Skip to content

Federal level · Current term

Iowa

Iowa’s congressional delegation

statements analyzed
14,912
officials covered
6
last updated
Oct 28, 2026

What each party owns

This comparison needs both parties.

Each bar is the share of Democrats’ policy statements that name an area minus the share of Republicans’ that do, in percentage points, among 6 members of Iowa’s congressional delegation in the current term. Bars to the right are areas Democrats name more often; bars to the left, areas Republicans name more often. The AI model tags each policy statement with any of the Congressional Research Service’s 25 policy areas. The figures beside each bar are both parties’ shares.

This comparison needs both parties. It is on the United States dashboard.

Back to topNext: Who stands out

Who stands out

The five highest rates on four kinds of statement among 6 members of Iowa’s congressional delegation. An official needs at least 50 statements in the current term to be ranked.

An AI model labels every statement. An official’s rate is the share of their statements that carry a label.

Most personal attacks

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. 1Joni ErnstRU.S. Senate · Iowa3.1%
  2. 2Chuck GrassleyRU.S. Senate · Iowa2.4%
  3. 3Ashley HinsonRU.S. House · IA-021.0%
  4. 4Mariannette Miller-MeeksRU.S. House · IA-010.8%
  5. 5Randy FeenstraRU.S. House · IA-040.5%

Most credit claiming

Claims credit for passing legislation, securing funding or grants, or other accomplishments in office.

  1. 1Randy FeenstraRU.S. House · IA-0468%
  2. 2Zachary (Zach) NunnRU.S. House · IA-0362%
  3. 3Mariannette Miller-MeeksRU.S. House · IA-0150%
  4. 4Joni ErnstRU.S. Senate · Iowa48%
  5. 5Ashley HinsonRU.S. House · IA-0248%

Most bipartisan language

Emphasises working across the aisle, compromise or common ground between the parties.

  1. 1Chuck GrassleyRU.S. Senate · Iowa26%
  2. 2Zachary (Zach) NunnRU.S. House · IA-0323%
  3. 3Ashley HinsonRU.S. House · IA-0215%
  4. 4Mariannette Miller-MeeksRU.S. House · IA-019.8%
  5. 5Joni ErnstRU.S. Senate · Iowa9.2%

Most policy-focused

Discusses a specific public policy or policy area (health care, taxes, defense, …).

  1. 1Randy FeenstraRU.S. House · IA-0488%
  2. 2Zachary (Zach) NunnRU.S. House · IA-0385%
  3. 3Chuck GrassleyRU.S. Senate · Iowa80%
  4. 4Joni ErnstRU.S. Senate · Iowa79%
  5. 5Mariannette Miller-MeeksRU.S. House · IA-0179%

Each official’s rates are on their profile and in the bulk file.

Back to topNext: Party comparison

Party comparison

Republicans talk about policy in 81% of statements; 1.5% attack opponents personally and 1.7% use extreme labels. The most-discussed policy area is Agriculture and Food (23% of policy statements).

Each bar is the share of a party’s statements that carry a label, pooled across 6 members of Iowa’s congressional delegation in the current term. Officials who post more count more. A statement can carry several labels, so a party’s shares can sum to more than 100%.

Statements by label and party

Share of each party’s statements, the current term

  • Personal attacks
  • Policy criticism
  • Policy discussion
  • Bipartisanship
  • Credit claiming
  • Extreme labels
Show the data
Share of statements in each category by party, Iowa: Personal attacks Republicans 1.5%; Policy criticism Republicans 18%; Policy discussion Republicans 81%; Bipartisanship Republicans 16%; Credit claiming Republicans 53%; Extreme labels Republicans 1.7%.
MeasureRepublicans
Personal attacks1.5%
Policy criticism18%
Policy discussion81%
Bipartisanship16%
Credit claiming53%
Extreme labels1.7%
The measures

Personal attacks. Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

Policy criticism. Objects to a specific policy, law or court ruling with fact-based arguments, without personal attacks or emotional appeals.

Policy discussion. Discusses a specific public policy or policy area (health care, taxes, defense, …).

Bipartisanship. Emphasises working across the aisle, compromise or common ground between the parties.

Credit claiming. Claims credit for passing legislation, securing funding or grants, or other accomplishments in office.

Extreme labels. Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”.

Personal attacks by venue

Share of statements by 6 members of Iowa’s congressional delegation, the current term

Republicans’ personal-attack rate runs from 1.1% of their posts on X to 4.3% of their floor speeches.

0%2%4%6%Posts on X11,417 statementsPress releases2,177 statementsNewsletters511 statementsFloor speeches807 statements1.1%2.9%1.8%4.3%RepublicansRepublicans
Show the data
Slope chart of each party’s personal-attack rate across four venues, the current term. Republicans: posts on x 1.1%, press releases 2.9%, newsletters 1.8%, floor speeches 4.3%.
VenueRepublicans: personal attacksRepublicans: statements
Posts on X1.1%11417
Press releases2.9%2177
Newsletters1.8%511
Floor speeches4.3%807
Notes

Each point is the share of a party’s statements in one venue that the AI model labelled a personal attack, pooled across members. A line joins each party’s four venues. A statement counts once and carries the label if any of its passages does.

Posts on X are 77% of the 14,912 statements here, so the pooled rates elsewhere on this page sit closest to the X points.

A party needs 50 statements in a venue before its point is drawn.

Back to topNext: Polarization

Polarization

The median Republican scores +0.81 on the CSIP scale.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign contributions and the text of their statements. Negative scores are to the left and positive scores to the right. The gap is the distance between the two parties’ medians.

CSIP scores by party

← More liberal · 0 · More conservative →

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Republicansmedian +0.8
Show the data
CSIP distributions of 6 Republicans (median +0.81) on one scale from −2 to +2.
GroupOfficialsMedian
Republicans6+0.8

Gap between the party medians

Members of each Congress

113th Congress (2013–14): 1.441.44113th116th Congress (2019–20): 1.611.61116th
Show the data
Gap between the Democratic and Republican CSIP medians: 113th Congress (2013–14) 1.44, 116th Congress (2019–20) 1.61.
ItemValue
113th Congress (2013–14)1.44
116th Congress (2019–20)1.61
Notes

Each dot is one official, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, darker further from 0. Overlapping dots form darker patches where officials cluster. The rule in each row marks the party median.

Each official has a single score for 2014–2026, so the gap changes over time only as the membership of Congress turns over.

Each official’s score is on their profile, and the full table is in Downloads.

Back to topNext: Trends

Policy topics

Agriculture and Food led in Sep ’26, named in 26% of policy statements. Law rose most from Aug ’26 (+4.3 pts); Taxation fell most (−9.0 pts).

The AI model tags each policy statement with any of 25 policy areas, so shares can sum to more than 100%. A share is the percentage of a month’s policy statements by members of Congress that name the area. The lists compare the last two complete months, with changes in percentage points. A month needs at least ten policy statements to be compared.

Most discussed, Sep ’26

387 policy statements; change since Aug ’26 in grey

  1. Agriculture and Food26% −2.9 pts
  2. Commerce24% −0.1 pts
  3. Armed Forces and National Security17% +2.4 pts
  4. Government Operations and Politics17% +3.0 pts
  5. Health17% −4.4 pts

Rising

Up most since Aug ’26

  1. Law+4.3 pts
  2. Labor and Employment+3.7 pts
  3. Government Operations and Politics+3.0 pts

Falling

Down most since Aug ’26

  1. Taxation−9.0 pts
  2. Economics and Public Finance−4.6 pts
  3. Health−4.4 pts

Back to topNext: States

States

The state maps are on the United States dashboard.

The left map is the share of statements by each state’s congressional delegation that the AI model labelled a personal attack, the current term (members of Congress, by the state they represent). The right map is the lab’s survey estimate of affective polarization in each state: residents’ rating of their own party minus their rating of the other, on a 0–100 thermometer. Each state is a square of the same size, shaded by quintile; darker is higher.

The two maps are on the United States dashboard.

Back to topNext: Challengers

Challengers and incumbents

Challengers post personal attacks more often than the incumbents they face. On posts on X since Oct 1, 2025, the median challenger’s rate is 4.2% and the median incumbent’s 0.1%; 2 of 2 challengers post personal attacks more often than the incumbent they face and 0 less often, across 2 House and Senate races with both sides measured.

Every 2026 House and Senate race with an incumbent running and at least one challenger. A candidate’s rate is the share of their posts on X that the AI model labelled a personal attack. Both sides are measured over the same months, since Oct 1, 2025, and incumbents’ press releases, newsletters and floor speeches are excluded. Candidates with fewer than 10 posts are left out.

Incumbents and challengers

Personal attacks, share of posts on X · 2 incumbents, 2 challengers · rates above 20% are drawn at the edge

0%5%10%15%20%+Incumbentsmedian 0.1%Challengersmedian 4.2%
Show the data
Every candidate in the comparison
RaceCandidatePartyStatusPosts on XPersonal attacks
Iowa 1st DistrictMariannette Miller-MeeksRepublicansIncumbent9540.2%
Iowa 1st DistrictChristina BohannanDemocratsChallenger6014.3%
Iowa 3rd DistrictZach NunnRepublicansIncumbent12230.0%
Iowa 3rd DistrictSarah Trone GarriottDemocratsChallenger3424.1%

Both are measured on posts on X since Oct 1, 2025.

The races with the widest gaps

Each incumbent (outlined) and the challenger whose rate differs most, personal attacks as a share of posts on X

Iowa 1st District

Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R), 954 posts · Christina Bohannan (D), 601 posts

Iowa 3rd District

Zach Nunn (R), 1,223 posts · Sarah Trone Garriott (D), 342 posts

Show the data
The races shown, incumbent and challenger
RaceIncumbentRatePostsChallengerRatePostsGap (points)
Iowa 1st DistrictMariannette Miller-Meeks (Republican)0.2%954Christina Bohannan (Democrat)4.3%601+4.1
Iowa 3rd DistrictZach Nunn (Republican)0.0%1223Sarah Trone Garriott (Democrat)4.1%342+4.1

Back to top