Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 3, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Commerce; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
2.0×
the State House Republican rate of bipartisan language
3.7% of 1,163 statements use bipartisan language (43 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 1.8%. Ranks 125th of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Barker’s posts on X and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 75% of Barker’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Iowa, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans. 0% of Barker’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans (average 2.9%).
The measures on which Barker sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Bipartisanship
3.7%
State House Republicans average 1.8% · ranks 125th of 791
From Iowa, 2026
75%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1997th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Personal attacks
0%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 642nd of 791
Policy criticism
2.1%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 582nd of 791
Attendance
98.6%
Iowa House average 91.8% · ranks 29th of 98 · 822 roll calls
CSIP ideology
+0.43
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.05
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Barker, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Barker is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Barker says
Barker attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 1,163 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Barker’s 1,163 statements in the IA 2025–26 session (1,163 posts on X) 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 State House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the IA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Barker
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion315 statements
27%
32%
453rd of 791
Credit claiming138 statements
12%
13%
350th of 791
Bipartisanship43 statements
4%
2%
125th of 791
Policy criticism25 statements
2%
9%
582nd of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Barker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 27% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 12% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 2% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
1,163
statements classified
1,163 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,163 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Barker; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Barker does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Barker used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 18% of the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at dark money groups; peers 1.4%.
- “MAGA”2
- “far left”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- dark money groups1
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 IA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 134 | 0.0% | 3.7% | 20.9% | 0.8% | 5.2% | 0.8% |
| Feb ’25 | 82 | 0.0% | 3.7% | 32.9% | 6.1% | 12.2% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 57 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 35.1% | 5.3% | 17.5% | 1.8% |
| Apr ’25 | 51 | 0.0% | 2.0% | 33.3% | 7.8% | 13.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 13.9% | 25.0% | 2.8% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 37 | 0.0% | 16.2% | 29.7% | 0.0% | 13.5% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 2.9% | 22.9% | 0.0% | 11.4% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 43 | 0.0% | 2.3% | 18.6% | 4.7% | 4.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 33 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 24.2% | 3.0% | 12.1% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 34 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.8% | 2.9% | 8.8% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 32 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 60 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 1.7% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 68 | 0.0% | 2.9% | 35.3% | 11.8% | 26.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 88 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 31.8% | 6.8% | 15.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 101 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 42.6% | 4.0% | 19.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 63 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 27.0% | 3.2% | 19.1% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 45 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 15.6% | 2.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 61 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 19.7% | 3.3% | 8.2% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 32 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 3.1% | 6.3% | 3.1% |
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 IA 2025–26 session, 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 Barker’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 13, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health; Taxation · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 18, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “far left” aimed at dark money groups · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 1,163 statements
Newest first, the IA 2025–26 session
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: 1,163 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Barker talks about most: 35% of policy statements, 3.4 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.56 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 193rd of 504).
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 Barker talks about. The bills Barker sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Barker talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the IA 2025–26 session
0%39%
Barker
Peers
Health111 statements
35%
10%
Families37 statements
12%
4%
Agriculture and Food31 statements
10%
4%
Education28 statements
9%
15%
Economics and Public Finance26 statements
8%
12%
Show the data
| Row | Barker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 35% | 10% |
| Families | 12% | 4% |
| Agriculture and Food | 10% | 4% |
| Education | 9% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 8% | 12% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Barker’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State 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 39%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 35% | 10% | 15% | 10% |
| Families | 12% | 4% | 12% | 2% |
| Agriculture and Food | 10% | 4% | 2% | 3% |
| Education | 9% | 15% | 5% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 8% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
0.56
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 193rd of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Barker legislates on exactly the areas Barker 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 Barker sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Barker sits at +0.43 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 64% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.38 to +0.48, which understates the uncertainty; from 287 donors and 292 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”.
+0.43
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.38 to +0.48. From 287 donors and 292 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Barker, 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 Barker’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 Barker sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Iowa House99 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Barker |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 64% |
| Iowa House | 99 | +0.4 | 47% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 80% |
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 Barker 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 Barker.
Money
Barker reported $62.2K in the 2026 cycle, 1.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 75% of itemized individual money came from Iowa.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance 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. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
$62.2K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 132 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)50 squares$31.3K
- PACs and other committees49 squares$30.5K
- Party committees1 squares$417
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $31.3K | 50.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $30.5K | 49.0% |
| Party committees | $417 | 0.7% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $64.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $62.2K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 75% came from Iowa.
- Iowa$23.5K
- North Carolina$6,268
- Arizona$1,009
- Indiana$104
- Connecticut$104
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Iowa | $23.5K |
| North Carolina | $6,268 |
| Arizona | $1,009 |
| Indiana | $104 |
| Ohio | $104 |
| Connecticut | $104 |
| Illinois | $77 |
| Minnesota | $45 |
| California | $44 |
| Wisconsin | $25 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
132
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
75%
from Iowa
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 Iowa. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- CEDAR RAPIDS DEVELOPMENT GROUP PAC$4,000
- IOWA HEALTH PAC$3,250
- HY-VEE, INC. EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,500
- CREDIT UNION PAC$2,000
- IOWA NECA PAC$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Barker voted with the majority of Iowa House Republicans on 96.4% of party-line votes and missed 1.3% of 822 roll calls. Iowa House on average: 96.0% party unity, 91.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Barker voted against the majority of Iowa House Republicans 19 times.
822 roll calls Barker could vote on in the IA 2025–26 session, compared with Iowa House. 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 Barker voted with the majority of Iowa House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
19
votes against the majority of Iowa House Republicans
Party unity 96.4%, Iowa House average 96.0%, ranks 65th of 98. 822 roll calls in the IA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Barker, the thin grey bar the Iowa House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Barker
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.6%
91.8%
29th of 98
Party unity
96.4%
96.0%
65th of 98
Show the data
| Row | Barker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.6% | 91.8% |
| Party unity | 96.4% | 96.0% |
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 IA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2026 | HF 2801 A bill for an act modifying the major economic growth attraction program, and including effective date provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 16–15 · R 59–2Democrats 16 yea, 15 nay; Republicans 59 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 639 A bill for an act creating a specialty business court, and including effective date provisions. Shall amendment H-8456 be adopted? | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–27 · R 8–50Democrats 0 yea, 27 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 50 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | HF 2770 A bill for an act relating to and making appropriations to the justice system, providing fees, and including applicability provisions. Shall amendment H-8451, to amendment H-8414, be adopted? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 55–3Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 55 yea, 3 nay | became law |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 2480 A bill for an act relating to the taxation and regulation of alternative nicotine products and vapor products, making appropriations, and including effective date provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 14–13 · R 53–5Democrats 14 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 53 yea, 5 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 2465 A bill for an act relating to agriculture, including by providing for the powers and duties of the department of agriculture and land stewardship, including the promotion and regulation of commodities and products, the regulation of the transportation of agricultural items, the use of agricultural l Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 22–3 · R 59–1Democrats 22 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 59 yea, 1 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 Barker most often
- Craig JohnsonR810 shared votes98%
- Pat GrassleyR811 shared votes98%
- Jacob BossmanR811 shared votes98%
- Samantha FettR752 shared votes98%
- Christian HermansonR811 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Barker least often
- Angel RamirezD458 shared votes54%
- Elinor LevinD770 shared votes55%
- Mary MadisonD727 shared votes57%
- Dave JacobyD724 shared votes57%
- Beth Wessel-KroeschellD771 shared votes57%
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
IA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Barker sponsored 64 bills in the IA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 7.8% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Iowa House average 13%; 63rd of 98).
The bills Barker sponsored and cosponsored in the IA 2025–26 session, 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 IA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 64 | 63 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Barker sponsored, ochre blocks bills Barker cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
7.8%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Iowa House average 13%. Ranks 63rd of 98.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Barker, by number of shared bills in the IA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Bill Gustoff10
- Jon Dunwell9
- Jennifer Smith8
- David Young8
- Ryan Weldon7
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 Barker’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 114 | A resolution honoring the Iowans who were killed in or survived the attack on the USS Indianapolis on July 30, 1945. | Sponsor | Apr 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Resolution adopted. Apr 8, 2026 |
| HF 2728 | A bill for an act relating to obstructing first responders, and providing penalties. | Sponsor | Mar 2, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Withdrawn. Apr 9, 2026 |
| HF 2650 | A bill for an act relating to drug paraphernalia. | Sponsor | Feb 20, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Introduced, referred to Public Safety. Feb 20, 2026 |
| HF 2476 | A bill for an act relating to driver’s licenses and nonoperator’s identification cards marked to reflect a holder’s nonapparent disability status. | Sponsor | Feb 16, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Committee report approving bill, renumbered as HF 2669. Feb 23, 2026 |
| HF 2428 | A bill for an act relating to the authorized uses of a township fire protection levy. | Sponsor | Feb 12, 2026 | In committee | Emergency Management(model) | Committee report approving bill, renumbered as HF 2614. Feb 19, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Barker’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Barker’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 Barker posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 5
pages crawled
2changes 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
Images Barker posted
No images from Barker’s posts have been described.
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.
State floor speeches
22 turns, Jan 12, 2026 to May 2, 2026
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 Barker is most unusual among State 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
- e34f4bba-5e1f-4e99-8654-d35140a5470b
- Open States
- ocd-person/e34f4bba-5e1f-4e99-8654-d35140a5470b
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 (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
- Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
- Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; 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.
- State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.
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