agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top 5% of House Republicans
Agreement 0.76 on a 0–1 scale; the average for House Republicans is 0.64. Ranks 4th of 221, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Nunn’s statements matches the mix in the bills Nunn sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among House Republicans.
0
At a glance
6 measures against House Republicans. 62% of Nunn’s statements claim credit, 1.6 times the House Republican average of 37%. 85% of Nunn’s statements discuss policy, in the top 5% of House Republicans (average 68%).
The measures on which Nunn 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.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.76
House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 4th of 221
Credit claiming
62%
House Republicans average 37% · ranks 5th of 221
Policy discussion
85%
House Republicans average 68% · ranks 7th of 221
Bipartisanship
23%
House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 7th of 221
Party unity
94.7%
House Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 205th of 221 · 25 votes against the majority of House Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.66
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Nunn, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Nunn is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Nunn attacks opponents personally less than 82% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 2,475 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 184th of 221.
An AI model reads each of Nunn’s 2,475 statements in the 119th Congress (2,122 posts on X, 211 press releases, 73 Congressional Record speeches, 69 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
Nunn
House Republicans, average of 221
0%20%40%60%80%
Nunn
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,099 statements
85%
68%
7th of 221
Credit claiming1,527 statements
62%
37%
5th of 221
Bipartisanship573 statements
23%
9%
7th of 221
Policy criticism334 statements
13%
15%
123rd of 221
Personal attacks6 statements
0%
2%
184th of 221
+ Show the data
Nunn's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
Row
Nunn
Peers
Policy discussion
85%
68%
Credit claiming
62%
37%
Bipartisanship
23%
9%
Policy criticism
13%
15%
Personal attacks
0%
2%
2,475
statements classified
2,122 posts on X, 211 press releases, 73 Congressional Record speeches, 69 newsletters.
posts on X
press releases
Congressional Record speeches
newsletters
+ Show the data
Nunn's statements by source
Part
Value
posts on X
2,122
press releases
211
Congressional Record speeches
73
newsletters
69
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is Nunn; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Nunn does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Nunn used extreme labels in 0.6% of statements, 19% of the peer average. 14 statements, most often aimed at far-left; peers 3.0%.
“communist”6
“radical”4
“far left”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
far-left2
Chinese Communist Party1
Communist China1
defund police1
Democrat Shutdown1
+ − 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
Monthly rates for Nunn, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column
Statements
Personal attacks
Policy criticism
Policy discussion
Bipartisanship
Credit claiming
Extreme labels
Jan ’25
116
2.6%
18.1%
67.2%
9.5%
53.4%
0.9%
Feb ’25
108
0.0%
19.4%
82.4%
20.4%
59.3%
0.0%
Mar ’25
116
0.0%
12.1%
66.4%
22.4%
52.6%
0.9%
Apr ’25
110
0.0%
5.5%
84.5%
29.1%
59.1%
0.0%
May ’25
129
1.6%
10.8%
88.4%
31.0%
65.9%
0.0%
Jun ’25
122
0.0%
9.8%
90.2%
26.2%
69.7%
2.5%
Jul ’25
121
0.0%
14.1%
93.4%
32.2%
70.3%
0.0%
Aug ’25
91
0.0%
9.9%
89.0%
34.1%
76.9%
0.0%
Sep ’25
120
0.8%
14.2%
84.2%
30.8%
64.2%
0.8%
Oct ’25
137
0.0%
37.2%
77.4%
13.1%
40.2%
0.7%
Nov ’25
96
0.0%
25.0%
84.4%
33.3%
45.8%
2.1%
Dec ’25
125
0.0%
14.4%
88.0%
27.2%
64.8%
0.8%
Jan ’26
99
0.0%
8.1%
96.0%
22.2%
67.7%
0.0%
Feb ’26
125
0.0%
10.4%
88.0%
16.0%
67.2%
0.8%
Mar ’26
129
0.0%
12.4%
80.6%
14.7%
54.3%
0.0%
Apr ’26
85
0.0%
3.5%
87.1%
18.8%
63.5%
0.0%
May ’26
137
0.0%
16.8%
87.6%
21.9%
67.2%
2.2%
Jun ’26
139
0.0%
10.8%
82.7%
21.6%
72.7%
0.0%
Jul ’26
103
0.0%
9.7%
82.5%
29.1%
60.2%
0.0%
Aug ’26
106
0.0%
8.5%
86.8%
11.3%
61.3%
0.0%
Sep ’26
107
0.0%
12.2%
93.5%
27.1%
55.1%
0.0%
Oct ’26
54
0.0%
0.0%
94.4%
20.4%
72.2%
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 Nunn’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
Nunn Cuts Ribbon on $1 Million CDL Training Pad at Indian Hills Community College
OTTUMWA, IA — Representative Zach Nunn (IA-03) today celebrated the opening of a new Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) training skid pad at Indian Hills Community College, made possible with a $1 million federal inves…
Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Education; Labor and Employment; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 29, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: Mr. Roberts · Source
Extreme label
House Passes Nunn Resolution Backing Law Enforcement — 173 Democrats Vote No
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The House of Representatives passed a resolution led by Representative Zach Nunn (IA-03) reaffirming support for the men and women of law enforcement and condemning policies that undermine public safety…
May 13, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Immigration; extreme label “radical” aimed at defund police · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: federal workforceSource ↗
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: BidenSource ↗
All 2,475 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: 2,122 posts on X, 211 press releases, 73 Congressional Record speeches, 69 newsletters.
Agriculture and Food is what Nunn talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 2.5 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.76 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 4th 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 Nunn talks about. The bills Nunn sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Nunn talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
Nunn
House Republicans average
0%9%18%26%35%
Nunn
Peers
Agriculture and Food474 statements
23%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security451 statements
22%
24%
Economics and Public Finance278 statements
13%
19%
Health277 statements
13%
15%
Government Operations and Politics223 statements
11%
19%
+ Show the data
Policy areas Nunn talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
Row
Nunn
Peers
Agriculture and Food
23%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security
22%
24%
Economics and Public Finance
13%
19%
Health
13%
15%
Government Operations and Politics
11%
19%
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Nunn’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.
Statements
Bills
House Republicans
+ Show the data
Nunn's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area
Talks about
House Republicans, talks about
Legislates on
House Republicans, legislates on
Agriculture and Food
23%
9%
11%
3%
Armed Forces and National Security
22%
24%
9%
8%
Economics and Public Finance
13%
19%
3%
2%
Health
13%
15%
11%
11%
Government Operations and Politics
11%
19%
6%
12%
0.76
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 4th of 221.
+ − What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Nunn legislates on exactly the areas Nunn 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 Nunn sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Nunn sits at +0.66 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 87% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.64 to +0.68, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,910 donors and 2,126 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”.
+0.66
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.64 to +0.68. From 2,910 donors and 2,126 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Nunn, 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 Nunn’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 Nunn sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Republicans221 · median +1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
+ Show the data
Nunn's CSIP score of +0.66 placed against House Republicans, All House.
Group
Officials
Median
Share left of Nunn
House Republicans
221
+1.0
13%
All House
439
+0.3
56%
+ − 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 Nunn 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 Nunn.
Nunn raised $6.1M in the 2026 cycle, 2.8 times the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 12% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 14% of itemized individual money came from Iowa.
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.
$6.1M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 680 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)20 squares$1.2M
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$172.8K
PACs and other committees36 squares$2.2M
Party committees$10.0K
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)41 squares$2.5M
+ Show the data
Sources of Nunn's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source
Amount
Share
Itemized individual (over $200)
$1.2M
20.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)
$172.8K
2.8%
PACs and other committees
$2.2M
35.7%
Party committees
$10.0K
0.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)
$2.5M
41.0%
+ − 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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.
+ Show the data
Nunn's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
Item
Value
2022 cycle
$2.6M
2024 cycle
$5.8M
2026 cycle
$6.1M
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 14% came from Iowa.
Florida$200.3K
Iowa$173.2K
Texas$115.6K
Virginia$103.7K
California$102.1K
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.
Nunn
Median
0%20%40%60%
Nunn
Median
2026
12%
9%
2024
23%
9%
2022
26%
9%
+ Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
Row
Nunn
Median
2026 cycle
12%
9%
2024 cycle
23%
9%
2022 cycle
26%
9%
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Itemized dollars$1$200.3Kno data
+ Show the data
Nunn's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State
Value
Florida
$200.3K
Iowa
$173.2K
Texas
$115.6K
Virginia
$103.7K
California
$102.1K
New York
$85.3K
District of Columbia
$37.6K
Massachusetts
$34.8K
Illinois
$32.3K
Colorado
$29.2K
Kansas
$28.7K
South Dakota
$21.7K
Minnesota
$20.6K
North Carolina
$20.6K
Pennsylvania
$17.2K
South Carolina
$16.6K
Utah
$15.5K
Tennessee
$15.3K
Maryland
$13.2K
Ohio
$9,457
Indiana
$8,909
Connecticut
$8,854
New Jersey
$8,717
New Hampshire
$8,700
Arizona
$8,058
Wisconsin
$7,646
Alabama
$5,692
Maine
$5,015
Arkansas
$4,692
Missouri
$3,038
Georgia
$2,762
Nebraska
$2,250
Washington
$1,701
Michigan
$1,594
Kentucky
$1,528
West Virginia
$1,500
Oklahoma
$1,404
Rhode Island
$1,250
Wyoming
$1,189
Oregon
$899
Idaho
$835
Louisiana
$533
Nevada
$521
Alaska
$507
Delaware
$500
New Mexico
$399
Montana
$280
Hawaii
$128
Mississippi
$7
North Dakota
$1
Vermont
No data
680
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
14%
from Iowa
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 Iowa. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
+ Show the data
Ideology of Nunn's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.75 to +1.50: 7.5% between 0.00 and +0.25, 8.4% between +0.25 and +0.50, 30% between +0.50 and +0.75, 48% between +0.75 and +1.00.
Item
Value
CSIP −0.75 to −0.50
0.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.25
0.6%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.00
2.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.25
7.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50
8.4%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75
30%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00
48%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.25
2.4%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.50
0.0%
+ − How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Nunn’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Nunn’s own score is +0.66.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
RETIRED$210.7K 322 donors
CEO$148.2K 37 donors
FOUNDER$46.5K 5 donors
OWNER$43.3K 13 donors
CONSULTANT$30.3K 24 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
PA-FIRST PAC$12.5K
A NEW NATION PAC$10.0K
AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$10.0K
AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
COINBASE$24.5K 4 donors
ENTREPRENEUR$14.9K 3 donors
APOLLO$14.5K 5 donors
APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$13.5K 3 donors
BGR GROUP$7,500 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Nunn voted with the majority of House Republicans on 94.7% of party-line votes and missed 4.6% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Nunn voted against the majority of House Republicans 25 times.
674 roll calls Nunn 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 Nunn voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
25
votes against the majority of House Republicans
Party unity 94.7%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 205th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Nunn, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Nunn
House Republicans, average of 221
80%90%100%
Nunn
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.4%
96.3%
171st of 221
Party unity
94.7%
97.1%
205th of 221
+ Show the data
Nunn's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
Row
Nunn
Peers
Attendance
95.4%
96.3%
Party unity
94.7%
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
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
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 Nunn most 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.
Nunn sponsored 61 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 422 others. 15% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 90th of 216).
The bills Nunn 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
Sponsored
Cosponsored
+ Show the data
Bills Nunn sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role
Introduced
In committee
Passed one chamber
Passed both chambers
Became law
Sponsored
61
61
6
0
0
Cosponsored
422
422
51
8
7
+ − How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Nunn sponsored, ochre blocks bills Nunn cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
15%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 90th of 216.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Nunn, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
Democrat
Republican
Brian Fitzpatrick78
Michael Lawler65
Don Bacon49
Donald Davis44
Eugene Vindman42
+ − 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 Nunn’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, to establish a Critical Infrastructure AI Cyber Defense Pilot Program, and for other purposes.
Cosponsor
Sep 21, 2026
In committee
Armed Forces and National Security
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security. Sep 21, 2026
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 17, 2026
A site that changed 105 times in 90 days. Nunn’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Nunn posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Nunn’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 Nunn posts with a vision model.
“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.
A group of people stands for a photo beside a maroon college-branded semitrailer and tractor. A podium with the college logo is in front of them. Text appears on the trailer and podium.View post ↗
02
A group of people pose for a photo in front of a large maroon semi-trailer bearing a college logo and text. The truck is parked outdoors under a partly cloudy sky.View post ↗
03
A group of people pose for a ribbon-cutting ceremony in front of a large truck. Two men hold scissors over a pink ribbon, with several people standing behind them. Text is visible on the truck.View post ↗
04
A man wearing sunglasses, a brown jacket, jeans, and boots poses in the open doorway of a maroon semi-truck, with one foot on the metal step. Some text and labels are visible on the truck.View post ↗
05
A blue-and-red promotional poster for a nationwide STEM app competition for middle- and high-school students. It lists application and winner-announcement dates, with a smartphone graphic behind the information and contact details at the bottom. The poster contains prominent text.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.
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 Nunn 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 …”).
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.
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
