Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, New Jersey’s 10th district

Serving since Sep 18, 2024119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M001229FEC H4NJ10176

Portrait of LaMonica McIver, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
5.9%
of statements criticize a policy, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats

5.9% of 2,005 statements criticize a policy (119 statements); the average for House Democrats is 28%. Ranks 215th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of McIver’s press releases, Congressional Record speeches, posts on X and newsletters and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 1.7% of McIver’s statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats (average 9.8%). 66% of McIver’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top 5% of House Democrats (median 13%).

The measures on which McIver sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Policy criticism

5.9%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 215th of 216

Bipartisanship

1.7%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 214th of 216

Small donations, 2026

66%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 3rd of 214

Party unity

100%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 10th of 217 · 13 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Out of committee

11%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 29th of 207

CSIP ideology

−1.03

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03

Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is McIver, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which McIver is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What McIver says

McIver stresses bipartisanship less than 98% of House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 1.7% of 2,005 statements, against 9.8% for the average House Democrat; 214th of 216.

An AI model reads each of McIver’s 2,005 statements in the 119th Congress (1,823 posts on X, 81 newsletters, 55 Congressional Record speeches, 46 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 Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
McIver
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,359 statements
68%
73%
169th of 216
Credit claiming380 statements
19%
23%
137th of 216
Policy criticism119 statements
6%
28%
215th of 216
Personal attacks103 statements
5%
7%
117th of 216
Bipartisanship33 statements
2%
10%
214th of 216
Show the data
McIver's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowMcIverPeers
Policy discussion68%73%
Credit claiming19%23%
Policy criticism6%28%
Personal attacks5%7%
Bipartisanship2%10%
2,005

statements classified

1,823 posts on X, 81 newsletters, 55 Congressional Record speeches, 46 press releases.

posts on X: 1,823 (90.9%)posts on X 1,823newsletters: 81 (4.0%)Congressional Record speeches: 55 (2.7%)press releases: 46 (2.3%)
Show the data
McIver's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,823
newsletters81
Congressional Record speeches55
press releases46
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

McIver used extreme labels in 0.4% of statements, 21% of the peer average. 8 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”5
  2. “MAGA”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans4
  2. Department of Labor1
  3. ICE1
  4. Jeff Van Drew1
  5. MAGA1
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: 862025-02: 1302025-03: 1252025-04: 1272025-05: 1042025-06: 1142025-07: 1292025-08: 1182025-09: 1022025-10: 642025-11: 552025-12: 682026-01: 842026-02: 882026-03: 832026-04: 602026-05: 942026-06: 1022026-07: 822026-08: 622026-09: 872026-10: 41peak 130 · Feb ’25Personal attackspeak 13.7% · Jun ’26 · latest 2.4%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.7% of 86Personal attacks, 2025-02: 5.4% of 130Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 125Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.1% of 127Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.9% of 104Personal attacks, 2025-06: 4.4% of 114Personal attacks, 2025-07: 3.1% of 129Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.9% of 118Personal attacks, 2025-09: 2.9% of 102Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.6% of 64Personal attacks, 2025-11: 7.3% of 55Personal attacks, 2025-12: 5.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-01: 9.5% of 84Personal attacks, 2026-02: 13.6% of 88Personal attacks, 2026-03: 6.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2026-04: 11.7% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 94Personal attacks, 2026-06: 13.7% of 102Personal attacks, 2026-07: 8.5% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-08: 9.7% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-09: 4.6% of 87Personal attacks, 2026-10: 2.4% of 41Policy criticismpeak 11.2% · Mar ’25 · latest 2.4%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 3.5% of 86Policy criticism, 2025-02: 5.4% of 130Policy criticism, 2025-03: 11.2% of 125Policy criticism, 2025-04: 8.7% of 127Policy criticism, 2025-05: 8.6% of 104Policy criticism, 2025-06: 8.8% of 114Policy criticism, 2025-07: 3.1% of 129Policy criticism, 2025-08: 5.1% of 118Policy criticism, 2025-09: 8.8% of 102Policy criticism, 2025-10: 3.1% of 64Policy criticism, 2025-11: 7.3% of 55Policy criticism, 2025-12: 4.4% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-01: 4.8% of 84Policy criticism, 2026-02: 3.4% of 88Policy criticism, 2026-03: 3.6% of 83Policy criticism, 2026-04: 8.3% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-05: 10.6% of 94Policy criticism, 2026-06: 2.0% of 102Policy criticism, 2026-07: 4.9% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-08: 3.2% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-09: 3.5% of 87Policy criticism, 2026-10: 2.4% of 41Policy discussionpeak 87.2% · May ’26 · latest 61.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 66.3% of 86Policy discussion, 2025-02: 70.0% of 130Policy discussion, 2025-03: 72.0% of 125Policy discussion, 2025-04: 72.4% of 127Policy discussion, 2025-05: 68.3% of 104Policy discussion, 2025-06: 70.2% of 114Policy discussion, 2025-07: 61.2% of 129Policy discussion, 2025-08: 60.2% of 118Policy discussion, 2025-09: 53.9% of 102Policy discussion, 2025-10: 70.3% of 64Policy discussion, 2025-11: 74.6% of 55Policy discussion, 2025-12: 73.5% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-01: 72.6% of 84Policy discussion, 2026-02: 68.2% of 88Policy discussion, 2026-03: 57.8% of 83Policy discussion, 2026-04: 71.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-05: 87.2% of 94Policy discussion, 2026-06: 73.5% of 102Policy discussion, 2026-07: 62.2% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-08: 61.3% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-09: 62.1% of 87Policy discussion, 2026-10: 61.0% of 41Bipartisanshippeak 6.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 4.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 3.5% of 86Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 1.5% of 130Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 0.0% of 125Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 1.6% of 127Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 1.9% of 104Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 2.6% of 114Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 129Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 118Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 4.9% of 102Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 6.3% of 64Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 3.6% of 55Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 1.5% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 0.0% of 84Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 0.0% of 88Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 1.2% of 83Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 1.1% of 94Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 0.0% of 102Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 2.4% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 1.1% of 87Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 4.9% of 41Credit claimingpeak 36.2% · May ’26 · latest 9.8%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 14.0% of 86Credit claiming, 2025-02: 8.5% of 130Credit claiming, 2025-03: 15.2% of 125Credit claiming, 2025-04: 18.1% of 127Credit claiming, 2025-05: 8.6% of 104Credit claiming, 2025-06: 6.1% of 114Credit claiming, 2025-07: 17.8% of 129Credit claiming, 2025-08: 17.8% of 118Credit claiming, 2025-09: 20.6% of 102Credit claiming, 2025-10: 15.6% of 64Credit claiming, 2025-11: 29.1% of 55Credit claiming, 2025-12: 32.4% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-01: 22.6% of 84Credit claiming, 2026-02: 20.4% of 88Credit claiming, 2026-03: 32.5% of 83Credit claiming, 2026-04: 26.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-05: 36.2% of 94Credit claiming, 2026-06: 20.6% of 102Credit claiming, 2026-07: 23.2% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-08: 16.1% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-09: 20.7% of 87Credit claiming, 2026-10: 9.8% of 41Extreme labelspeak 2.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.3% of 86Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 130Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 125Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 127Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 104Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 114Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 129Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.9% of 118Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.0% of 102Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 84Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 88Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.1% of 94Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 102Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.2% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-08: 1.6% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 87Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 41Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for McIver, 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 ’25864.7%3.5%66.3%3.5%14.0%2.3%
Feb ’251305.4%5.4%70.0%1.5%8.5%0.0%
Mar ’251250.0%11.2%72.0%0.0%15.2%0.0%
Apr ’251273.1%8.7%72.4%1.6%18.1%0.0%
May ’251041.9%8.6%68.3%1.9%8.6%0.0%
Jun ’251144.4%8.8%70.2%2.6%6.1%0.0%
Jul ’251293.1%3.1%61.2%0.0%17.8%0.0%
Aug ’251180.9%5.1%60.2%0.0%17.8%0.9%
Sep ’251022.9%8.8%53.9%4.9%20.6%2.0%
Oct ’25641.6%3.1%70.3%6.3%15.6%0.0%
Nov ’25557.3%7.3%74.6%3.6%29.1%0.0%
Dec ’25685.9%4.4%73.5%1.5%32.4%0.0%
Jan ’26849.5%4.8%72.6%0.0%22.6%0.0%
Feb ’268813.6%3.4%68.2%0.0%20.4%0.0%
Mar ’26836.0%3.6%57.8%1.2%32.5%0.0%
Apr ’266011.7%8.3%71.7%3.3%26.7%0.0%
May ’26940.0%10.6%87.2%1.1%36.2%1.1%
Jun ’2610213.7%2.0%73.5%0.0%20.6%0.0%
Jul ’26828.5%4.9%62.2%2.4%23.2%1.2%
Aug ’26629.7%3.2%61.3%0.0%16.1%1.6%
Sep ’26874.6%3.5%62.1%1.1%20.7%0.0%
Oct ’26412.4%2.4%61.0%4.9%9.8%0.0%
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.

In McIver’s words

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

Policy criticism

In The Loop With LaMonica - October 23, 2026 [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/27642/1749233198359-McIver_Logo_Primary.png] Dear neighbor, It’s been a fun week here in New Jersey, and I’m excited to tell you about all that we’ve been getting done. Team LaMonica has been hard at work investing…

Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Commerce; Crime and Law Enforcement; Education; Emergency Management; Science, Technology, Communications; Families; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Health; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works

Bipartisanship

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

Oct 3, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; Education · Source

Extreme label

ICYMI: McIver and Counsel Paul Fishman Press Call Debriefing Court’s Refusal To Dismiss U.S. v. McIver Case NEWARK, NJ – Today, on a briefing call, Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (NJ-10) and her counsel, Paul Fishman, broke down Wednesday's Third Circuit decision to not dismiss U.S. v. McIver. The d…

Aug 27, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Law; Immigration; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “extreme” aimed at ICE · Source

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 · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · target: JVDSource

  3. Newsletters

    In The Loop With LaMonica - September 4, 2026 [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/27642/1749233198359-McIver_Logo_Primary.png] Dear neighbor, We came back with a bang this week, and I can’t wait to tell you all about it. From New Jersey to Washington, D.C., it was a full week of listening, connecting, and serving our communities. Catch up with me as I share highlights from the week—including connecting with our…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Education · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · Armed Forces and National Security · Science, Technology, Communications · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald Trump

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Laura LoomerSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Laura LoomerSource

All 2,005 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: 1,823 posts on X, 81 newsletters, 55 Congressional Record speeches, 46 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what McIver talks about most: 27% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 74th of 216).

Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what McIver talks about. The bills McIver sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What McIver talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
McIver
Peers
Government Operations and Politics369 statements
27%
20%
Immigration286 statements
21%
11%
Health281 statements
21%
26%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues280 statements
21%
13%
Education227 statements
17%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas McIver talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowMcIverPeers
Government Operations and Politics27%20%
Immigration21%11%
Health21%26%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues21%13%
Education17%10%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of McIver’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 27% (House Democrats 20%)27%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 11%)10%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 11%)21%Immigration, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 4%)6%HealthHealth, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 26%)21%Health, legislates on: 17% (House Democrats 16%)17%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 13%)21%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 5%)6%EducationEducation, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 10%)17%Education, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 5%)7%
Show the data
McIver's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics27%20%10%11%
Immigration21%11%6%4%
Health21%26%17%16%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues21%13%6%5%
Education17%10%7%5%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 74th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

McIver sits at −1.03 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 55% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.06 to −1.00, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,118 donors and 748 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”.

−1.03

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.06 to −1.00. From 1,118 donors and 748 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0McIver −1.0House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is McIver, 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 McIver’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 McIver sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0McIver −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
McIver's CSIP score of −1.03 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of McIver
House Democrats217−1.045%
All House439+0.322%
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 McIver 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 McIver.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

McIver raised $2.5M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 66% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 37% of itemized individual money came from New Jersey.

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
$2.5M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 813 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $635.2K (25.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.2M (49.4%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)PACs and other committees: $635.7K (25.3%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)25 squares$635.2K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)50 squares$1.2M
  • PACs and other committees25 squares$635.7K
  • Party committees$33
Show the data
Sources of McIver's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$635.2K25.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.2M49.4%
PACs and other committees$635.7K25.3%
Party committees$330.0%
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $647.9K$647.9K20242026 cycle: $2.5M$2.5M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
McIver's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$647.9K
2026 cycle$2.5M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 37% came from New Jersey.

  1. New Jersey$189.4K
  2. California$112.5K
  3. New York$39.0K
  4. Maryland$23.8K
  5. Virginia$16.7K

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.

0%60%
McIver
Median
2026
66%
13%
2024
7%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowMcIverMedian
2026 cycle66%13%
2024 cycle7%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,100AKMaine: $9,025MEVermont: $320VTNew Hampshire: $1,500NHWashington: $10.1KWAIdaho: $300IDMontana: $125MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $3,012MNIllinois: $9,275ILWisconsin: $1,688WIMichigan: $1,785MINew York: $39.0KNYRhode Island: $1,825RIMassachusetts: $10.1KMAOregon: $4,338ORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $500IAIndiana: $1,306INOhio: $3,220OHPennsylvania: $7,440PANew Jersey: $189.4KNJConnecticut: $8,460CTCalifornia: $112.5KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $5,673CONebraska: $500NEMissouri: $1,600MOKentucky: $238KYWest Virginia: $100WVVirginia: $16.7KVAMaryland: $23.8KMDDelaware: $550DEArizona: $2,376AZNew Mexico: $2,965NMKansas: $900KSArkansas: $280ARTennessee: $400TNNorth Carolina: $3,125NCSouth Carolina: $600SCDistrict of Columbia: $7,680DCOklahoma: $1,615OKLouisiana: $500LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $500ALGeorgia: $1,875GAHawaii: $1,845HITexas: $12.3KTXFlorida: $8,080FL
Show the data
McIver's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New Jersey$189.4K
California$112.5K
New York$39.0K
Maryland$23.8K
Virginia$16.7K
Texas$12.3K
Massachusetts$10.1K
Washington$10.1K
Illinois$9,275
Maine$9,025
Connecticut$8,460
Florida$8,080
District of Columbia$7,680
Pennsylvania$7,440
Colorado$5,673
Oregon$4,338
Ohio$3,220
North Carolina$3,125
Minnesota$3,012
New Mexico$2,965
Arizona$2,376
Georgia$1,875
Hawaii$1,845
Rhode Island$1,825
Michigan$1,785
Wisconsin$1,688
Oklahoma$1,615
Missouri$1,600
New Hampshire$1,500
Indiana$1,306
Alaska$1,100
Kansas$900
South Carolina$600
Delaware$550
Iowa$500
Nebraska$500
Louisiana$500
Alabama$500
Tennessee$400
Vermont$320
Idaho$300
Arkansas$280
Kentucky$238
Montana$125
West Virginia$100
North DakotaNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
UtahNo data
MississippiNo data
813

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

37%

from New Jersey

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 2.9%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 55%55%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 41%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.3%← More liberalMore conservative →
Show the data
Ideology of McIver's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to −0.25: 55% between −1.25 and −1.00, 41% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.252.9%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0055%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7541%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of McIver’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; McIver’s own score is −1.03.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$178.9K 384 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$32.3K 45 donors
  3. REAL ESTATE$19.4K 10 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$13.8K 9 donors
  5. CONSULTANT$13.4K 12 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  2. CA LUV PAC (CALIFORNIA LEADERSHIP UNITED FOR VICTORY PAC)$10.0K
  3. CARPENTERS LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS$10.0K
  4. CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS PAC$10.0K
  5. COURAGE TO CHANGE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. WINNING STRATEGIES WASHINGTON$9,500 4 donors
  2. CITY OF NEWARK$3,400 5 donors
  3. MERCURY PUBLIC AFFAIRS$3,250 3 donors
  4. STATE OF NEW JERSEY$1,675 4 donors
  5. GOOGLE$800 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

McIver voted with the majority of House Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 0.4% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, McIver voted against the majority of House Democrats 13 times.

674 roll calls McIver could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where McIver voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

13

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 100%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 10th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
McIver
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.5%
96.9%
40th of 217
Party unity
100%
96.4%
10th of 217
Show the data
McIver's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowMcIverPeers
Attendance99.5%96.9%
Party unity100%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

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
NayWith 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
NayWith 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
NayAgainst 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
NayWith 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 McIver most often

  1. Bonnie Watson ColemanD664 shared votes100%
  2. Valerie FousheeD658 shared votes99%
  3. Emily RandallD651 shared votes99%
  4. Danny DavisD643 shared votes99%
  5. Jan SchakowskyD627 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as McIver least often

  1. Chip RoyR632 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR596 shared votes17%
  3. Andy BiggsR606 shared votes17%
  4. Eric BurlisonR640 shared votes17%
  5. Josh BrecheenR641 shared votes18%
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

McIver sponsored 19 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 616 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 29th of 207).

The bills McIver 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

Sponsored19 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1919Sponsored, In committee: 1919Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored616 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 616616Cosponsored, In committee: 616616Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1717Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills McIver sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1919000
Cosponsored6166161711
How to read the blocks

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

11%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 29th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton137
  2. Rashida Tlaib95
  3. Hank Johnson Jr.70
  4. Bonnie Watson Coleman69
  5. Shri Thanedar64
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 McIver’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. 10858CARE for Blood Cancer Act of 2026CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10875To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10642STS ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10654PFB ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred 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. Oct 1, 2026
H.Res. 1592Expressing support for the designation of October 2026 as "National Learning Disabilities Awareness Month".CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 79 times in 90 days. McIver’s official site had 32 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images McIver posted on Oct 25, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    mciver.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    32

    pages crawled

    79

    changes 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.

Images McIver posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Two women pose behind a table piled with stacks of takeout meal containers and covered catering trays in a school gym or community hall. Pumpkins, tall windows, and a scoreboard are visible in the background. There is text on the scoreboard and a wall seal.
    Two women pose behind a table piled with stacks of takeout meal containers and covered catering trays in a school gym or community hall. Pumpkins, tall windows, and a scoreboard are visible in the background. There is text on the scoreboard and a wall seal.View post
  • A group of people sit around tables in a bright meeting room, listening to a speaker near a screen displaying a video call. Food, drinks, papers, and name placards are on the tables. Text appears on the screen and on some table items.
    A group of people sit around tables in a bright meeting room, listening to a speaker near a screen displaying a video call. Food, drinks, papers, and name placards are on the tables. Text appears on the screen and on some table items.View post
  • An outdoor construction site on a sunny day, with shovels planted in a wooden box filled with sand and a display board showing a rendering of a proposed apartment building. Construction equipment and buildings are visible in the background. The display board contains text.
    An outdoor construction site on a sunny day, with shovels planted in a wooden box filled with sand and a display board showing a rendering of a proposed apartment building. Construction equipment and buildings are visible in the background. The display board contains text.View post
  • A group of older adults sit around a table in a large indoor hall while a woman stands nearby holding a cup. A long buffet table and blue divider are visible behind them. Some text appears on a bag.
    A group of older adults sit around a table in a large indoor hall while a woman stands nearby holding a cup. A long buffet table and blue divider are visible behind them. Some text appears on a bag.View post
  • A collage of photos showing people at community events, including group portraits, a gathering around tables, a food stand, and a woman holding a newborn. An album-creation dialog overlays the center of the collage. Text is visible throughout the image.
    A collage of photos showing people at community events, including group portraits, a gathering around tables, a food stand, and a woman holding a newborn. An album-creation dialog overlays the center of the collage. Text is visible throughout the image.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 McIver is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
M001229
Bioguide
M001229
FEC candidate ids
H4NJ10176

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

Back to top