0% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in American Samoa. Ranks 216th of 216, where 1st is the highest share. 5 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in American Samoa, ranked among House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
6 measures against House Republicans. Radewagen raised $60.7K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans (median $2.2M). 24% of Radewagen’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.7 times the House Republican average of 8.9%.
The measures on which Radewagen 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.
From American Samoa, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 216th of 216 House Republicans
Raised, 2026
House Republicans’ median $2.2M · ranks 219th of 220
Bipartisanship
House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 6th of 221
Personal attacks
House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 216th of 221
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 95% of House Republicans · ± 0.03
Small donations, 2026
House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 214th of 220
Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Radewagen, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Radewagen is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Radewagen attacks opponents personally less than 97% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 233 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 216th of 221.
An AI model reads each of Radewagen’s 233 statements in the 119th Congress (132 press releases, 87 posts on X, 11 newsletters, 3 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Radewagen | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 79% | 68% |
| Credit claiming | 40% | 37% |
| Bipartisanship | 24% | 9% |
| Policy criticism | 11% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
statements classified
132 press releases, 87 posts on X, 11 newsletters, 3 Congressional Record speeches.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| press releases | 132 |
| posts on X | 87 |
| newsletters | 11 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 3 |
The thick bar is Radewagen; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Radewagen does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Radewagen used no extreme labels in 233 statements. The peer average is 3.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 62.5% | 18.8% | 31.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 61.1% | 27.8% | 44.4% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 58.3% | 25.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 80.0% | 20.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 13.6% | 90.9% | 13.6% | 31.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 91.7% | 16.7% | 45.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 26 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 84.6% | 23.1% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 4.8% | 81.0% | 14.3% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 86.7% | 40.0% | 53.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 4.5% | 100.0% | 22.7% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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%. 12 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
Amata Highlights American Samoa Constitution Day, and 70th Anniversary of Historic Photo and Appointment Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Uifa’atali Amata is highlighting American Samoa’s Constitution Day, October 17th, and Thursday’s 70-year mark of American Samoa’s first Samoan governor pictured w…
Oct 15, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Policy criticism
Amata Pays Courtesy Call to PACOM Commander Admiral Paparo Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Uifa’atali Amata, while in Hawaii attending a family funeral, paid a courtesy visit to U.S. Pacific Command headquarters, and PACOM Commander Admiral Samuel J. Paparo, including discussion of American Samoa a…
Oct 24, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; Public Lands and Natural Resources · Source
Bipartisanship
Amata Congratulates Peace Corps Volunteer Rosalina Macon Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Uifa’atali Amata is congratulating Peace Corps Volunteer Rosalina Macon, a former intern in the congressional office, and currently featured in an article on the Peace Corps website. She is from Manu’a and the…
Oct 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Education; International Affairs · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
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: 132 press releases, 87 posts on X, 11 newsletters, 3 Congressional Record speeches.
Armed Forces and National Security is what Radewagen talks about most: 36% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.57 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 193rd 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 Radewagen talks about. The bills Radewagen sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Radewagen | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 36% | 24% |
| Health | 30% | 15% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 18% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 18% | 19% |
| International Affairs | 17% | 9% |
The thick bar is the share of Radewagen’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 39%. 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 | 36% | 24% | 16% | 8% |
| Health | 30% | 15% | 4% | 11% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 18% | 4% | 11% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 18% | 19% | 0% | 2% |
| International Affairs | 17% | 9% | 25% | 6% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 193rd of 221.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Radewagen legislates on exactly the areas Radewagen 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 Radewagen sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Radewagen sits at +0.55 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 95% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.53 to +0.58, which understates the uncertainty; from 164 donors and 287 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 +0.53 to +0.58. From 164 donors and 287 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Radewagen, 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 Radewagen’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 Radewagen |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Republicans | 221 | +1.0 | 5% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 52% |
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 Radewagen 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 Radewagen.
Radewagen raised $60.7K in the 2026 cycle, 2.8% of the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 0.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 0% of itemized individual money came from American Samoa.
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 5 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) | $27.3K | 45.0% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $100 | 0.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $32.0K | 52.7% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $1,316 | 2.2% |
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 | $75.7K |
| 2022 cycle | $52.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $65.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $60.7K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 0% came from American Samoa.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.
| Row | Radewagen | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 0% | 9% |
| 2024 cycle | 0% | 9% |
| 2022 cycle | 0% | 9% |
| 2020 cycle | 2% | 9% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Maryland | $10.0K |
| Virginia | $3,300 |
| Georgia | $2,000 |
| Hawaii | $2,000 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from American Samoa
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 American Samoa. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 81% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 19% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Radewagen’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Radewagen’s own score is +0.55.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Radewagen voted with the majority of House Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed 82% of 85 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Radewagen never voted against the majority of House Republicans.
85 roll calls Radewagen 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 Radewagen 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 100%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 1st of 221. 85 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Radewagen, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 10% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Radewagen | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 18% | 96.3% |
| Party unity | 100% | 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.
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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 Radewagen most often
Not enough shared votes.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Radewagen least often
Not enough shared votes.
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
Radewagen sponsored 8 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 136 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 111th of 216).
The bills Radewagen 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 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 136 | 136 | 22 | 1 | 1 |
Ink blocks are bills Radewagen sponsored, ochre blocks bills Radewagen 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 111th of 216.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Radewagen, 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 Radewagen’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.Con.Res. 119 | Celebrating the 65th anniversary of the establishment of the Peace Corps, and commending its volunteers and contributions to global peace, friendship, and development. | Cosponsor | Sep 21, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sep 21, 2026 |
| H.R. 10223 | End Tuberculosis Now Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 2, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sep 2, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1492 | Reaffirming the enduring partnership between the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and its eighteen members and the United States toward stability, prosperity, and peace in the Pacific, and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States will continue to remain a strong, reliab | Cosponsor | Aug 27, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Aug 27, 2026 |
| H.R. 10114 | To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15642 Sand Canyon Avenue in Irvine, California, as the "Mary Kageyama Nomura Post Office Building". | Cosponsor | Aug 17, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Aug 17, 2026 |
| H.R. 10101 | Open Doors to Diplomacy Act | Cosponsor | Aug 13, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Aug 13, 2026 |
A site that changed 117 times in 90 days. Radewagen’s official site had 34 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Radewagen posted on Sep 24, 2026.
The lab crawls Radewagen’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 Radewagen 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 Radewagen 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
