CSIP score −1.42 (approximate range −1.44 to −1.40, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 1,884 donors and 7,507 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 Takano sits among House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
6 measures against House Democrats. 40% of Takano’s statements criticize a policy, in the top tenth of House Democrats (average 28%). 16% of Takano’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.7 times the House Democrat average of 9.8%.
The measures on which Takano sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 95% of House Democrats · ± 0.02
Party unity
House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 10th of 217 · 12 votes against the majority of House Democrats
Policy criticism
House Democrats average 28% · ranks 21st of 216
Bipartisanship
House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 24th of 216
Talk-to-bills agreement
House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 42nd of 216
Raised, 2026
House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 167th of 214
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Takano, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Takano is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Takano stresses bipartisanship more than 88% of House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 16% of 602 statements, against 9.8% for the average House Democrat; 24th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Takano’s 602 statements in the 119th Congress (269 posts on X, 247 Congressional Record speeches, 45 press releases, 41 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Takano | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 74% | 73% |
| Policy criticism | 40% | 28% |
| Credit claiming | 20% | 23% |
| Bipartisanship | 16% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 9% | 7% |
statements classified
269 posts on X, 247 Congressional Record speeches, 45 press releases, 41 newsletters.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 269 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 247 |
| press releases | 45 |
| newsletters | 41 |
The thick bar is Takano; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Takano does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Takano used extreme labels in 2.3% of statements, above the peer average. 14 statements, most often aimed at bill; peers 1.9%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 37 | 8.1% | 37.8% | 81.1% | 16.2% | 32.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 38 | 7.9% | 39.5% | 79.0% | 13.2% | 13.2% | 5.3% |
| Mar ’25 | 47 | 17.0% | 44.7% | 78.7% | 8.5% | 8.5% | 6.4% |
| Apr ’25 | 57 | 8.8% | 38.6% | 66.7% | 19.3% | 21.1% | 1.8% |
| May ’25 | 38 | 2.6% | 39.5% | 81.6% | 26.3% | 34.2% | 2.6% |
| Jun ’25 | 39 | 12.8% | 53.8% | 71.8% | 5.1% | 10.3% | 5.1% |
| Jul ’25 | 32 | 6.3% | 50.0% | 81.3% | 12.5% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 68 | 0.0% | 33.8% | 67.7% | 25.0% | 25.0% | 2.9% |
| Oct ’25 | 24 | 33.3% | 20.8% | 45.8% | 0.0% | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 17 | 5.9% | 17.6% | 52.9% | 17.6% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 16 | 18.8% | 43.8% | 87.5% | 25.0% | 6.3% | 12.5% |
| Jan ’26 | 33 | 3.0% | 27.3% | 97.0% | 30.3% | 27.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 30 | 3.3% | 56.7% | 83.3% | 23.3% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 12 | 16.7% | 41.7% | 58.3% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 14 | 28.6% | 35.7% | 92.9% | 7.1% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 40 | 2.5% | 47.5% | 67.5% | 22.5% | 30.0% | 2.5% |
| Jun ’26 | 18 | 11.1% | 38.9% | 55.6% | 5.6% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 28 | 7.1% | 39.3% | 71.4% | 10.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 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) |
| Sep ’26 | 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 ’26 | 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) |
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%. 4 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 81st anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. August 6, 81 years ago--which will happen in a couple of weeks--the first instance of a nuclear weapon being deployed against a civilian population occurred. My cousin, Kikue Takagi, survived the bombing because she…
Jul 20, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs · Source
Bipartisanship
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this simple, bipartisan bill protects taxpayers. It does so without weakening the FECA program. It simply targets truly bad actors, corrupt physicians, pharmacists, and other providers who exploit injured Federal workers and rip off th…
Jul 20, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Labor and Employment; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
Extreme label
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do think the gentleman doth protest too much. The gentleman cheerleaded and encouraged Secretary Collins to end the VASP program over a year ago, forthwith. He is now on the floor arguing to take away the last remaining tool that veterans who…
May 21, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Finance and Financial Sector; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Chairman Van Orden, Chairman Bost · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Congressional Record
I yield myself such time as I may consume. In listening to the chairman today and at the Rules Committee several weeks ago, it is clear to me that he has been picking his words very carefully. He has been very specific that this bill, the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act, would not impair current veterans. I am not sure if the chairman fully understands how the disability benefits system works or if he t…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Economics and Public FinanceSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to HR 9237. It is a beautiful day here in Washington, DC, but Republicans are casting a dark cloud over all of us and especially over America's veterans. We have before us today a bill that, despite its name, does the exact opposite of taking care of veterans. It enshrines into law the largest cut to veterans' benef…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · Education · Health · Housing and Community Development · Labor and Employment · Taxation · target: BostSource
Congressional Record
I thank Congressman Jackson for yielding. I thank him for that wonderful introduction. I won't claim to be the first Japanese American in Congress. There were many that came before me, such as Senator Inouye, Senator Spark Matsunaga, and many others such as Bob Matsui in the House of Representatives. But all of what you said about my family having been interned or incarcerated during World War II, that is the burden…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · LawSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I proudly voted to pass an Iran War Powers Resolution to rein in this unraveling President. This was the fourth attempt by Democrats to assert our authority as a coequal branch of government and to say: No more to this war of choice. Every Democrat in this House Chamber heard the cries of Americans saying no more to the billions spent on war instead of investing here at home. Mr. Speaker, why d…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · target: unraveling PresidentSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill and I urge my colleagues to vote against it, as well. May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and it also happens to be Military Appreciation Month. We are also here a few days before Memorial Day, when we honor those who gave all to defend our country, so the cruel irony of the majority choosing to consi…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Health · Government Operations and Politics · Law · Crime and Law EnforcementSource
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: 269 posts on X, 247 Congressional Record speeches, 45 press releases, 41 newsletters.
Armed Forces and National Security is what Takano talks about most: 42% of policy statements, 2.7 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 42nd of 216).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Takano talks about. The bills Takano sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Takano | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 42% | 16% |
| Health | 29% | 26% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 20% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 19% | 13% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 20% |
The thick bar is the share of Takano’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
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 46%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 42% | 16% | 14% | 7% |
| Health | 29% | 26% | 15% | 16% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 20% | 0% | 1% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 19% | 13% | 10% | 5% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 20% | 12% | 11% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 42nd of 216.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Takano legislates on exactly the areas Takano 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 Takano sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Takano sits at −1.42 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 95% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.44 to −1.40, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,884 donors and 7,507 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.44 to −1.40. From 1,884 donors and 7,507 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Takano, 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 Takano’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 Takano |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 5% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 2% |
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 Takano 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 Takano.
Takano raised $1.1M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 20% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 73% of itemized individual money came from California.
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 256 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $499.2K | 45.0% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $123.5K | 11.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $487.3K | 43.9% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.0M |
| 2022 cycle | $1.3M |
| 2024 cycle | $1.2M |
| 2026 cycle | $1.1M |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 73% came from California.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.
| Row | Takano | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 20% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 18% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 16% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 11% | 13% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| California | $256.4K |
| District of Columbia | $22.0K |
| New York | $19.4K |
| Hawaii | $12.5K |
| Missouri | $12.0K |
| Florida | $11.1K |
| Maryland | $3,250 |
| New Mexico | $3,000 |
| Illinois | $2,453 |
| Virginia | $1,750 |
| Colorado | $1,500 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,184 |
| Washington | $1,125 |
| Rhode Island | $1,000 |
| Massachusetts | $600 |
| Oregon | $250 |
| Connecticut | $250 |
| Texas | $250 |
| Oklahoma | $30 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from California
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 California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 36% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 53% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 6.1% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 1.8% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 0.1% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 2.7% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.3% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Takano’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Takano’s own score is −1.42.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Takano voted with the majority of House Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 0.7% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Takano voted against the majority of House Democrats 12 times.
674 roll calls Takano could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Takano voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 100%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 10th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Takano, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Takano | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.2% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 100% | 96.4% |
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.J.Res. 213 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision” On Passage | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Takano most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Takano least often
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Takano sponsored 27 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 376 others. 3.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 97th of 207).
The bills Takano 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 | 27 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 376 | 376 | 7 | 1 | 1 |
Ink blocks are bills Takano sponsored, ochre blocks bills Takano 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 Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 97th of 207.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Takano, 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 Takano’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.Res. 1634 | Expressing support for the recognition of October 26, 2026, as Intersex Awareness Day, and supporting the goals and ideals of Intersex Awareness Day. | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10642 | STS Act | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1602 | Recognizing the importance of access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention and supporting the designation of Saturday, October 10, 2026, as "National PrEP Day". | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 1, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1603 | Expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States. | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026 |
| H.R. 10597 | Affordability is Access Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Health | Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Workforce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 24, 2026 |
A site that changed 106 times in 90 days. Takano’s official site had 45 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Takano posted on Apr 17, 2026.
The lab crawls Takano’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 Takano 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 Takano is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
