The median for State House Democrats is $40.4K. Ranks 69th of 2,082, where 1st raised the most. 111 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State House Democrats. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
6 measures against State House Democrats. 1.0% of Harabedian’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats (average 10%). 5.4% of Harabedian’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.9 times the State House Democrat average of 2.9%.
The measures on which Harabedian sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 69th of 2,082
Party unity
California House average 97.7% · ranks 9th of 79 · 0 votes against the majority of California House Democrats
Attendance
California House average 92.3% · ranks 10th of 79 · 4,001 roll calls
Policy criticism
State House Democrats average 10% · ranks 650th of 764
Bipartisanship
State House Democrats average 2.9% · ranks 137th of 764
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.07
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Harabedian, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Harabedian is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Harabedian criticizes policies less than 84% of State House Democrats. Policy criticism in 1.0% of 205 statements, against 10% for the average State House Democrat; 650th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Harabedian’s 205 statements in the CA 2025–26 session (205 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the CA 2025–26 session
| Row | Harabedian | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 46% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 20% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 5% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 1% | 10% |
statements classified
205 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 205 |
The thick bar is Harabedian; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Harabedian does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Harabedian used no extreme labels in 205 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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.
Share of statements per month, the CA 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 124 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 43.5% | 4.0% | 16.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 45 | 0.0% | 2.2% | 48.9% | 11.1% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 5.9% | 47.1% | 5.9% | 23.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 CA 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%. 19 months are hatched here; 15 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 6, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Emergency Management; Finance and Financial Sector; Environmental Protection · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 21, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Emergency Management · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 17, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
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.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Kristi NoemSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Dr OzSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Dr OzSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: Mehmet OzSource
Newest first, the CA 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 205 posts on X.
Emergency Management is what Harabedian talks about most: 59% of policy statements, 16.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.46 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 383rd of 503).
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 Harabedian talks about. The bills Harabedian sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the CA 2025–26 session
| Row | Harabedian | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency Management | 59% | 4% |
| Housing and Community Development | 20% | 6% |
| Health | 9% | 15% |
| Environmental Protection | 6% | 3% |
| Energy | 5% | 4% |
The thick bar is the share of Harabedian’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. 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.
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 64%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emergency Management | 59% | 4% | 6% | 1% |
| Housing and Community Development | 20% | 6% | 15% | 5% |
| Health | 9% | 15% | 10% | 15% |
| Environmental Protection | 6% | 3% | 2% | 4% |
| Energy | 5% | 4% | 6% | 3% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 383rd of 503.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Harabedian legislates on exactly the areas Harabedian 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 Harabedian sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Harabedian sits at −0.74 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 67% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.80 to −0.67, which understates the uncertainty; from 722 donors and 297 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.80 to −0.67. From 722 donors and 297 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Harabedian, 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 Harabedian’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Harabedian |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 33% |
| California House | 79 | −0.7 | 44% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 15% |
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 Harabedian 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 Harabedian.
Harabedian reported $663.6K in the 2026 cycle, 16.4 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 98% of itemized individual money came from California.
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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 111 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $125.3K | 18.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $538.3K | 81.1% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $1.4M |
| 2026 cycle | $663.6K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 98% came from California.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| California | $122.4K |
| Massachusetts | $1,500 |
| Colorado | $1,000 |
| New Jersey | $250 |
| Tennessee | $100 |
| 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 |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North Carolina | 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from California
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Harabedian voted with the majority of California House Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 2.7% of 4,001 roll calls. California House on average: 97.7% party unity, 92.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Harabedian never voted against the majority of California House Democrats.
4,001 roll calls Harabedian could vote on in the CA 2025–26 session, compared with California 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 Harabedian voted with the majority of California House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of California House Democrats
Party unity 100%, California House average 97.7%, ranks 9th of 79. 4,001 roll calls in the CA 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Harabedian, the thin grey bar the California House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Harabedian | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.2% | 92.3% |
| Party unity | 100% | 97.7% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the CA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2026 | SB 195 Income taxes: exclusions: wildfire loss mitigation payments. SB 195 Budget and Fiscal Review Senate Third Reading By GABRIEL | Yea | With majority | pass | D 60–0 · R 19–0Democrats 60 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 19 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 1, 2026 | SB 1098 Public Utilities Commission: memorandum and balancing accounts. SB 1098 Pérez Senate Third Reading By Petrie-Norris | Yea | With majority | pass | D 50–1 · R 0–14Democrats 50 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 14 nay | became law |
| Sep 1, 2026 | SB 1370 Covered wildfire mitigation projects: consolidated and expedited review. SB 1370 Stern Senate Third Reading By Petrie-Norris | Yea | With majority | pass | D 42–4 · R 16–0Democrats 42 yea, 4 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 1, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 59–0 · R 10–4Democrats 59 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 4 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Sep 1, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 56–0 · R 17–0Democrats 56 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 17 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Harabedian most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Harabedian least often
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.
CA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Harabedian sponsored 38 bills in the CA 2025–26 session; 15 became law. Cosponsored 404 others. 84% of sponsored bills got out of committee (California House average 81%; 42nd of 79).
The bills Harabedian sponsored and cosponsored in the CA 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.
Counts for the CA 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 38 | 34 | 28 | 20 | 15 |
| Cosponsored | 404 | 402 | 384 | 267 | 245 |
Ink blocks are bills Harabedian sponsored, ochre blocks bills Harabedian cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
California House average 81%. Ranks 42nd of 79.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Harabedian, by number of shared bills in the CA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Harabedian’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 140 | Relative to Children's Get Offline and Get Outdoors Month. | Cosponsor | Aug 19, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Page 6424.). Aug 24, 2026 |
| HR 138 | Relative to National 4-H Week. | Cosponsor | Aug 13, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6275.). Aug 19, 2026 |
| HR 137 | Relative to Diwali. | Cosponsor | Aug 13, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Page 6311.). Aug 20, 2026 |
| HR 136 | Relative to Home Hardening Week. | Cosponsor | Aug 10, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Page 6211.). Aug 17, 2026 |
| HR 135 | Relative to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Awareness Month. | Cosponsor | Aug 6, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6275.). Aug 19, 2026 |
A site that changed 53 times in 90 days. Harabedian’s official site had 50 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Harabedian’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 Harabedian posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Harabedian’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
8 turns, Jun 2, 2025 to May 18, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Harabedian is most unusual among State House Democrats, 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
