Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Florida’s 17th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2019119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide S001214FEC H8FL17053

Portrait of W. Steube, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
93%
of House Republicans score to the left of Steube on the CSIP scale

CSIP score +1.40 (approximate range +1.39 to +1.42, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 1,848 donors and 3,640 roll calls.

CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Steube sits among House Republicans, not how far from the centre.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 7.8% of Steube’s statements use an extreme label, 2.6 times the House Republican average of 3.0%. 24% of Steube’s statements criticize a policy, 1.6 times the House Republican average of 15%.

The measures on which Steube 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.

CSIP ideology

+1.40

More conservative than 93% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

Extreme labels

7.8%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 15th of 221

Policy criticism

24%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 21st of 221

Personal attacks

5.6%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 22nd of 221

Out of committee

6.1%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 181st of 216

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.68

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 56th of 221

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Steube says

Steube attacks opponents personally more than 90% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 5.6% of 1,633 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 22nd of 221.

An AI model reads each of Steube’s 1,633 statements in the 119th Congress (1,375 posts on X, 145 press releases, 78 newsletters, 35 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.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Steube
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,164 statements
71%
68%
91st of 221
Credit claiming645 statements
40%
37%
96th of 221
Policy criticism393 statements
24%
15%
21st of 221
Bipartisanship114 statements
7%
9%
122nd of 221
Personal attacks92 statements
6%
2%
22nd of 221
Show the data
Steube's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowSteubePeers
Policy discussion71%68%
Credit claiming40%37%
Policy criticism24%15%
Bipartisanship7%9%
Personal attacks6%2%
1,633

statements classified

1,375 posts on X, 145 press releases, 78 newsletters, 35 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,375 (84.2%)posts on X 1,375press releases: 145 (8.9%)newsletters: 78 (4.8%)Congressional Record speeches: 35 (2.1%)
Show the data
Steube's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,375
press releases145
newsletters78
Congressional Record speeches35
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Steube used extreme labels in 7.8% of statements, 2.6 times the peer average. 128 statements, most often aimed at Left; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”36
  2. “far left”20
  3. “woke”16
  4. “extreme”12
  5. “communist”8

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Left9
  2. Democrats7
  3. ANTIFA3
  4. RINOs3
  5. Chuck Schumer2
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: 752025-02: 1082025-03: 752025-04: 812025-05: 1072025-06: 892025-07: 852025-08: 652025-09: 552025-10: 692025-11: 512025-12: 482026-01: 1152026-02: 942026-03: 652026-04: 772026-05: 702026-06: 732026-07: 772026-08: 502026-09: 622026-10: 42peak 115 · Jan ’26Personal attackspeak 17.6% · Jul ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 4.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2025-02: 5.6% of 108Personal attacks, 2025-03: 4.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.2% of 81Personal attacks, 2025-05: 8.4% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.4% of 89Personal attacks, 2025-07: 17.6% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-08: 4.6% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-09: 5.5% of 55Personal attacks, 2025-10: 11.6% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-11: 7.8% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-12: 2.1% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-01: 5.2% of 115Personal attacks, 2026-02: 6.4% of 94Personal attacks, 2026-03: 6.2% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-04: 9.1% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-05: 1.4% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.7% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-07: 2.6% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-08: 8.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.6% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 42Policy criticismpeak 38.9% · Feb ’25 · latest 11.9%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 38.7% of 75Policy criticism, 2025-02: 38.9% of 108Policy criticism, 2025-03: 21.3% of 75Policy criticism, 2025-04: 16.1% of 81Policy criticism, 2025-05: 16.8% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-06: 14.6% of 89Policy criticism, 2025-07: 17.6% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-08: 20.0% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-09: 23.6% of 55Policy criticism, 2025-10: 27.5% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-11: 23.5% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-12: 33.3% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-01: 9.6% of 115Policy criticism, 2026-02: 29.8% of 94Policy criticism, 2026-03: 36.9% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-04: 32.5% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-05: 34.3% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-06: 23.3% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-07: 28.6% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-08: 16.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-09: 16.1% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-10: 11.9% of 42Policy discussionpeak 92.0% · Aug ’26 · latest 71.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 66.7% of 75Policy discussion, 2025-02: 77.8% of 108Policy discussion, 2025-03: 65.3% of 75Policy discussion, 2025-04: 69.1% of 81Policy discussion, 2025-05: 60.8% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-06: 62.9% of 89Policy discussion, 2025-07: 65.9% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-08: 75.4% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-09: 67.3% of 55Policy discussion, 2025-10: 55.1% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-11: 68.6% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-12: 79.2% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-01: 91.3% of 115Policy discussion, 2026-02: 60.6% of 94Policy discussion, 2026-03: 72.3% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-04: 75.3% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-05: 75.7% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-06: 64.4% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-07: 79.2% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-08: 92.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-09: 75.8% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-10: 71.4% of 42Bipartisanshippeak 14.3% · Apr ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 12.0% of 75Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 4.6% of 108Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 8.0% of 75Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 2.5% of 81Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.6% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 5.6% of 89Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.9% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 7.7% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 7.3% of 55Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 1.5% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 9.8% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 12.5% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 6.1% of 115Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 4.3% of 94Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 9.2% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 14.3% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 2.9% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 12.3% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 11.7% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 6.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 6.5% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 42Credit claimingpeak 60.0% · Aug ’25 · latest 21.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 49.3% of 75Credit claiming, 2025-02: 50.9% of 108Credit claiming, 2025-03: 33.3% of 75Credit claiming, 2025-04: 40.7% of 81Credit claiming, 2025-05: 30.8% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-06: 37.1% of 89Credit claiming, 2025-07: 35.3% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-08: 60.0% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-09: 38.2% of 55Credit claiming, 2025-10: 24.6% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-11: 45.1% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-12: 41.7% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-01: 25.2% of 115Credit claiming, 2026-02: 33.0% of 94Credit claiming, 2026-03: 40.0% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-04: 44.2% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-05: 40.0% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-06: 49.3% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-07: 53.3% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-08: 36.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-09: 43.5% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-10: 21.4% of 42Extreme labelspeak 16.0% · Mar ’25 · latest 2.4%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 14.7% of 75Extreme labels, 2025-02: 10.2% of 108Extreme labels, 2025-03: 16.0% of 75Extreme labels, 2025-04: 13.6% of 81Extreme labels, 2025-05: 12.2% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-06: 7.9% of 89Extreme labels, 2025-07: 8.2% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-08: 7.7% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-09: 14.5% of 55Extreme labels, 2025-10: 10.1% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.9% of 115Extreme labels, 2026-02: 7.4% of 94Extreme labels, 2026-03: 6.2% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-05: 5.7% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-06: 13.7% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-07: 5.2% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-08: 8.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-10: 2.4% of 42Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Steube, 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 ’25754.0%38.7%66.7%12.0%49.3%14.7%
Feb ’251085.6%38.9%77.8%4.6%50.9%10.2%
Mar ’25754.0%21.3%65.3%8.0%33.3%16.0%
Apr ’25811.2%16.1%69.1%2.5%40.7%13.6%
May ’251078.4%16.8%60.8%5.6%30.8%12.2%
Jun ’25893.4%14.6%62.9%5.6%37.1%7.9%
Jul ’258517.6%17.6%65.9%5.9%35.3%8.2%
Aug ’25654.6%20.0%75.4%7.7%60.0%7.7%
Sep ’25555.5%23.6%67.3%7.3%38.2%14.5%
Oct ’256911.6%27.5%55.1%1.5%24.6%10.1%
Nov ’25517.8%23.5%68.6%9.8%45.1%0.0%
Dec ’25482.1%33.3%79.2%12.5%41.7%2.1%
Jan ’261155.2%9.6%91.3%6.1%25.2%0.9%
Feb ’26946.4%29.8%60.6%4.3%33.0%7.4%
Mar ’26656.2%36.9%72.3%9.2%40.0%6.2%
Apr ’26779.1%32.5%75.3%14.3%44.2%0.0%
May ’26701.4%34.3%75.7%2.9%40.0%5.7%
Jun ’26732.7%23.3%64.4%12.3%49.3%13.7%
Jul ’26772.6%28.6%79.2%11.7%53.3%5.2%
Aug ’26508.0%16.0%92.0%6.0%36.0%8.0%
Sep ’26621.6%16.1%75.8%6.5%43.5%0.0%
Oct ’26420.0%11.9%71.4%0.0%21.4%2.4%
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 Steube’s words

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

Policy criticism

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

Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; Foreign Trade and International Finance · Source

Personal attacks

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

Sep 29, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; Law; target: Jack Smith · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 1, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “radical” aimed at left · 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 · Law · target: Jack SmithSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: CEOSource

  3. 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 · Law · target: Anthony FauciSource

  4. 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 · Law · target: FauciSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Agriculture and Food · Government Operations and Politics · extreme label “communist” aimed at Mamdani · target: MamdaniSource

All 1,633 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: 1,375 posts on X, 145 press releases, 78 newsletters, 35 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Steube talks about most: 21% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 56th 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 Steube talks about. The bills Steube sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Steube talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Steube
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security249 statements
21%
24%
Immigration233 statements
20%
13%
Government Operations and Politics214 statements
18%
19%
Economics and Public Finance179 statements
15%
19%
International Affairs154 statements
13%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Steube talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowSteubePeers
Armed Forces and National Security21%24%
Immigration20%13%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%
Economics and Public Finance15%19%
International Affairs13%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Steube’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.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 24%)21%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (House Republicans 8%)6%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 13%)20%Immigration, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 5%)8%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (House Republicans 19%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 12%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 19%)15%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 13% (House Republicans 9%)13%International Affairs, legislates on: 7% (House Republicans 6%)7%
Show the data
Steube's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security21%24%6%8%
Immigration20%13%8%5%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%12%12%
Economics and Public Finance15%19%1%2%
International Affairs13%9%7%6%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 56th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Steube sits at +1.40 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 93% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.39 to +1.42, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,848 donors and 3,640 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”.

+1.40

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.39 to +1.42. From 1,848 donors and 3,640 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Steube +1.4House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Steube, 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 Steube’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 Steube sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Steube +1.4All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Steube's CSIP score of +1.40 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Steube
House Republicans221+1.092%
All House439+0.396%
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 Steube 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 Steube.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Steube raised $1.6M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 27% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 66% of itemized individual money came from Florida.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$1.6M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 345 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): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.5K (25.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $150.7K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $150.7K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $150.7K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $150.7K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $150.7K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $150.7K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $150.7K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $150.7K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $150.7K (9.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $150.7K (9.5%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)PACs and other committees: $751.0K (47.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $281.7K (17.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)25 squares$404.5K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)10 squares$150.7K
  • PACs and other committees47 squares$751.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)18 squares$281.7K
Show the data
Sources of Steube's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$404.5K25.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$150.7K9.5%
PACs and other committees$751.0K47.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$281.7K17.7%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $729.0K$729.0K20202022 cycle: $1.6M$1.6M20222024 cycle: $1.7M$1.7M20242026 cycle: $1.6M$1.6M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Steube's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$729.0K
2022 cycle$1.6M
2024 cycle$1.7M
2026 cycle$1.6M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 66% came from Florida.

  1. Florida$227.1K
  2. Virginia$32.9K
  3. California$19.1K
  4. District of Columbia$14.5K
  5. Nevada$10.0K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Steube
Median
2026
27%
9%
2024
39%
9%
2022
39%
9%
2020
17%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowSteubeMedian
2026 cycle27%9%
2024 cycle39%9%
2022 cycle39%9%
2020 cycle17%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: $60IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: $105NDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $3,970ILWisconsin: $50WIMichigan: $984MINew York: $750NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $50MAOregon: $550ORNevada: $10.0KNVWyoming: $140WYSouth Dakota: $3,000SDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $500INOhio: $1,500OHPennsylvania: $1,131PANew Jersey: $1,275NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $19.1KCAUtah: $3,000UTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $60MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $32.9KVAMaryland: $8,005MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $750AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $2,000NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $14.5KDCOklahoma: $800OKLouisiana: $1,500LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $100ALGeorgia: $3,500GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $8,700TXFlorida: $227.1KFL
Show the data
Steube's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Florida$227.1K
Virginia$32.9K
California$19.1K
District of Columbia$14.5K
Nevada$10.0K
Texas$8,700
Maryland$8,005
Illinois$3,970
Georgia$3,500
South Dakota$3,000
Utah$3,000
North Carolina$2,000
Ohio$1,500
Louisiana$1,500
New Jersey$1,275
Pennsylvania$1,131
Michigan$984
Oklahoma$800
New York$750
Arizona$750
Oregon$550
Indiana$500
Wyoming$140
North Dakota$105
Alabama$100
Idaho$60
Missouri$60
Wisconsin$50
Massachusetts$50
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
MontanaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
IowaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
South CarolinaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
345

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

66%

from Florida

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.2%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 8.8%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 4.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 5.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 2.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 29%29%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 23%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 25%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Steube's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.50: 8.8% between −0.25 and 0.00, 5.5% between +0.25 and +0.50, 29% between +0.75 and +1.00, 23% between +1.00 and +1.25, 25% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.2%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.008.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.254.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.505.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.752.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0029%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2523%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5025%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Steube’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Steube’s own score is +1.40.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$102.4K 164 donors
  2. HOMEMAKER$22.5K 5 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$18.0K 16 donors
  4. CEO$14.6K 8 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$11.2K 13 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVES (ASAE) PAC$10.0K
  3. ANTI-WOKE FUND$10.0K
  4. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (DUKEPAC)$10.0K
  5. GUIDEWELL MUTUAL HOLDING CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (GUIDEWELL PAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Steube voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.0% of party-line votes and missed 3.1% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Steube voted against the majority of House Republicans 63 times.

674 roll calls Steube 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 Steube voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

63

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.0%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 119th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Steube
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.8%
96.3%
157th of 221
Party unity
98.0%
97.1%
119th of 221
Show the data
Steube's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowSteubePeers
Attendance96.8%96.3%
Party unity98.0%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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
YeaWith 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
YeaWith 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
YeaWith 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
YeaWith 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 Steube most often

  1. Andrew Ogles IVR599 shared votes96%
  2. Wesley HuntR497 shared votes96%
  3. Byron DonaldsR586 shared votes95%
  4. Sheri BiggsR653 shared votes95%
  5. Kat CammackR644 shared votes95%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Steube least often

  1. Jan SchakowskyD613 shared votes18%
  2. Gregorio CasarD557 shared votes18%
  3. Frederica WilsonD473 shared votes18%
  4. Delia RamirezD626 shared votes19%
  5. Rashida TlaibD638 shared votes19%
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

Steube sponsored 115 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 327 others. 6.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 181st of 216).

The bills Steube 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

Sponsored115 billsSponsored, Introduced: 115115Sponsored, In committee: 115115Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored327 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 327327Cosponsored, In committee: 327327Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2525Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Steube sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored115115411
Cosponsored3273272533
How to read the blocks

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

6.1%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 181st of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Barry Moore43
  2. Claudia Tenney38
  3. Brandon Gill34
  4. Mary Miller34
  5. Sheri Biggs28
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 Steube’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. 10856LIHTC Security ActCosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10606FLAFO ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 24, 2026
H.R. 10607American Fuel Affordability ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeTaxationReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10449Student Voter Data Protection ActCosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeEducationReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10279To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9995 Southeast Federal Highway in Hobe Sound, Florida, as the "Special Operations Chief Petty Officer Aaron Carson Vaughn Post Office Building".CosponsorSep 3, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 3, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 106 times in 90 days. Steube’s official site had 46 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Steube posted on Oct 22, 2026.

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

Websites

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 Steube posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A formal letter on U.S. House of Representatives letterhead, dated October 22, 2026. It is addressed to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and discusses trade negotiations with Mexico and concerns about seasonal imports affecting Florida specialty-crop growers. The page includes footnotes and office contact details.
    A formal letter on U.S. House of Representatives letterhead, dated October 22, 2026. It is addressed to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and discusses trade negotiations with Mexico and concerns about seasonal imports affecting Florida specialty-crop growers. The page includes footnotes and office contact details.View post
  • A cropped page from a formal letter, with several paragraphs of printed text and a blue handwritten signature above the printed name and title of a member of Congress.
    A cropped page from a formal letter, with several paragraphs of printed text and a blue handwritten signature above the printed name and title of a member of Congress.View post
  • A celebratory graphic shows a U.S. Navy ship at sea beneath a cloudy sunset sky. Large birthday-themed lettering overlays the scene, with a small campaign-style logo and text at the bottom.
    A celebratory graphic shows a U.S. Navy ship at sea beneath a cloudy sunset sky. Large birthday-themed lettering overlays the scene, with a small campaign-style logo and text at the bottom.View post
  • A patriotic-style Columbus Day graphic over a blue ocean and cloudy sky, with a white sailboat motif, star borders, and prominent decorative text.
    A patriotic-style Columbus Day graphic over a blue ocean and cloudy sky, with a white sailboat motif, star borders, and prominent decorative text.View post
  • A bearded man wearing glasses, a light blue shirt, and a tie sits at a microphone in what appears to be a government hearing room. A graphic with quotation marks and a blue background overlays the lower part of the image, containing political text.
    A bearded man wearing glasses, a light blue shirt, and a tie sits at a microphone in what appears to be a government hearing room. A graphic with quotation marks and a blue background overlays the lower part of the image, containing political 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.

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 Steube is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
S001214
Bioguide
S001214
FEC candidate ids
H8FL17053

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