115th House — GGUM scores

data

GGUM ideal point estimates for the 115th House (members scored: 438 of 450; max PSRF: 1.011).

115th House — GGUM θ vs W-NOMINATE dim-1

Download

Download H115-ggum-scores.csv — 450 members, 25 columns (Voteview metadata + GGUM θ, θ SD, PSRF).

Off-diagonal members

The following 11 members fall more than 2.5σ off the OLS fit of GGUM θ on W-NOMINATE dim-1. We flag these as diagnostic cases where the two scalings most disagree.

MemberPartyStatenominateGGUM θresidual
AMASHRMI+0.65+3.09+1.20
MASSIERKY+0.65+2.96+1.07
NORMANRSC+0.86+1.87-0.76
ROYCERCA+0.66+1.20-0.71
CHAFFETZRUT+0.65+1.18-0.69
GRIFFITHRVA+0.51+2.05+0.66
SMITHDWA-0.29-2.14-0.65
JONESRNC+0.24-0.22-0.64
GARRETTRVA+0.93+2.27-0.62
GONZALEZDTX-0.39-1.22+0.61
BACONRNE+0.28+1.14+0.59

Placements worth a second look

GGUM’s placement of the following members differs from what their established political reputations might lead a reader to expect. We draw attention to these cases so that researchers can consider them before using the estimates for a particular analysis; we are not alleging error.

  • SMITH. Smith is commonly viewed as a centrist Democrat. GGUM places him near the left pole of the chamber, well to the left of his centrist reputation.

  • BACON. Bacon is commonly viewed as a bipartisan, centrist Republican. GGUM places him to the right of the chamber median, though well short of the right pole.

  • GRIFFITH. Griffith is commonly viewed as a mainstream conservative Republican. GGUM places him at the extreme-right pole.

← Back to the GGUM-for-Congress release


The prose on this page was drafted with Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.7, with plausibility audits by Claude Sonnet 4.5 subagents. The author edited and reviewed throughout.