Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Ohio’s 2nd district

Serving since Jan 3, 2025119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide T000490FEC H4OH02248

Portrait of David Taylor, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
84%
of itemized money from Ohio donors, in the top 5% of House Republicans

84% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Ohio. Ranks 7th of 216, where 1st is the highest share. 416 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 Ohio, 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.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 5.3% of Taylor’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans (average 15%). 0.2% of Taylor’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of House Republicans (average 2.1%).

The measures on which Taylor 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 Ohio, 2026

84%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 7th of 216 House Republicans

Attendance

100%

House Republicans average 96.3% · ranks 6th of 221 · 674 roll calls

Policy criticism

5.3%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 210th of 221

Personal attacks

0.2%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 192nd of 221

Bipartisanship

3.8%

House Republicans average 8.9% · ranks 182nd of 221

CSIP ideology

+0.96

Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Taylor says

Taylor attacks opponents personally less than 86% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 1,190 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 192nd of 221.

An AI model reads each of Taylor’s 1,190 statements in the 119th Congress (1,014 posts on X, 128 Congressional Record speeches, 36 press releases, 12 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Taylor
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion911 statements
77%
68%
42nd of 221
Credit claiming378 statements
32%
37%
156th of 221
Policy criticism63 statements
5%
15%
210th of 221
Bipartisanship45 statements
4%
9%
182nd of 221
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
2%
192nd of 221
Show the data
Taylor's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowTaylorPeers
Policy discussion77%68%
Credit claiming32%37%
Policy criticism5%15%
Bipartisanship4%9%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,190

statements classified

1,014 posts on X, 128 Congressional Record speeches, 36 press releases, 12 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,014 (85.2%)posts on X 1,014Congressional Record speeches: 128 (10.8%)press releases: 36 (3.0%)newsletters: 12 (1.0%)
Show the data
Taylor's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,014
Congressional Record speeches128
press releases36
newsletters12
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Taylor used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, 25% of the peer average. 9 statements, most often aimed at MAGA Act; peers 3.0%.

  1. “MAGA”3
  2. “far left”2
  3. “radical”2
  4. “woke”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. MAGA Act3
  2. Democrats1
  3. DSA1
  4. elementary schools1
  5. ESG issues1
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: 432025-02: 572025-03: 582025-04: 412025-05: 452025-06: 462025-07: 462025-08: 622025-09: 852025-10: 512025-11: 502025-12: 452026-01: 432026-02: 732026-03: 1202026-04: 302026-05: 452026-06: 382026-07: 662026-08: 332026-09: 612026-10: 52peak 120 · Mar ’26Personal attackspeak 4.3% · Jun ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 41Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-06: 4.3% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 46Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 120Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 52Policy criticismpeak 13.1% · Sep ’26 · latest 5.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 4.7% of 43Policy criticism, 2025-02: 7.0% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-03: 0.0% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-04: 4.9% of 41Policy criticism, 2025-05: 6.7% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-06: 4.3% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-07: 2.2% of 46Policy criticism, 2025-08: 4.8% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-09: 5.9% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-10: 5.9% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-11: 2.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-12: 8.9% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-01: 0.0% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-02: 4.1% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-03: 11.7% of 120Policy criticism, 2026-04: 0.0% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-05: 4.4% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-06: 2.6% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-07: 3.0% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-09: 13.1% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-10: 5.8% of 52Policy discussionpeak 90.7% · Jan ’26 · latest 86.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 69.8% of 43Policy discussion, 2025-02: 82.5% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-03: 60.3% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-04: 82.9% of 41Policy discussion, 2025-05: 80.0% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-06: 71.7% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-07: 76.1% of 46Policy discussion, 2025-08: 80.7% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-09: 80.0% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-10: 82.3% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-11: 64.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-12: 77.8% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-01: 90.7% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-02: 79.5% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-03: 65.8% of 120Policy discussion, 2026-04: 76.7% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-05: 82.2% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-06: 76.3% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-07: 75.8% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-08: 81.8% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-09: 77.0% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-10: 86.5% of 52Bipartisanshippeak 10.8% · Mar ’26 · latest 1.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 0.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 0.0% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 1.7% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 4.9% of 41Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 4.4% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.5% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 46Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 4.7% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 5.9% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 4.4% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 2.3% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 0.0% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 10.8% of 120Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.3% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 4.4% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 10.5% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 3.0% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 3.0% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 4.9% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 1.9% of 52Credit claimingpeak 50.0% · Jul ’25 · latest 19.2%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 37.2% of 43Credit claiming, 2025-02: 33.3% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-03: 34.5% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-04: 48.8% of 41Credit claiming, 2025-05: 44.4% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-06: 32.6% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-07: 50.0% of 46Credit claiming, 2025-08: 19.4% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-09: 29.4% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-10: 13.7% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-11: 24.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-12: 46.7% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-01: 37.2% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-02: 39.7% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-03: 29.2% of 120Credit claiming, 2026-04: 26.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-05: 33.3% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-06: 34.2% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-07: 30.3% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-08: 9.1% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-09: 31.1% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-10: 19.2% of 52Extreme labelspeak 7.9% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.2% of 46Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-01: 2.3% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 120Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-06: 7.9% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-09: 3.3% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 52Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Taylor, 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 ’25430.0%4.7%69.8%0.0%37.2%0.0%
Feb ’25570.0%7.0%82.5%0.0%33.3%0.0%
Mar ’25580.0%0.0%60.3%1.7%34.5%0.0%
Apr ’25410.0%4.9%82.9%4.9%48.8%0.0%
May ’25450.0%6.7%80.0%4.4%44.4%0.0%
Jun ’25464.3%4.3%71.7%6.5%32.6%0.0%
Jul ’25460.0%2.2%76.1%0.0%50.0%2.2%
Aug ’25620.0%4.8%80.7%0.0%19.4%0.0%
Sep ’25850.0%5.9%80.0%4.7%29.4%0.0%
Oct ’25510.0%5.9%82.3%5.9%13.7%2.0%
Nov ’25500.0%2.0%64.0%0.0%24.0%2.0%
Dec ’25450.0%8.9%77.8%4.4%46.7%0.0%
Jan ’26430.0%0.0%90.7%2.3%37.2%2.3%
Feb ’26730.0%4.1%79.5%0.0%39.7%0.0%
Mar ’261200.0%11.7%65.8%10.8%29.2%0.0%
Apr ’26300.0%0.0%76.7%3.3%26.7%0.0%
May ’26450.0%4.4%82.2%4.4%33.3%0.0%
Jun ’26380.0%2.6%76.3%10.5%34.2%7.9%
Jul ’26660.0%3.0%75.8%3.0%30.3%0.0%
Aug ’26330.0%0.0%81.8%3.0%9.1%0.0%
Sep ’26610.0%13.1%77.0%4.9%31.1%3.3%
Oct ’26520.0%5.8%86.5%1.9%19.2%0.0%
How to read the strips

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

In Taylor’s words

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

Policy criticism

Serving Buckeye Families | From the Desk of Congressman Dave Taylor Serving Buckeye Families Friend, As your Congressman, I am honored to represent you in Washington, D.C. and advocate for the priorities that matter most to you. I want to share a few updates about the work I've been doing on your b…

Oct 9, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Energy; Health; Water Resources Development; Immigration; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works

Personal attacks

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

Jun 30, 2025 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Immigration; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; target: judges · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 17, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Law; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; 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 · Immigration · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: judgesSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Democrat leadershipSource

All 1,190 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: 1,014 posts on X, 128 Congressional Record speeches, 36 press releases, 12 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Taylor talks about most: 17% of policy statements, below the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 90th 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 Taylor talks about. The bills Taylor sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Taylor talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Taylor
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security158 statements
17%
24%
Transportation and Public Works148 statements
16%
7%
Commerce141 statements
15%
9%
Agriculture and Food132 statements
14%
9%
Government Operations and Politics110 statements
12%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Taylor talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowTaylorPeers
Armed Forces and National Security17%24%
Transportation and Public Works16%7%
Commerce15%9%
Agriculture and Food14%9%
Government Operations and Politics12%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Taylor’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: 17% (House Republicans 24%)17%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 8%)5%Transportation and PublicWorksTransportation and Public Works, talks about: 16% (House Republicans 7%)16%Transportation and Public Works, legislates on: 13% (House Republicans 4%)13%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 15% (House Republicans 9%)15%Commerce, legislates on: 1% (House Republicans 2%)1%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 14% (House Republicans 9%)14%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 3%)8%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 12% (House Republicans 19%)12%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Republicans 12%)9%
Show the data
Taylor'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 Security17%24%5%8%
Transportation and Public Works16%7%13%4%
Commerce15%9%1%2%
Agriculture and Food14%9%8%3%
Government Operations and Politics12%19%9%12%
0.66

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 90th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Taylor sits at +0.96 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 59% of House Republicans. Approximate range +0.92 to +0.99, which understates the uncertainty; from 584 donors and 674 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

+0.96

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.92 to +0.99. From 584 donors and 674 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Taylor, 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 Taylor’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 Taylor sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Taylor +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Taylor's CSIP score of +0.96 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Taylor
House Republicans221+1.041%
All House439+0.370%
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 Taylor 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 Taylor.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Taylor raised $1.8M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 33% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 84% of itemized individual money came from Ohio.

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
$1.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 416 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): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $823.4K (46.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $397.5K (22.5%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)PACs and other committees: $505.8K (28.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $42.3K (2.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $42.3K (2.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)47 squares$823.4K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)22 squares$397.5K
  • PACs and other committees29 squares$505.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$42.3K
Show the data
Sources of Taylor's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$823.4K46.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$397.5K22.5%
PACs and other committees$505.8K28.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$42.3K2.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $2.3M$2.3M20242026 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Taylor's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$2.3M
2026 cycle$1.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 84% came from Ohio.

  1. Ohio$415.3K
  2. Illinois$18.0K
  3. New York$13.2K
  4. Virginia$11.0K
  5. California$11.0K

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%
Taylor
Median
2026
33%
9%
2024
7%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowTaylorMedian
2026 cycle33%9%
2024 cycle7%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $166AKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $270WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $18.0KILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $151MINew York: $13.2KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $159MAOregon: $87ORNevada: $128NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: $176SDIowa: $514IAIndiana: $735INOhio: $415.3KOHPennsylvania: $918PANew Jersey: $1,250NJConnecticut: $310CTCalifornia: $11.0KCAUtah: $557UTColorado: $244CONebraska: $94NEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $200KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $11.0KVAMaryland: $1,783MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $339AZNew Mexico: $44NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $143ARTennessee: $736TNNorth Carolina: $980NCSouth Carolina: $237SCDistrict of Columbia: $2,500DCOklahoma: $130OKLouisiana: $460LAMississippi: $94MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $384GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $3,796TXFlorida: $5,773FL
Show the data
Taylor's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Ohio$415.3K
Illinois$18.0K
New York$13.2K
Virginia$11.0K
California$11.0K
Florida$5,773
Texas$3,796
District of Columbia$2,500
Maryland$1,783
New Jersey$1,250
North Carolina$980
Pennsylvania$918
Tennessee$736
Indiana$735
Utah$557
Iowa$514
Louisiana$460
Georgia$384
Arizona$339
Connecticut$310
Washington$270
Colorado$244
South Carolina$237
Kentucky$200
South Dakota$176
Alaska$166
Massachusetts$159
Michigan$151
Arkansas$143
Oklahoma$130
Nevada$128
Nebraska$94
Mississippi$94
Oregon$87
New Mexico$44
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
WyomingNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
KansasNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
416

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

84%

from Ohio

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.7%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 9.2%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 13%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 64%64%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 9.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Taylor's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.50 to +1.25: 9.2% between +0.25 and +0.50, 13% between +0.50 and +0.75, 64% between +0.75 and +1.00, 9.1% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.7%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.509.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7513%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0064%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.259.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Taylor’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Taylor’s own score is +0.96.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$102.1K 175 donors
  2. OWNER$48.8K 18 donors
  3. FOUNDER$30.2K 4 donors
  4. CEO$29.0K 17 donors
  5. EXEC$27.3K 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$10.0K
  3. POLITICAL EDUCATION PATTERNS POLITICAL ARM INTL UNION OPERATING ENG LOCAL 18$10.0K
  4. POET PAC$10.0K
  5. OHIO CORN AND WHEAT GROWERS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. SWING STATE STRATEGIES$1,550 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Taylor voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.3% of party-line votes and missed none of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Taylor voted against the majority of House Republicans 18 times.

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

18

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.3%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 105th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Taylor
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
96.3%
6th of 221
Party unity
98.3%
97.1%
105th of 221
Show the data
Taylor's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowTaylorPeers
Attendance100%96.3%
Party unity98.3%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 Taylor most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR521 shared votes100%
  2. Troy BaldersonR665 shared votes99%
  3. Tony GonzalesR428 shared votes98%
  4. Michelle FischbachR671 shared votes98%
  5. Dale StrongR657 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Taylor least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD388 shared votes23%
  2. Rashida TlaibD658 shared votes23%
  3. Delia RamirezD641 shared votes24%
  4. Gregorio CasarD575 shared votes25%
  5. Brittany PettersenD570 shared votes25%
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

Taylor sponsored 38 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 197 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 133rd of 216).

The bills Taylor 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

Sponsored38 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3838Sponsored, In committee: 3838Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored197 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 197197Cosponsored, In committee: 197197Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2929Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Taylor sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3838400
Cosponsored1971972932
How to read the blocks

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

11%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 133rd of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Rulli26
  2. Mike Collins Jr.18
  3. Harriet Hageman18
  4. Mary Miller18
  5. Sheri Biggs17
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 Taylor’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. 10831Acquired Lands Revenue Modernization ActSponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10716Integrity for Taxpayers ActSponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10636Medicaid Fraud Prevention ActCosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 28, 2026
H.R. 10507Justice for Veterans and Victims of Terrorism Act of 2026SponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeLawReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 17, 2026
H.R. 10398CHC REBASE Act of 2026CosponsorSep 15, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Sep 15, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 82 times in 90 days. Taylor’s official site had 30 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Taylor posted on Oct 22, 2026.

The lab crawls Taylor’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 Taylor 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 Taylor posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Three men stand talking in an office with desks, a copier, filing cabinets, and wall decorations. Some text is visible on office items.
    Three men stand talking in an office with desks, a copier, filing cabinets, and wall decorations. Some text is visible on office items.View post
  • A group of four adults stand side by side, smiling for a photo in an office. A framed map hangs on the wall behind them, and there is text on the map and on some of their shirts and cap.
    A group of four adults stand side by side, smiling for a photo in an office. A framed map hangs on the wall behind them, and there is text on the map and on some of their shirts and cap.View post
  • Two men in a workshop or factory inspect an opened electronic device on a metal worktable. Shelving, equipment, and workbenches fill the background. Some text is visible on clothing and objects.
    Two men in a workshop or factory inspect an opened electronic device on a metal worktable. Shelving, equipment, and workbenches fill the background. Some text is visible on clothing and objects.View post
  • A gray industrial building in fog, with two loading-bay doors, a separate garage door, and yellow-railed access ramps. Signs and other text are visible on the building.
    A gray industrial building in fog, with two loading-bay doors, a separate garage door, and yellow-railed access ramps. Signs and other text are visible on the building.View post
  • Three men stand talking in a spacious industrial workshop or factory. Two wear blue work shirts, while the third wears a light gray sweater. Overhead are exposed beams, pipes, and fluorescent lights; a large wooden cable spool and workshop equipment are in the background. There is some text on a badge and clothing.
    Three men stand talking in a spacious industrial workshop or factory. Two wear blue work shirts, while the third wears a light gray sweater. Overhead are exposed beams, pipes, and fluorescent lights; a large wooden cable spool and workshop equipment are in the background. There is some text on a badge and clothing.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 Taylor 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
T000490
Bioguide
T000490
FEC candidate ids
H4OH02248

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