The data that changed how I see Congress 📊
On "Bridge Grades"
I left legacy media to build something different: independent, honest political analysis that isn’t owned by corporations or parties.
I call balls and strikes—no matter who’s at bat—because what’s missing right now are referees, not cheerleaders ⚾.
If you want clear, concise takes that cut through the noise (without the cable-news theatrics), this is the newsletter for you 🎯.
Subscribe if you believe politics is better when someone just tells you what actually matters rather than just what you want to hear 🧠.
Regular readers know that I am a big believer that nothing will change in our politics until we change the incentive structures for politicians.
Politicians are a reactive species. They will go wherever they believe gives them the best chance of keeping their job.
Right now, that means running to the absolute extremes — in both parties. Due to at least two decades of national gerrymandering, which has grown even more aggressive in the last 2 years, the simple reality is that the vast majority of these members are only endangered in a primary.
As Ross Sherman of Unite America notes: “So far, 17% of the U.S. House has already been effectively decided by 1.4% of voters in five states. In May, that dynamic will accelerate: more than one-third of the U.S. House is set to be locked in by the end of the month.”
Which creates a simple calculation for most of our politicians: Do nothing other than play to the party base. There — and only there — is where your political bread is buttered.
One obvious way to change this perverse incentive structure is to make systemic change. That includes mandating open primaries — in which voters of ANY party can vote in whatever race they like — and instituting ranked-choice voting in many more states. (Only two states —Maine and Alaska — currently use ranked-choice voting statewide.)
While this post is free, independent journalism ISN’T free. Consider becoming a monthly or yearly subscriber to “So What” today. You can read more about what you get from a subscription — and what you are supporting — here.
But systemic changes aren’t the ONLY way to change how our elected officials think about what it means to do a good job representing their constituents.
Enter Brad Porteus and Bridge Grades.
Porteus bills Bridge Grades as “Rotten Tomatoes” for politicians — a nonpartisan ranking of the politicians working toward collaboration and those who, well, aren’t.
Porteus explained to me that after spending more than a decade abroad, he returned back to the States a few years ago and was stunned at how incredibly polarized the country had become.
Then two things happened:
Porteus read “What’s Our Problem: A Self-Help Book for Societies” by Tim Urban
Porteus came across this Ad Fontes Media chart of media bias
His idea was simple: Why not create a chart just like the Ad Fontes one — but for politicians? And, rather than focusing on how elected officials vote, why not use data sets that exposed how often (or not) they sponsored legislation that drew co-sponsors from the other party? And how often they talk publicly — and on social media — about topics with bipartisan support?
Using data from the (amazing) Polarization Research Lab at Dartmouth College, Porteus began to build Bridge Grades. His goal: To show — via objective data — that Team Blue and Team Red are NOT monolithic. And to try to build an apparatus that incentives politicians who are actually willing to work collaboratively — regardless of their voting record or ideological leanings.
(Sidebar: How Bridge Grades decides its grades is entirely transparent; you can dig through the methodology here.)
The results are fascinating. Why? Because a lot of the “Bridgers” — people who score highly on Porteus’ collaboration metrics — are not who you think they might be.
For example, Republican Sens. Jerry Moran of Kansas and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee score very highly on their willingness to be “bridgers” — despite not really needing to given their states’ politics.
Ted Cruz is more of a “Bridger” than John Fetterman. California’s Alex Padilla and John Cornyn score similarly — and very highly on the “Bridge Grades” system.
(Full Senate rankings are here.)
On the House side, there are a slew of examples of members who don’t need to be collaborative — given the clear partisan bent of their districts — but do anyway.
(Full House ratings are here.)
One that stood out to me: Texas Republican Rep. August Pfluger.
Donald Trump won Pfluger‘s 11th district, which includes places like Midland and Odessa (aka “Friday Night Lights” territory”), by 45.5(!!) points in 2024. (Kamala Harris got just 26.8% of the vote.)
In short: Pfluger could be as partisan as possible — never working with Democrats on ANYTHING — and get reelected easily every two year. And while Pfluger has a 91% vote rating from the conservative think tank Heritage Action, he ALSO rates very highly on Porteus’ Bridge Grades:
Which I find, well, inspiring. And proof of something I have long argued: While the most partisan lawmakers are the ones who fill up primetime cable shout-fests, there are a heck of a lot of Members of Congress like Pfluger who are genuinely trying to find ways to make the institution work.
And that’s why I like Bridge Grades so much. It provides a different — and more nuanced — way of looking at the members of the House and Senate. Not every Republican hates Democrats and has zero interest in ever working together. Ditto every Democrat. There are more August Pflugers out there than our national debate would have you think.
Porteus admits Bridge Grades is a work in progress. (He calls its a “multi-election cycle journey.”) He is trying to find a way to incorporate voting records without providing a “structural benefit” to either party. He’s looking to adding some measure of where politicians are getting their money into the mix.
Which would be great! But what he has built so far is a step in the right direction. Big time. As Porteus himself puts it, Bridge Grades is trying to shine a light on “win-win transactions” in Congress as opposed to casting the whole endeavor as a “zero-sum game.”
YES YES YES.
I strongly encourage you to: a) poke around Bridge Grades yourself b) subscribe to the Bridge Grades Substack c) consider donating to their efforts to make our politics better.
And if you want to support someone doing my best to call balls and strikes no matter what uniform the batter at the plate is wearing, I hope you consider becoming a paid subscriber to “So What.”
Interesting
Thanks for sharing.
Thank you for sharing such a cool tool. I subscribed to the free version. What's weird is how bipartisan bridge building seems to be. Interesting.... Thank you Chris.