38% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Republicans is 9.4%. Ranks 36th of 220, where 1st is the highest share. $5.1M 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.
6 measures against House Republicans. 31% of Mast’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Florida, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans. Mast raised $5.1M in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of House Republicans (median $2.2M).
The measures on which Mast 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
House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 36th of 220
From Florida, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 180th of 216 House Republicans
Raised, 2026
House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 41st of 220
Policy discussion
House Republicans average 68% · ranks 169th of 221
Credit claiming
House Republicans average 37% · ranks 169th of 221
CSIP ideology
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 Mast, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Mast is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Mast stresses bipartisanship less than 73% of House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 4.5% of 2,486 statements, against 8.9% for the average House Republican; 163rd of 221.
An AI model reads each of Mast’s 2,486 statements in the 119th Congress (1,810 posts on X, 407 Congressional Record speeches, 221 newsletters, 48 press releases) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Mast | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 63% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 30% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 11% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 5% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
statements classified
1,810 posts on X, 407 Congressional Record speeches, 221 newsletters, 48 press releases.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,810 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 407 |
| newsletters | 221 |
| press releases | 48 |
The thick bar is Mast; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Mast does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Mast used extreme labels in 1.2% of statements, 40% of the peer average. 30 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 77 | 2.6% | 19.5% | 49.4% | 5.2% | 39.0% | 2.6% |
| Feb ’25 | 42 | 2.4% | 35.7% | 81.0% | 2.4% | 47.6% | 4.8% |
| Mar ’25 | 91 | 0.0% | 16.5% | 67.0% | 0.0% | 37.4% | 2.2% |
| Apr ’25 | 84 | 1.2% | 8.3% | 69.0% | 3.6% | 38.1% | 3.6% |
| May ’25 | 148 | 0.0% | 11.5% | 68.9% | 9.5% | 41.9% | 4.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 103 | 2.9% | 14.6% | 78.6% | 6.8% | 41.8% | 1.9% |
| Jul ’25 | 109 | 0.0% | 7.3% | 73.4% | 4.6% | 39.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 122 | 0.0% | 9.0% | 76.2% | 0.0% | 45.1% | 0.8% |
| Sep ’25 | 118 | 0.0% | 13.6% | 61.0% | 5.9% | 28.8% | 2.5% |
| Oct ’25 | 94 | 3.2% | 29.8% | 61.7% | 5.3% | 12.8% | 2.1% |
| Nov ’25 | 92 | 1.1% | 10.9% | 42.4% | 2.2% | 19.6% | 2.2% |
| Dec ’25 | 121 | 1.7% | 7.4% | 64.5% | 3.3% | 31.4% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 125 | 4.0% | 4.0% | 73.6% | 4.0% | 28.0% | 0.8% |
| Feb ’26 | 158 | 0.6% | 8.2% | 50.6% | 10.8% | 34.8% | 1.9% |
| Mar ’26 | 148 | 1.4% | 19.6% | 63.5% | 2.7% | 21.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 124 | 4.8% | 5.7% | 60.5% | 1.6% | 28.2% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 156 | 1.9% | 6.4% | 50.6% | 7.0% | 21.8% | 0.6% |
| Jun ’26 | 214 | 1.4% | 13.6% | 49.1% | 9.3% | 15.9% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 116 | 0.9% | 4.3% | 56.9% | 0.0% | 28.4% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 83 | 0.0% | 2.4% | 74.7% | 0.0% | 24.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 104 | 0.0% | 2.9% | 72.1% | 1.9% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 57 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 64.9% | 0.0% | 22.8% | 0.0% |
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%.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
Mr. Speaker, again, we have an author of this bill that is demanding US Forces be removed, and the author of this bill has absolutely no clue what forces she wants to remove. That is beyond irresponsible, to say the least, to write a resolution, bring it to the floor, demand something with the weigh…
Jul 22, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 29, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; International Affairs; Foreign Trade and International Finance · Source
Extreme label
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am going to respond to the trove of ridiculous things that I have heard said on this floor. Speaking generally about life, I know that there are people out there that when they get hit, they curl up, they cry, and they don't deal with the situati…
May 13, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “extreme” aimed at previous leader · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, again, we have an author of this bill that is demanding US Forces be removed, and the author of this bill has absolutely no clue what forces she wants to remove. That is beyond irresponsible, to say the least, to write a resolution, bring it to the floor, demand something with the weight of this issue, a nuclear-armed Iran, an Iran that has been attacking us, killing our people for years--350 attacks, 4…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International AffairsSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack right there. I think I would start with this: The word ``genocidal'' was used. I would remind the floor that there was only one person on this floor right now who has been reprimanded for calling for genocide. That person is walking out as we speak. That person didn't want the transcript of that allowed into the Record last time. It was the person that was just speaking. Maybe th…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National SecuritySource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution. However, I will say that I am very glad to hear the debate offered by my colleague, Ranking Member Meeks. He spoke about Hezbollah. We went through an entire debate several weeks ago where the opposition refused to mention that Hezbollah even existed, so I am glad to hear Ranking Member Meeks bring that up. Hezbollah specif…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National SecuritySource
Congressional Record
Very good. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record the transcript of the Congresswoman from Michigan, the transcript of H Res. 845, which notes that she is the only one calling for genocide. She was reprimanded bipartisanly by the House of Representatives.
personal attacks · bipartisanship · target: CongresswomanSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I have more to talk about and go over more quotes here. Ms. Clark said there is no strategy. I will tell you, she has been briefed numerous times, probably about 30 times, if she chose to attend all the classified briefings or was invited to all of them. I don't know which ones she was entirely invited to. To say that there is no strategy is absolutely a direct insult to our United States Armed Forces, a…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Armed Forces and National Security · International AffairsSource
Newest first, the 119th Congress
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,810 posts on X, 407 Congressional Record speeches, 221 newsletters, 48 press releases.
Armed Forces and National Security is what Mast talks about most: 29% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 126th 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 Mast talks about. The bills Mast sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Mast | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 29% | 24% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 12% | 19% |
| Environmental Protection | 12% | 4% |
| Health | 11% | 15% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 12% |
The thick bar is the share of Mast’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 29% | 24% | 28% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 12% | 19% | 0% | 2% |
| Environmental Protection | 12% | 4% | 7% | 3% |
| Health | 11% | 15% | 5% | 11% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 12% | 3% | 9% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 126th of 221.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Mast legislates on exactly the areas Mast 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 Mast sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Mast sits at +1.03 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 57% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.02 to +1.04, which understates the uncertainty; from 14,470 donors and 4,923 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +1.02 to +1.04. From 14,470 donors and 4,923 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Mast, 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 Mast’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Mast |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 57% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 78% |
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 Mast 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 Mast.
Mast raised $5.1M in the 2026 cycle, 2.4 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 38% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 31% of itemized individual money came from Florida.
Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 2,939 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $2.4M | 46.6% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $1.4M | 28.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $484.7K | 9.5% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $800.3K | 15.7% |
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $6.2M |
| 2022 cycle | $6.3M |
| 2024 cycle | $4.0M |
| 2026 cycle | $5.1M |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 31% came from Florida.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.
| Row | Mast | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 38% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 45% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 51% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 48% | 9% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Florida | $664.3K |
| California | $320.6K |
| New York | $195.5K |
| Texas | $111.6K |
| New Jersey | $98.7K |
| Virginia | $76.6K |
| Pennsylvania | $62.4K |
| Connecticut | $50.8K |
| District of Columbia | $48.0K |
| Illinois | $43.4K |
| Massachusetts | $41.7K |
| Washington | $35.0K |
| Michigan | $33.7K |
| Maryland | $28.2K |
| North Carolina | $25.3K |
| Minnesota | $24.0K |
| Georgia | $21.7K |
| Alabama | $20.4K |
| Indiana | $20.1K |
| Arizona | $19.3K |
| Ohio | $19.0K |
| Wisconsin | $18.1K |
| Tennessee | $18.0K |
| Oregon | $15.6K |
| Colorado | $14.4K |
| South Carolina | $13.1K |
| Nevada | $11.6K |
| Kansas | $9,994 |
| West Virginia | $9,429 |
| Idaho | $8,454 |
| Louisiana | $8,391 |
| New Mexico | $7,031 |
| Oklahoma | $6,695 |
| Wyoming | $6,503 |
| Missouri | $6,441 |
| Kentucky | $5,975 |
| Arkansas | $5,923 |
| Nebraska | $5,761 |
| Mississippi | $5,556 |
| Delaware | $5,507 |
| Hawaii | $5,319 |
| Iowa | $4,981 |
| Utah | $4,734 |
| South Dakota | $4,702 |
| New Hampshire | $4,297 |
| Maine | $3,219 |
| North Dakota | $1,866 |
| Vermont | $1,731 |
| Montana | $1,251 |
| Alaska | $777 |
| Rhode Island | $275 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Florida
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Florida. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 0.0% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.2% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 1.0% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 2.7% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 4.7% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 6.7% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 6.4% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 9.9% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 21% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 47% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.5% |
| CSIP +1.50 to +1.75 | 0% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Mast’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Mast’s own score is +1.03.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Mast voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.0% of party-line votes and missed 2.8% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Mast voted against the majority of House Republicans 15 times.
674 roll calls Mast 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 Mast voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 98.0%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 121st of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Mast, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Mast | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.1% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 98.0% | 97.1% |
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | 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 |
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Mast most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Mast least often
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Mast sponsored 46 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 92 others. 8.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 155th of 216).
The bills Mast sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Counts for the 119th Congress
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 46 | 46 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 92 | 92 | 10 | 1 | 1 |
Ink blocks are bills Mast sponsored, ochre blocks bills Mast cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 155th of 216.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Mast, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Mast’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10889 | To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish the retail motor fuel credit. | Sponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10890 | To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish the motor fuel deduction. | Sponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10532 | Beagle Liberation Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 24, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1552 | Supporting the designation of the week of September 20 through September 26, 2026, as "Gold Star Families Remembrance Week". | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 16, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1524 | Expressing support for the designation of the week of September 19 through September 26, 2026, as "National Estuaries Week". | Sponsor | Sep 10, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection | Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Sep 10, 2026 |
A site that changed 120 times in 90 days. Mast’s official site had 31 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Mast posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Mast’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 Mast posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline is the measure on which Mast is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
