicans 8 times.

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

8

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 99.5%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 20th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Loudermilk
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.0%
96.3%
188th of 221
Party unity
99.5%
97.1%
20th of 221
Show the data
Loudermilk's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowLoudermilkPeers
Attendance94.0%96.3%
Party unity99.5%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 Loudermilk most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR500 shared votes100%
  2. Steve ScaliseR619 shared votes99%
  3. Rudy YakymR634 shared votes98%
  4. Austin ScottR632 shared votes98%
  5. David RouzerR626 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Loudermilk least often

  1. Delia RamirezD606 shared votes22%
  2. Rashida TlaibD622 shared votes22%
  3. Adelita GrijalvaD362 shared votes23%
  4. Gregorio CasarD542 shared votes23%
  5. Jan SchakowskyD596 shared votes23%
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

Loudermilk sponsored 17 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 152 others. 47% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 9th of 216).

The bills Loudermilk 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

Sponsored17 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1717Sponsored, In committee: 1717Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored152 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 152152Cosponsored, In committee: 152152Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1919Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Loudermilk sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1717200
Cosponsored1521521933
How to read the blocks

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

47%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 9th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Buddy Carter24
  2. Rich McCormick20
  3. Mike Collins Jr.16
  4. Andy Barr15
  5. Daniel Meuser15
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 Loudermilk’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.R. 10222No HUD Funding for Sanctuary Cities ActCosponsorSep 2, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Sep 2, 2026
H.R. 10184Consumer Financial Protection Accountability and Reform Act of 2026CosponsorAug 31, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorOrdered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 28 - 21. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10096Task Force on the Impact of the Affordable Housing Crisis Act of 2026CosponsorAug 13, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorReferred to the House Committee on Financial Services. Aug 13, 2026
H.R. 9667Securing Healthcare and Income Entitlements for Lawfully Domiciled Citizens (SHIELD Citizens) ActCosponsorJul 14, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Education and Workforce, and Agriculture, 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. Jul 14, 2026
H.R. 9680Replace UNRWA with Real Humanitarian Assistance ActCosponsorJul 14, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Jul 14, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 72 times in 90 days. Loudermilk’s official site had 30 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Loudermilk posted on Oct 13, 2026.

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

Websites

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 Loudermilk posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A framed graphic featuring a U.S. aircraft carrier at sea, with aircraft on its deck and an American flag flying from the ship. Large title text overlays the image, with a website label at the top and a signature-style mark at the bottom.
    A framed graphic featuring a U.S. aircraft carrier at sea, with aircraft on its deck and an American flag flying from the ship. Large title text overlays the image, with a website label at the top and a signature-style mark at the bottom.View post
  • A memorial display outdoors, with many Israeli flags and framed photographs arranged among plants and flowers. Several people stand in the background. Text appears on some photo plaques.
    A memorial display outdoors, with many Israeli flags and framed photographs arranged among plants and flowers. Several people stand in the background. Text appears on some photo plaques.View post
  • A blue poster featuring five fighter jets flying upward in formation, framed by a white border. There is large headline text near the top, a website address above it, and a signature-style mark at the bottom.
    A blue poster featuring five fighter jets flying upward in formation, framed by a white border. There is large headline text near the top, a website address above it, and a signature-style mark at the bottom.View post
  • A historical painting depicts a formal assembly of men in period clothing gathered in a room. A standing man addresses the group from a raised platform while others sit or stand around him. There is no clearly readable text.
    A historical painting depicts a formal assembly of men in period clothing gathered in a room. A standing man addresses the group from a raised platform while others sit or stand around him. There is no clearly readable text.View post
  • A commemorative graphic featuring the Brooklyn Bridge and the New York City skyline at night, with a blue beam of light and a patriotic ribbon above the skyline. A white border and a signature-like mark frame the image. Text is present.
    A commemorative graphic featuring the Brooklyn Bridge and the New York City skyline at night, with a blue beam of light and a patriotic ribbon above the skyline. A white border and a signature-like mark frame the image. Text is present.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 Loudermilk 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
L000583
Bioguide
L000583
FEC candidate ids
H4GA11061

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 27, 20261 days agoImages 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