Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Ilhan Omar · Source
69%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, the highest of 220 House Republicans
69% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Republicans is 9.4%. Ranks 1st of 220, where 1st is the highest share. $452.9K raised in all.
Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among House Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
At a glance
6 measures against House Republicans. 38% of Mace’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (average 68%). 8.6% of Mace’s statements contain a personal attack, 4.0 times the House Republican average of 2.1%.
The measures on which Mace 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.
Small donations, 2026
69%
House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 1st of 220
Policy discussion
38%
House Republicans average 68% · ranks 216th of 221
Personal attacks
8.6%
House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 10th of 221
Attendance
82%
House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 216th of 221 · 674 roll calls
Credit claiming
19%
House Republicans average 37% · ranks 208th of 221
CSIP ideology
+0.86
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Mace, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Mace is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Mace says
Mace stresses bipartisanship less than 92% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 1.7% of 10,469 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 206th of 221.
An AI model reads each of Mace’s 10,469 statements in the 119th Congress (10,002 posts on X, 365 press releases, 59 Congressional Record speeches, 43 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Mace
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion4,029 statements
38%
68%
216th of 221
Credit claiming1,981 statements
19%
37%
208th of 221
Personal attacks899 statements
9%
2%
10th of 221
Policy criticism886 statements
8%
15%
189th of 221
Bipartisanship181 statements
2%
9%
206th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Mace | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 38% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 19% | 37% |
| Personal attacks | 9% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 9% |
10,469
statements classified
10,002 posts on X, 365 press releases, 59 Congressional Record speeches, 43 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 10,002 |
| press releases | 365 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 59 |
| newsletters | 43 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Mace; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Mace does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Mace used extreme labels in 5.4% of statements, 1.8 times the peer average. 568 statements, most often aimed at Left; peers 3.0%.
- “radical”98
- “woke”58
- “MAGA”30
- “far left”26
- “extreme”25
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Left74
- The Left24
- Democrats13
- gender ideology9
- Democrat Party7
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 | 960 | 8.4% | 7.0% | 21.3% | 1.6% | 11.7% | 7.7% |
| Feb ’25 | 636 | 11.3% | 6.0% | 15.6% | 0.3% | 7.2% | 6.6% |
| Mar ’25 | 854 | 11.4% | 3.5% | 14.1% | 0.6% | 4.3% | 8.1% |
| Apr ’25 | 498 | 6.8% | 8.0% | 26.7% | 1.0% | 13.3% | 8.0% |
| May ’25 | 408 | 14.2% | 6.1% | 36.5% | 1.2% | 18.1% | 5.9% |
| Jun ’25 | 434 | 11.3% | 3.7% | 33.4% | 1.8% | 15.4% | 7.1% |
| Jul ’25 | 399 | 3.3% | 10.3% | 50.1% | 2.5% | 26.1% | 3.8% |
| Aug ’25 | 272 | 2.9% | 9.9% | 50.0% | 1.5% | 34.2% | 6.3% |
| Sep ’25 | 505 | 12.5% | 9.9% | 36.8% | 2.8% | 18.4% | 11.5% |
| Oct ’25 | 452 | 12.4% | 16.6% | 48.7% | 1.6% | 21.9% | 9.3% |
| Nov ’25 | 425 | 10.8% | 7.8% | 32.2% | 2.1% | 20.9% | 2.4% |
| Dec ’25 | 263 | 5.7% | 12.6% | 69.2% | 3.4% | 46.4% | 2.3% |
| Jan ’26 | 327 | 8.3% | 5.2% | 72.8% | 4.3% | 32.7% | 1.5% |
| Feb ’26 | 399 | 8.3% | 10.3% | 43.9% | 4.5% | 23.6% | 2.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 377 | 10.1% | 16.4% | 50.4% | 3.2% | 20.9% | 3.7% |
| Apr ’26 | 138 | 11.6% | 18.8% | 65.9% | 4.3% | 29.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 442 | 4.8% | 10.6% | 43.2% | 2.0% | 26.5% | 3.6% |
| Jun ’26 | 455 | 7.0% | 16.9% | 50.5% | 1.3% | 31.4% | 9.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 703 | 5.4% | 7.4% | 40.4% | 1.0% | 15.2% | 5.5% |
| Aug ’26 | 585 | 5.1% | 4.6% | 47.3% | 1.2% | 15.4% | 1.5% |
| Sep ’26 | 529 | 10.6% | 6.8% | 42.5% | 0.4% | 18.1% | 0.8% |
| Oct ’26 | 408 | 3.9% | 6.4% | 53.2% | 1.7% | 25.7% | 1.0% |
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 Mace’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 12, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Immigration; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
Congresswoman Nancy Mace Newsletter 10/21 [Rep. Nancy Mace banner] ? From the Desk of Congresswoman Nancy Mace As your Representative in Washington, we are working every day to stand up for Lowcountry values. This newsletter is your inside look at what is happening in D.C. and how our team is ser…
Oct 21, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Labor and Employment; Government Operations and Politics; Families; Law; Water Resources Development; Taxation; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Commerce; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Armed Forces and National Security; Environmental Protection; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Education; Transportation and Public Works; Immigration; extreme label “woke” aimed at indoctrination
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 · target: Ilhan OmarSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Education · Commerce · Government Operations and Politics · target: FauciSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: AOCSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
All 10,469 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: 10,002 posts on X, 365 press releases, 59 Congressional Record speeches, 43 newsletters.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Mace talks about most: 24% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 85th 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 Mace talks about. The bills Mace sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Mace talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Mace
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement969 statements
24%
12%
Government Operations and Politics781 statements
19%
19%
Immigration775 statements
19%
13%
Armed Forces and National Security764 statements
19%
24%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues458 statements
11%
6%
Show the data
| Row | Mace | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 24% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 19% |
| Immigration | 19% | 13% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 19% | 24% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Mace’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 24% | 12% | 13% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 19% | 19% | 12% |
| Immigration | 19% | 13% | 17% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 19% | 24% | 10% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 6% | 1% | 2% |
0.66
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 85th of 221.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Mace legislates on exactly the areas Mace 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 Mace sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Mace sits at +0.86 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 71% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.84 to +0.87, which understates the uncertainty; from 6,320 donors and 2,721 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 +0.84 to +0.87. From 6,320 donors and 2,721 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Mace, 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 Mace’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 Mace sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Mace |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 29% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 64% |
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 Mace 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 Mace.
Money
Mace raised $452.9K in the 2026 cycle, 21% of the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 69% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 15% of itemized individual money came from South Carolina.
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.
$452.9K
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 138 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)12 squares$53.7K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)26 squares$117.6K
- PACs and other committees2 squares$11.5K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)60 squares$270.1K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $53.7K | 11.9% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $117.6K | 26.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $11.5K | 2.5% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $270.1K | 59.6% |
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.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $5.8M |
| 2022 cycle | $5.9M |
| 2024 cycle | $3.5M |
| 2026 cycle | $452.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 15% came from South Carolina.
- Florida$6,799
- South Carolina$5,095
- Illinois$4,645
- Arizona$4,435
- Ohio$2,000
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%
Mace
Median
2026
69%
9%
2024
38%
9%
2022
39%
9%
2020
38%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Mace | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 69% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 38% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 39% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 38% | 9% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Florida | $6,799 |
| South Carolina | $5,095 |
| Illinois | $4,645 |
| Arizona | $4,435 |
| Ohio | $2,000 |
| California | $1,810 |
| Virginia | $1,775 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,715 |
| New York | $1,350 |
| Vermont | $1,200 |
| Louisiana | $1,075 |
| Michigan | $976 |
| Maryland | $925 |
| West Virginia | $750 |
| Utah | $715 |
| Tennessee | $625 |
| Washington | $510 |
| Idaho | $500 |
| Wisconsin | $400 |
| District of Columbia | $400 |
| Connecticut | $300 |
| North Carolina | $300 |
| Massachusetts | $285 |
| Oklahoma | $229 |
| Oregon | $205 |
| Nevada | $200 |
| Alabama | $199 |
| Colorado | $155 |
| Maine | $150 |
| Indiana | $150 |
| Minnesota | $100 |
| South Dakota | $100 |
| Hawaii | $50 |
| Nebraska | $30 |
| Alaska | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Texas | No data |
138
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
15%
from South Carolina
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 South Carolina. 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 −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.8% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 1.9% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 19% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 1.4% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 31% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 46% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.2% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Mace’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Mace’s own score is +0.86.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$39.2K 93 donors
- EXECUTIVE$4,050 3 donors
- SALES$475 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ANIMAL WELLNESS ACTION PAC$2,000
- COMPETITIVE MARKETS PAC$2,000
- JIM JORDAN FOR CONGRESS$2,000
- TEXTRON INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,500
- ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ELBIT AMERICA PAC)$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Mace voted with the majority of House Republicans on 97.0% of party-line votes and missed 18% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Mace voted against the majority of House Republicans 37 times.
674 roll calls Mace 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 Mace voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
37
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 97.0%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 159th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Mace, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Mace
Peers
Rank
Attendance
82%
96.3%
216th of 221
Party unity
97.0%
97.1%
159th of 221
Show the data
| Row | Mace | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 82% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 97.0% | 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
| 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 | 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 |
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 Mace most often
- Mark E. GreenR163 shared votes97%
- Mike JohnsonR420 shared votes97%
- Kat CammackR545 shared votes96%
- Doug LamalfaR329 shared votes96%
- Cory MillsR513 shared votes95%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Mace least often
- Adelita GrijalvaD277 shared votes19%
- Rashida TlaibD538 shared votes20%
- Christian MenefeeD155 shared votes21%
- James WalkinshawD313 shared votes21%
- Brittany PettersenD459 shared votes21%
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
Mace sponsored 108 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 210 others. 3.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 197th of 216).
The bills Mace 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 | 108 | 108 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 210 | 210 | 24 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Mace sponsored, ochre blocks bills Mace cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
3.7%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 197th of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Mace, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Lauren Boebert39
- Brandon Gill29
- Anna Luna27
- Barry Moore27
- Andy Biggs25
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 Mace’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. 10886 | To amend title 5, United States Code, to require the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to annually publish a list of dual citizens employed by the Federal Government, and for other purposes. | Sponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10801 | School Freedom Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 13, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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 13, 2026 |
| H.R. 10783 | Speak Your Truth Act | Sponsor | Oct 9, 2026 | In committee | Law | Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 9, 2026 |
| H.R. 10629 | Pesticide Data Transparency Act | Sponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection | Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 28, 2026 |
| H.R. 10630 | Pesticide Transparency on Federal Land Act | Sponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection | Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 28, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 103 times in 90 days. Mace’s official site had 23 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Mace posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Mace’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 Mace posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 23
pages crawled
103changes in 90 days
- 1
pages crawled
0changes 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
- XRepNancyMace
- FacebookRepNancyMace
- Instagramrepnancymace
- Emailrepmace@mail8.housecommunications.gov
Images Mace posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A woman and a man smile and shake hands inside a building. The image includes a political campaign-style graphic and prominent text.View post 
A close-up portrait of a woman wearing a black hijab, with another person blurred in the background. A congressional seal and branding appear in the top-left corner, and large headline text fills the bottom.View post 
A political-style poster featuring a woman in a dark coat and blue scarf in front of a blue server-room background. Large white lettering appears above her, with a congressional seal and name branding at the bottom right.View post 
A political-style poster featuring a portrait of a woman in front of grocery-store shelves, with chemical diagrams overlaid on the background. Large headline text appears above her and a name and congressional emblem appear below.View post 
A political graphic featuring the U.S. Capitol building against a blue sky, with an American flag and a congressional seal. Large text appears across the top, and a congresswoman's name and title appear at the bottom right.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 Mace 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
- M000194
- Bioguide
- M000194
- FEC candidate ids
- H0SC01394
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