On a scale from 0 to 100 how right wing is Laura Loomer?

GPT-5.4

Vote: 90

I maintain my vote at 90. The strongest consensus across the panel is that Loomer is far-right rather than merely conservative. The evidence cited is consistent: explicit anti-Muslim rhetoric, anti-immigration extremism, conspiracy promotion, deep alignment with the most radical MAGA currents, and repeated platform bans for hate speech. I am not persuaded to move to 100. Gemini makes the best case for the maximum score, but 100 should be reserved for the absolute endpoint of the scale. Several models rightly note that Loomer, while extreme, still operates through elections and mainstream-right networks rather than representing the most ideologically maximal or openly revolutionary form of right-wing politics. So 90 remains the best fit: clearly fringe, clearly far-right, and well beyond mainstream Republican politics, without collapsing all distinctions at the very top of the scale.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: 90

I maintain my vote for G (90). Laura Loomer exemplifies far-right extremism through platform bans for hate speech, Islamophobia, conspiracy promotion, and alignment with MAGA radicals like Nick Fuentes. Mainstream conservatives (e.g., Romney) are 60-70; she's far beyond at 90, comparable to Alex Jones. Gemini 3.1 Pro's H (100) overreaches by labeling her 'white nationalist-adjacent' at the 'absolute extreme'—she's banned widely but operates electorally, seeks Trump endorsements, and avoids explicit neo-Nazi advocacy (reserved for true 100s like actual supremacists). No model shifted me; others' G arguments reinforce reserving 100 for theoretical fringes beyond her. 90 precisely captures her as far-right fringe without hyperbole, aligning with consensus.

GLM 5

Vote: 90

After reviewing all arguments, I maintain my position at 90. The consensus among most models is well-founded. The key distinction is whether Loomer represents the absolute extreme (100) or the far-right fringe (90). The arguments for reserving 100 for explicit neo-Nazis, accelerationists, or those advocating revolutionary violence are compelling. Loomer, despite her extreme rhetoric, operates within the electoral system—she ran for Congress, sought mainstream Republican endorsements, and works through democratic channels rather than explicitly advocating its overthrow. Gemini's argument for 100 correctly identifies her extreme positions but doesn't adequately address why she should occupy the absolute endpoint of the scale. The ban from platforms, while significant, reflects policy violations rather than necessarily defining the terminus of a political spectrum. A score of 90 captures that Loomer is firmly in far-right territory—well beyond mainstream conservatism (60-75)—while acknowledging theoretical space exists for even more extreme positions involving explicit revolutionary violence or ethnostate advocacy.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: 90

I'm maintaining my vote at G (90). The overwhelming consensus among 5 out of 6 models is that 90 is the correct score, and I find the reasoning compelling and consistent. Gemini 3.1 Pro's argument for 100 is understandable but ultimately too extreme. A score of 100 should represent the absolute theoretical maximum of right-wing extremism. While Loomer is undeniably far-right, she still operates within democratic electoral structures, has sought and received endorsements from mainstream Republican figures like Trump, and does not advocate for armed revolution or the complete dissolution of democratic governance. There are ideological positions further right than hers — actual neo-Nazis, accelerationists, and those who explicitly call for ethno-state formation through violence. As multiple models noted, Loomer's self-described 'proud Islamophobe' stance, her bans from virtually every platform, her association with white nationalist-adjacent figures, and her promotion of conspiracy theories clearly place her well beyond mainstream conservatism (60-75 range) and into far-right territory. But reserving 100 for the absolute extreme maintains the scale's usefulness and accuracy. 90 is the correct answer: firmly far-right, but acknowledging that the spectrum extends slightly further than her publicly stated positions.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: 90

I am persuaded by Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 that a perfect score of 100 should be reserved for individuals advocating for explicit revolutionary violence or the complete overthrow of democratic institutions, such as neo-Nazis and accelerationists. While Laura Loomer is undeniably on the far-right fringe—having been banned from nearly every major platform for extreme hate speech and white nationalist-adjacent rhetoric—she still operates within the confines of the democratic electoral system. She has actively campaigned for Congress and sought mainstream Republican endorsements. Because she participates in electoral politics rather than explicit revolutionary violence, 90 is the most accurate reflection of her extreme right-wing ideology.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: 90

While Gemini 3.1 Pro makes a compelling case that Loomer occupies the 'absolute extreme' at 100, I maintain that 90 is the more precise calibration. A score of 100 should theoretically be reserved for the absolute furthest edge of the spectrum—figures advocating armed revolution, explicit neo-Nazism, or complete rejection of democratic participation. Loomer, while operating in white nationalist-adjacent territory and being banned from major platforms for hate speech, still functions within the GOP electoral framework, seeks Republican endorsements, and runs for office through conventional democratic means. The consensus among five of six models converging at 90 reflects this critical distinction between 'far-right extremist' and 'absolute theoretical extreme.' Her rhetoric is maximally inflammatory and exclusionary, but her operational modality distinguishes her from accelerationists or neo-Nazi militants. Therefore, 90 accurately captures her position as firmly within the far-right fringe while acknowledging that democratic participation—even by extremists—differentiates her from the absolute 100 threshold.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a unanimous consensus that Laura Loomer scores a 90 on the right-wing scale, characterizing her as a far-right extremist who remains just shy of the absolute maximum. Gemini 3.1 Pro initially held out for a perfect 100, but was eventually swayed by Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5's logic that the 100-point threshold should be reserved for those who reject democratic systems entirely. The debate ultimately turned on a fine-grained distinction between a 'far-right provocateur' and an 'anti-democratic revolutionary.'

All models agreed on G

Strongest Arguments

• 90: A score of 100 should be reserved for those advocating for explicit revolutionary violence or the complete overthrow of democratic institutions; since Loomer operates within the electoral system, 90 accurately reflects her extreme positioning without collapsing the scale.
• 100: Loomer represents the absolute furthest edge of the modern spectrum, evidenced by her being permanently banned from almost all mainstream platforms, payment processors, and ride-sharing apps for her rhetoric.

Key Turning Points

• Gemini 3.1 Pro initially stood alone at 100, citing Loomer's total exclusion from mainstream digital society.
• Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 argued that 100 must be reserved for theoretical extremes like neo-Nazis or accelerationists, noting Loomer still seeks mainstream Republican endorsements.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro conceded in the second round, acknowledging that Loomer's participation in electoral politics justifies a 90 over a 100.