Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 4, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Taxation · Source
0.3%
of statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats
0.3% of 1,166 statements contain a personal attack (3 statements); the average for House Democrats is 6.6%. Ranks 212th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Whitesides’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against House Democrats. Whitesides voted against the majority of House Democrats 43 times; party unity 91.3%, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 96.4%). 13% of Whitesides’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats (average 28%).
The measures on which Whitesides 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.
Personal attacks
0.3%
House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 212th of 216
Party unity
91.3%
House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 196th of 217 · 43 votes against the majority of House Democrats
Policy criticism
13%
House Democrats average 28% · ranks 199th of 216
Out of committee
0%
House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 171st of 207
Raised, 2026
$4.5M
House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 41st of 214
CSIP ideology
−0.80
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Whitesides, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Whitesides is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Whitesides says
Whitesides attacks opponents personally less than 97% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0.3% of 1,166 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 212th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Whitesides’s 1,166 statements in the 119th Congress (1,099 posts on X, 42 press releases, 21 Congressional Record speeches, 4 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Whitesides
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion924 statements
79%
73%
46th of 216
Credit claiming240 statements
21%
23%
120th of 216
Policy criticism153 statements
13%
28%
199th of 216
Bipartisanship69 statements
6%
10%
165th of 216
Personal attacks3 statements
0%
7%
212th of 216
Show the data
| Row | Whitesides | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 79% | 73% |
| Credit claiming | 21% | 23% |
| Policy criticism | 13% | 28% |
| Bipartisanship | 6% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 7% |
1,166
statements classified
1,099 posts on X, 42 press releases, 21 Congressional Record speeches, 4 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,099 |
| press releases | 42 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 21 |
| newsletters | 4 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Whitesides; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Whitesides does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Whitesides used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, below the peer average. 9 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.
- “extreme”9
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Republicans3
- GOP2
- budget bill1
- budget resolution1
- government overreach1
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
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 2.5% | 85.0% | 5.0% | 17.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 49 | 0.0% | 18.4% | 87.8% | 4.1% | 14.3% | 6.1% |
| Mar ’25 | 42 | 2.4% | 2.4% | 76.2% | 7.1% | 14.3% | 2.4% |
| Apr ’25 | 47 | 2.1% | 6.4% | 80.8% | 8.5% | 14.9% | 4.3% |
| May ’25 | 77 | 0.0% | 10.4% | 76.6% | 3.9% | 16.9% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 48 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 81.3% | 4.2% | 10.4% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 90 | 0.0% | 15.6% | 73.3% | 0.0% | 23.3% | 2.2% |
| Aug ’25 | 61 | 0.0% | 13.1% | 67.2% | 3.3% | 16.4% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 79 | 0.0% | 12.7% | 73.4% | 2.5% | 12.7% | 1.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 57 | 0.0% | 19.3% | 87.7% | 5.3% | 14.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 3.6% | 71.4% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 41 | 0.0% | 4.9% | 70.7% | 14.6% | 34.2% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 34 | 0.0% | 14.7% | 91.2% | 0.0% | 17.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 39 | 0.0% | 12.8% | 69.2% | 7.7% | 20.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 51 | 0.0% | 9.8% | 78.4% | 3.9% | 21.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 57 | 0.0% | 15.8% | 82.5% | 3.5% | 19.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 56 | 0.0% | 19.6% | 83.9% | 5.4% | 26.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 62 | 0.0% | 27.4% | 85.5% | 9.7% | 19.4% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 64 | 0.0% | 20.3% | 79.7% | 14.1% | 29.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 47 | 2.1% | 10.6% | 85.1% | 8.5% | 40.4% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 52 | 0.0% | 5.8% | 86.5% | 7.7% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 45 | 0.0% | 8.9% | 75.6% | 15.6% | 31.1% | 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 Whitesides’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
Rep. Whitesides Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Investigate Insider Trading Within the Department of Defense, Urges Prediction Markets to Crack Down on Harmful Practice WASHINGTON D.C. – Today, Reps. George Whitesides (D-CA), Don Bacon (R-NE) and Seth Moulton (D-MA) introduced the bipartisan No Insid…
Aug 24, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Crime and Law Enforcement; Finance and Financial Sector; Government Operations and Politics; target: Trump · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 30, 2025 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Health; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “extreme” aimed at GOP · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Press releases
Rep. Whitesides Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Investigate Insider Trading Within the Department of Defense, Urges Prediction Markets to Crack Down on Harmful Practice WASHINGTON D.C. – Today, Reps. George Whitesides (D-CA), Don Bacon (R-NE) and Seth Moulton (D-MA) introduced the bipartisan No Insider Trading on National Security Act of 2026, legislation that investigates insider trading within the Department of Defe…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Crime and Law Enforcement · Finance and Financial Sector · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
Congressional Record
Mr. Speaker, my name is George Whitesides, and I represent California's 27th Congressional District. Just 3 days after I was sworn in to Congress to serve my first term this year, wildfires broke out across southern California, forcing 200,000 people to evacuate, burning over 57,000 acres of land, damaging or destroying 18,000 homes, and taking the lives of 30 individuals. Two weeks later, the Hughes fire erupted in…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Emergency Management · Armed Forces and National Security · Environmental Protection · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Government Operations and PoliticsSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Law · target: Christopher HubbardSource
All 1,166 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: 1,099 posts on X, 42 press releases, 21 Congressional Record speeches, 4 newsletters.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Whitesides talks about most: 21% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 52nd 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 Whitesides talks about. The bills Whitesides sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Whitesides talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Whitesides
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security195 statements
21%
16%
Science, Technology, Communications179 statements
19%
6%
Health176 statements
19%
26%
Emergency Management165 statements
18%
5%
Economics and Public Finance134 statements
14%
20%
Show the data
| Row | Whitesides | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 21% | 16% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 19% | 6% |
| Health | 19% | 26% |
| Emergency Management | 18% | 5% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 20% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Whitesides’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.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 21% | 16% | 16% | 7% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 19% | 6% | 11% | 2% |
| Health | 19% | 26% | 9% | 16% |
| Emergency Management | 18% | 5% | 4% | 1% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 20% | 0% | 1% |
0.70
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 52nd of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Whitesides legislates on exactly the areas Whitesides 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 Whitesides sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Whitesides sits at −0.80 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 74% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.83 to −0.78, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,604 donors and 657 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”.
−0.80
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.83 to −0.78. From 5,604 donors and 657 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Whitesides, 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 Whitesides’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 Whitesides sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Whitesides |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 74% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 36% |
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 Whitesides 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 Whitesides.
Money
Whitesides raised $4.5M in the 2026 cycle, 2.3 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 13% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 55% of itemized individual money came from California.
Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.
$4.5M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 1,517 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)61 squares$2.8M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)9 squares$415.3K
- PACs and other committees17 squares$750.6K
- Party committees$6,911
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)13 squares$586.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $2.8M | 61.0% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $415.3K | 9.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $750.6K | 16.6% |
| Party committees | $6,911 | 0.2% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $586.0K | 13.0% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $10.6M |
| 2026 cycle | $4.5M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 55% came from California.
- California$1.3M
- New York$257.0K
- Massachusetts$183.7K
- Virginia$72.0K
- Texas$67.2K
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%
Whitesides
Median
2026
13%
13%
2024
21%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Whitesides | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 13% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 21% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| California | $1.3M |
| New York | $257.0K |
| Massachusetts | $183.7K |
| Virginia | $72.0K |
| Texas | $67.2K |
| District of Columbia | $64.0K |
| Washington | $63.7K |
| Connecticut | $58.0K |
| Maryland | $45.7K |
| Colorado | $45.3K |
| Florida | $40.5K |
| Pennsylvania | $31.7K |
| Illinois | $23.5K |
| New Jersey | $19.7K |
| Oregon | $16.8K |
| Arizona | $12.1K |
| New Hampshire | $11.3K |
| Nevada | $11.3K |
| Kentucky | $9,125 |
| Vermont | $7,275 |
| Delaware | $7,238 |
| Indiana | $7,000 |
| New Mexico | $5,292 |
| Minnesota | $4,495 |
| Alabama | $4,250 |
| South Carolina | $4,150 |
| Michigan | $3,131 |
| Georgia | $1,824 |
| Oklahoma | $1,703 |
| North Carolina | $1,242 |
| Missouri | $1,000 |
| Iowa | $500 |
| Montana | $370 |
| Maine | $300 |
| Wisconsin | $250 |
| Ohio | $250 |
| Hawaii | $99 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
1,517
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
55%
from California
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 California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 17% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 67% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 7.8% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 2.0% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 2.8% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 1.5% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 0.9% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.1% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.1% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 0.0% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Whitesides’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Whitesides’s own score is −0.80.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$648.5K 583 donors
- RETIRED$194.9K 136 donors
- CEO$187.0K 58 donors
- ATTORNEY$163.1K 111 donors
- PRESIDENT$55.7K 28 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
- AMERIPAC: THE FUND FOR A GREATER AMERICA$10.0K
- BWX TECHNOLOGIES, INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- STANFORD UNIVERSITY$10.3K 4 donors
- JET PROPULSION LABORATORY$9,150 4 donors
- BWX TECHNOLOGIES$8,750 9 donors
- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA$6,572 5 donors
- CALTECH$4,200 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Whitesides voted with the majority of House Democrats on 91.3% of party-line votes and missed 2.4% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Whitesides voted against the majority of House Democrats 43 times.
674 roll calls Whitesides 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 Whitesides voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
43
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 91.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 196th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Whitesides, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Whitesides
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.6%
96.9%
133rd of 217
Party unity
91.3%
96.4%
196th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Whitesides | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.6% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 91.3% | 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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.J.Res. 213 Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision” On Passage | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Whitesides most often
- Patrick RyanD653 shared votes97%
- Greg StantonD643 shared votes97%
- Maggie GoodlanderD651 shared votes96%
- Josh HarderD653 shared votes96%
- Chris PappasD654 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Whitesides least often
- Chip RoyR618 shared votes20%
- Eric BurlisonR626 shared votes22%
- Keith SelfR643 shared votes23%
- Josh BrecheenR626 shared votes23%
- Andy BiggsR593 shared votes23%
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
Legislation
Whitesides sponsored 27 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 320 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).
The bills Whitesides 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 27 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 320 | 320 | 16 | 2 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Whitesides sponsored, ochre blocks bills Whitesides cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
0%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Whitesides, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Eleanor Norton31
- Josh Harder28
- Joe Neguse26
- Eugene Vindman24
- Brian Fitzpatrick20
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 Whitesides’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10873 | AI Cyber Defense Act | Cosponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Oct 22, 2026 |
| H.R. 10907 | To prohibit interference in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. | Sponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred 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. 10854 | Public Safety Power Shutoff Data Transparency Act | Sponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 19, 2026 |
| H.R. 10836 | To amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to prohibit the live broadcast of military executions, and for other purposes. | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 15, 2026 |
| H.R. 10750 | Advanced Nuclear Fission and Fusion Propulsion Systems Act | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 5, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 65 times in 90 days. Whitesides’s official site had 28 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Whitesides posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Whitesides’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 Whitesides posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 28
pages crawled
65changes in 90 days
- 26
pages crawled
22changes in 90 days
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.
Social accounts
- XRep_Whitesides
- Facebookrepwhitesides
- Instagramrepwhitesides
Images Whitesides posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A group of people pose for a photo on the field of a soccer stadium, with rows of empty seats and the stadium structure behind them. Some people wear matching blue shirts, and one person holds a bag. Text is visible on clothing and in the stadium.View post 
A group of people stand together on the field of an outdoor sports stadium, with empty seating and a press box behind them. Some signs and labels are visible in the background.View post 
A group of adults and children stand and talk on the grass inside a large, mostly empty football stadium. Several men wear light-blue uniforms, while others wear suits or casual clothing. Text is visible on stadium signage and clothing.View post 
Several people dressed for a formal dinner sit around a table in an ornate dining room, talking. The table is set with plates, glasses, drinks, a water pitcher, napkins, and gold decorative placemats. Text appears on a menu or booklet in the foreground and on a sign in the background.View post 
Three people pose together for a photograph at an indoor event. They are dressed in formal attire, including embellished outfits and decorative headpieces. No text is visible.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.
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 Whitesides 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
- W000830
- Bioguide
- W000830
- FEC candidate ids
- H4CA27111
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