Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Georgia’s 5th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2021119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide W000788FEC H0GA05301

Portrait of Nikema Williams, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
$772.8K
raised in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats

The median for House Democrats is $2.0M. Ranks 192nd of 214, where 1st raised the most. 165 itemized donors.

Total receipts of Williams’s campaign committees in the 2026 cycle, from the FEC’s financial summaries, ranked among House Democrats. Totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle and on how costly the race is, so they describe the campaign, not the official’s record.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 4.4% of Williams’s statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 9.8%). Williams missed 3.4% of 674 roll calls, attendance in the bottom half of House Democrats (average 96.9%).

The measures on which Williams 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.

Raised, 2026

$772.8K

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 192nd of 214

Bipartisanship

4.4%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 188th of 216

Attendance

96.5%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 163rd of 217 · 674 roll calls

Personal attacks

3.5%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 152nd of 216

Credit claiming

26%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 69th of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.04

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Williams says

Williams stresses bipartisanship less than 86% of House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 4.4% of 1,578 statements, against 9.8% for the average House Democrat; 188th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Williams’s 1,578 statements in the 119th Congress (1,478 posts on X, 58 press releases, 30 newsletters, 12 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 Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Williams
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,118 statements
71%
73%
143rd of 216
Policy criticism452 statements
29%
28%
107th of 216
Credit claiming410 statements
26%
23%
69th of 216
Bipartisanship70 statements
4%
10%
188th of 216
Personal attacks56 statements
4%
7%
152nd of 216
Show the data
Williams's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowWilliamsPeers
Policy discussion71%73%
Policy criticism29%28%
Credit claiming26%23%
Bipartisanship4%10%
Personal attacks4%7%
1,578

statements classified

1,478 posts on X, 58 press releases, 30 newsletters, 12 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,478 (93.7%)posts on X 1,478press releases: 58 (3.7%)newsletters: 30 (1.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 12 (0.8%)
Show the data
Williams's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,478
press releases58
newsletters30
Congressional Record speeches12
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Williams used extreme labels in 1.5% of statements, below the peer average. 24 statements, most often aimed at Trump; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”10
  2. “radical”6
  3. “far right”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Trump2
  2. anti-abortion laws1
  3. anti-equality extremists1
  4. funding measure1
  5. House Republicans1
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: 692025-02: 732025-03: 912025-04: 1062025-05: 1042025-06: 1142025-07: 1112025-08: 842025-09: 712025-10: 782025-11: 352025-12: 422026-01: 552026-02: 552026-03: 572026-04: 782026-05: 612026-06: 652026-07: 592026-08: 502026-09: 692026-10: 51peak 114 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 12.3% · Feb ’25 · latest 3.9%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.5% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-02: 12.3% of 73Personal attacks, 2025-03: 12.1% of 91Personal attacks, 2025-04: 5.7% of 106Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.9% of 104Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.8% of 114Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.9% of 111Personal attacks, 2025-08: 3.6% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.4% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 78Personal attacks, 2025-11: 2.9% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-01: 7.3% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-02: 9.1% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-04: 3.9% of 78Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-06: 1.5% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-07: 3.4% of 59Personal attacks, 2026-08: 2.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.5% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-10: 3.9% of 51Policy criticismpeak 48.1% · May ’25 · latest 3.9%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.1% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-02: 37.0% of 73Policy criticism, 2025-03: 28.6% of 91Policy criticism, 2025-04: 38.7% of 106Policy criticism, 2025-05: 48.1% of 104Policy criticism, 2025-06: 30.7% of 114Policy criticism, 2025-07: 39.6% of 111Policy criticism, 2025-08: 34.5% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-09: 35.2% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-10: 42.3% of 78Policy criticism, 2025-11: 40.0% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.7% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-01: 9.1% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-02: 30.9% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-03: 31.6% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-04: 15.4% of 78Policy criticism, 2026-05: 13.1% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-06: 29.2% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-07: 15.3% of 59Policy criticism, 2026-08: 8.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-09: 13.0% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-10: 3.9% of 51Policy discussionpeak 86.3% · Oct ’26 · latest 86.3%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 58.0% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-02: 63.0% of 73Policy discussion, 2025-03: 72.5% of 91Policy discussion, 2025-04: 67.9% of 106Policy discussion, 2025-05: 67.3% of 104Policy discussion, 2025-06: 72.8% of 114Policy discussion, 2025-07: 71.2% of 111Policy discussion, 2025-08: 72.6% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-09: 66.2% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-10: 70.5% of 78Policy discussion, 2025-11: 68.6% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-12: 76.2% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-01: 72.7% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-02: 58.2% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-03: 63.2% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-04: 69.2% of 78Policy discussion, 2026-05: 68.8% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-06: 78.5% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-07: 81.4% of 59Policy discussion, 2026-08: 86.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-09: 76.8% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-10: 86.3% of 51Bipartisanshippeak 12.8% · Oct ’25 · latest 5.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 5.8% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 8.2% of 73Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 5.5% of 91Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 2.8% of 106Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 1.0% of 104Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.5% of 114Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.9% of 111Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 3.6% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 9.9% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 12.8% of 78Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 7.1% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 1.8% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 0.0% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 5.3% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 1.3% of 78Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 4.9% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 6.2% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 10.2% of 59Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 2.9% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 5.9% of 51Credit claimingpeak 39.0% · Jul ’26 · latest 29.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 29.0% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-02: 26.0% of 73Credit claiming, 2025-03: 24.2% of 91Credit claiming, 2025-04: 26.4% of 106Credit claiming, 2025-05: 16.4% of 104Credit claiming, 2025-06: 20.2% of 114Credit claiming, 2025-07: 21.6% of 111Credit claiming, 2025-08: 32.1% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-09: 23.9% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-10: 30.8% of 78Credit claiming, 2025-11: 37.1% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-12: 28.6% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-01: 14.5% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-02: 27.3% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-03: 31.6% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-04: 20.5% of 78Credit claiming, 2026-05: 29.5% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-06: 38.5% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-07: 39.0% of 59Credit claiming, 2026-08: 22.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-09: 21.7% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-10: 29.4% of 51Extreme labelspeak 8.2% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.9% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-02: 8.2% of 73Extreme labels, 2025-03: 3.3% of 91Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.9% of 106Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.9% of 104Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.9% of 114Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.8% of 111Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.6% of 78Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.8% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-03: 5.3% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 78Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.5% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 59Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 51Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Williams, 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 ’25691.5%26.1%58.0%5.8%29.0%2.9%
Feb ’257312.3%37.0%63.0%8.2%26.0%8.2%
Mar ’259112.1%28.6%72.5%5.5%24.2%3.3%
Apr ’251065.7%38.7%67.9%2.8%26.4%0.9%
May ’251041.9%48.1%67.3%1.0%16.4%1.9%
Jun ’251141.8%30.7%72.8%3.5%20.2%0.9%
Jul ’251110.9%39.6%71.2%0.9%21.6%1.8%
Aug ’25843.6%34.5%72.6%3.6%32.1%0.0%
Sep ’25711.4%35.2%66.2%9.9%23.9%0.0%
Oct ’25780.0%42.3%70.5%12.8%30.8%2.6%
Nov ’25352.9%40.0%68.6%0.0%37.1%0.0%
Dec ’25420.0%16.7%76.2%7.1%28.6%0.0%
Jan ’26557.3%9.1%72.7%1.8%14.5%1.8%
Feb ’26559.1%30.9%58.2%0.0%27.3%0.0%
Mar ’26570.0%31.6%63.2%5.3%31.6%5.3%
Apr ’26783.9%15.4%69.2%1.3%20.5%0.0%
May ’26610.0%13.1%68.8%4.9%29.5%0.0%
Jun ’26651.5%29.2%78.5%6.2%38.5%1.5%
Jul ’26593.4%15.3%81.4%10.2%39.0%0.0%
Aug ’26502.0%8.0%86.0%0.0%22.0%0.0%
Sep ’26691.5%13.0%76.8%2.9%21.7%0.0%
Oct ’26513.9%3.9%86.3%5.9%29.4%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 Williams’s words

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

Personal attacks

Recently in the Fighting Fifth [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/27642/1675182276770-Newsletter_Header.PNG] Dear political, While Trump continues to shamelessly weaponize the DOJ against his political opponents, recklessly spread disproven claims of election fraud, and irresponsibly drive up t…

Oct 21, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Environmental Protection; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Health; target: Donald Trump

Bipartisanship

ICYMI: Congresswoman Nikema Williams Urges HUD to Implement Whole Home Repairs Law WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congresswoman Nikema Williams (GA-05) joined U.S. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) and U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) in a letter to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary…

Oct 6, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 24, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Supreme Court · 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. Newsletters

    Recently in the Fighting Fifth [https://assets.unlayer.com/projects/27642/1675182276770-Newsletter_Header.PNG] Dear political, While Trump continues to shamelessly weaponize the DOJ against his political opponents, recklessly spread disproven claims of election fraud, and irresponsibly drive up the cost of living by funding a reckless war, I’m staying focused on what matters most: protecting our right to vote and…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Environmental Protection · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Education · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Health · target: Donald Trump

  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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  4. Press releases

    Congresswoman Nikema Williams Joins Legislation to Ban ICE from Using TSA Data Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Nikema Williams (GA-05) co-sponsored the No TSA Data for ICE Act, introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), that would prevent the two agencies from coordinating to enforce the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda. In a dramatic violation of privacy rights, the Transportation and Security Administ…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Immigration · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Transportation and Public Works · target: Ha McNeillSource

  5. Press releases

    Congresswoman Nikema Williams Introduces Bill to Make the Ballot Box More Accessible New legislation would ensure voters have access to a polling location in their area for federal elections. Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Nikema Williams (GA-05) introduced the Polling Place Standards Act that would provide a minimum number of polling places for voters to cast a ballot in an election for Federal office and t…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

All 1,578 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: 1,478 posts on X, 58 press releases, 30 newsletters, 12 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Williams talks about most: 29% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 114th 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 Williams talks about. The bills Williams sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Williams talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Williams
Peers
Health324 statements
29%
26%
Government Operations and Politics221 statements
20%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues212 statements
19%
13%
Economics and Public Finance169 statements
15%
20%
Education128 statements
11%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Williams talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowWilliamsPeers
Health29%26%
Government Operations and Politics20%20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues19%13%
Economics and Public Finance15%20%
Education11%10%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Williams’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.

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 Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 29% (House Democrats 26%)29%Health, legislates on: 20% (House Democrats 16%)20%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 20%)20%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 18% (House Democrats 11%)18%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 13%)19%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 5% (House Democrats 5%)5%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 15% (House Democrats 20%)15%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%EducationEducation, talks about: 11% (House Democrats 10%)11%Education, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 5%)6%
Show the data
Williams's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health29%26%20%16%
Government Operations and Politics20%20%18%11%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues19%13%5%5%
Economics and Public Finance15%20%0%1%
Education11%10%6%5%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 114th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Williams sits at −1.04 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 57% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.06 to −1.02, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,104 donors and 2,982 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”.

−1.04

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.06 to −1.02. From 1,104 donors and 2,982 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Williams −1.0House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Williams, 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 Williams’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 Williams sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Williams −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Williams's CSIP score of −1.04 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Williams
House Democrats217−1.043%
All House439+0.321%
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 Williams 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 Williams.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Williams raised $772.8K in the 2026 cycle, 39% of the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 14% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 69% of itemized individual money came from Georgia.

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
$772.8K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 165 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $218.6K (28.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $34.3K (4.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $34.3K (4.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $34.3K (4.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $34.3K (4.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $34.3K (4.4%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)PACs and other committees: $501.8K (64.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $18.2K (2.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $18.2K (2.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)28 squares$218.6K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)5 squares$34.3K
  • PACs and other committees65 squares$501.8K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$18.2K
Show the data
Sources of Williams's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$218.6K28.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$34.3K4.4%
PACs and other committees$501.8K64.9%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$18.2K2.4%
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $558.3K$558.3K20202022 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20222024 cycle: $1.0M$1.0M20242026 cycle: $772.8K$772.8K2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Williams's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$558.3K
2022 cycle$1.2M
2024 cycle$1.0M
2026 cycle$772.8K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 69% came from Georgia.

  1. Georgia$109.4K
  2. New York$21.3K
  3. District of Columbia$9,500
  4. Texas$3,500
  5. Puerto Rico$3,000

Small donations

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

0%60%
Williams
Median
2026
14%
13%
2024
9%
13%
2022
12%
13%
2020
24%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowWilliamsMedian
2026 cycle14%13%
2024 cycle9%13%
2022 cycle12%13%
2020 cycle24%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $500VTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $21.3KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $2,500MAOregon: no dataORNevada: $250NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: $100NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $2,060CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $875VAMaryland: $2,750MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $9,500DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $1,250LAMississippi: $475MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $109.4KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $3,500TXFlorida: $750FL
Show the data
Williams's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Georgia$109.4K
New York$21.3K
District of Columbia$9,500
Texas$3,500
Maryland$2,750
Massachusetts$2,500
California$2,060
Louisiana$1,250
Virginia$875
Florida$750
Vermont$500
Mississippi$475
Nevada$250
New Jersey$100
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
165

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

69%

from Georgia

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.0%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 39%39%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 27%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 12%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 19%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.3%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Williams's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 39% between −1.25 and −1.00, 27% between −1.00 and −0.75, 12% between −0.75 and −0.50, 19% between −0.50 and −0.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.0%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0039%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7527%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5012%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.2519%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.3%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Williams’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Williams’s own score is −1.04.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$23.8K 35 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$23.0K 15 donors
  3. REAL ESTATE$8,550 5 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$7,000 3 donors
  5. LOBBYIST$5,000 5 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. COX ENTERPRISES PAC (COXPAC) INC.$10.0K
  2. DELTA AIR LINES PAC$10.0K
  3. ERNST & YOUNG POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. HOLD THE LINE$10.0K
  5. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$4,250 7 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Williams voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 3.4% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Williams voted against the majority of House Democrats 16 times.

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

16

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 71st of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Williams
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.5%
96.9%
163rd of 217
Party unity
99.3%
96.4%
71st of 217
Show the data
Williams's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowWilliamsPeers
Attendance96.5%96.9%
Party unity99.3%96.4%
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
NayWith 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
NayWith 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
NayAgainst 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
NayWith 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 Williams most often

  1. Bonnie Watson ColemanD645 shared votes99%
  2. Suzanne BonamiciD642 shared votes99%
  3. LaMonica McIverD648 shared votes99%
  4. Valerie FousheeD643 shared votes99%
  5. Danny DavisD623 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Williams least often

  1. Chip RoyR613 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR575 shared votes17%
  3. Eric BurlisonR620 shared votes18%
  4. Keith SelfR637 shared votes18%
  5. Andy BiggsR586 shared votes18%
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

Williams sponsored 59 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 493 others. 3.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 105th of 207).

The bills Williams 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

Sponsored59 billsSponsored, Introduced: 5959Sponsored, In committee: 5959Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored493 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 493493Cosponsored, In committee: 493493Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1616Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Williams sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored5959100
Cosponsored4934931622
How to read the blocks

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

3.4%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 105th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton77
  2. Hank Johnson Jr.47
  3. Rashida Tlaib43
  4. André Carson37
  5. Shri Thanedar35
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 Williams’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. 10875To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred 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 22, 2026
H.R. 10907To prohibit interference in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, 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. 10841Securing Elections From AI Deception ActCosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 19, 2026
H.Res. 1620Supporting the goals and ideals of "National Nonviolence Week" to raise awareness of youth violence in the United States.SponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 6, 2026
H.Res. 1610Expressing support for the recognition of October 2026, as "World Menopause Awareness Month" and for global awareness and access to care during menopausal transition and post-menopause.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Veterans' 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. Oct 5, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 11 times in 90 days. Williams’s official site had 4 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Williams posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Williams’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 Williams 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 Williams posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A blue promotional poster for a congressional youth program, with a large gold script title, program details and application information. The lower portion features portraits of two politicians in front of a crowd, including a black-and-white civil rights-era image. The poster contains text.
    A blue promotional poster for a congressional youth program, with a large gold script title, program details and application information. The lower portion features portraits of two politicians in front of a crowd, including a black-and-white civil rights-era image. The poster contains text.View post
  • A promotional poster for a spring internship, showing five formally dressed people standing in front of the U.S. Capitol. Large orange and blue lettering fills the upper portion, with additional white text near the bottom.
    A promotional poster for a spring internship, showing five formally dressed people standing in front of the U.S. Capitol. Large orange and blue lettering fills the upper portion, with additional white text near the bottom.View post
  • A blue political campaign graphic laid out like a page of notes, with two inset images of a woman and statements about election security and an anti-corruption scorecard. Text appears throughout.
    A blue political campaign graphic laid out like a page of notes, with two inset images of a woman and statements about election security and an anti-corruption scorecard. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A blue congressional newsletter-style graphic with two photographs: one shows a town hall and resource fair with a speaker and seated panelists, and the other shows a woman posing with law enforcement officers. The design includes decorative note and pin graphics, a logo, and text.
    A blue congressional newsletter-style graphic with two photographs: one shows a town hall and resource fair with a speaker and seated panelists, and the other shows a woman posing with law enforcement officers. The design includes decorative note and pin graphics, a logo, and text.View post
  • A blue campaign newsletter graphic announcing spring 2027 internship applications. A promotional poster shows five young adults standing in front of the U.S. Capitol. The graphic also includes a note icon and campaign branding. Text appears throughout.
    A blue campaign newsletter graphic announcing spring 2027 internship applications. A promotional poster shows five young adults standing in front of the U.S. Capitol. The graphic also includes a note icon and campaign branding. Text appears throughout.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 Williams 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 …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
W000788
Bioguide
W000788
FEC candidate ids
H0GA05301

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