Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 10, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: ICE · Source
3.2×
the State Senate Democrat rate of policy criticism
33% of 414 statements criticize a policy (137 statements); the average for State Senate Democrats is 10%. Ranks 13th of 329, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Cook’s posts on X and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. Cook voted against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats 1,403 times; party unity 50%, in the bottom tenth of the Texas Senate (average 89%). Cook sits at −0.30 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 92% of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Cook sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy criticism
33%
State Senate Democrats average 10% · ranks 13th of 329
Party unity
50%
Texas Senate average 89% · ranks 27th of 28 · 1,403 votes against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.30
More conservative than 92% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.02
Out of committee
44%
Texas Senate average 65% · ranks 26th of 28
Policy discussion
63%
State Senate Democrats average 43% · ranks 44th of 329
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.63
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 59th of 228
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Cook, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Cook is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Cook says
Cook criticizes policies more than 96% of State Senate Democrats. Policy criticism in 33% of 414 statements, against 10% for the average State Senate Democrat; 13th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Cook’s 414 statements in the TX 2025–26 session (414 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the TX 2025–26 session
0%80%
Cook
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion260 statements
63%
43%
44th of 329
Policy criticism137 statements
33%
10%
13th of 329
Credit claiming37 statements
9%
16%
215th of 329
Bipartisanship10 statements
2%
3%
164th of 329
Personal attacks4 statements
1%
2%
133rd of 329
Show the data
| Row | Cook | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 63% | 43% |
| Policy criticism | 33% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 9% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
414
statements classified
414 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 414 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Cook; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Cook does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Cook used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, below the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at ICE; peers 0.8%.
- “extreme”1
- “fascist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- ICE1
- Trump1
- Trump administration1
What an extreme label is
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.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 17.9% | 64.3% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 18.8% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 23.1% | 50.0% | 3.9% | 19.2% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 28.0% | 60.0% | 12.0% | 24.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 45.5% | 18.2% | 27.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 153 | 0.0% | 51.6% | 62.7% | 2.0% | 1.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 18 | 11.1% | 38.9% | 61.1% | 0.0% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 9 | — (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 | 14 | 0.0% | 14.3% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 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) |
| Dec ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 75.0% | 8.3% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 90.9% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 4 | — (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 | 2 | — (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 | 15 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 73.3% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 6.7% |
| May ’26 | 12 | 8.3% | 41.7% | 66.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.3% |
| Jun ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 66.7% | 86.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% |
| Jul ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 8 | — (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 | 3 | — (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 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
How to read the strips
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 TX 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%. 7 months are hatched here.
In Cook’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 4, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Immigration; extreme label “extreme” aimed at ICE · Source
Examples by category
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 · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: ICESource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Water Resources Development · target: leadersSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Water Resources Development · target: politiciansSource
All 414 statements
Newest first, the TX 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 414 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Cook talks about most: 37% of policy statements, 2.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 59th of 228).
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 Cook talks about. The bills Cook sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Cook talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TX 2025–26 session
0%41%
Cook
Peers
Government Operations and Politics97 statements
37%
14%
Health52 statements
20%
17%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues43 statements
17%
8%
Emergency Management28 statements
11%
4%
Education24 statements
9%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Cook | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 37% | 14% |
| Health | 20% | 17% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 17% | 8% |
| Emergency Management | 11% | 4% |
| Education | 9% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Cook’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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.
Talks about · legislates on
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 41%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 37% | 14% | 9% | 8% |
| Health | 20% | 17% | 19% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 17% | 8% | 8% | 5% |
| Emergency Management | 11% | 4% | 3% | 1% |
| Education | 9% | 15% | 7% | 9% |
0.63
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 59th of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Cook legislates on exactly the areas Cook 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 Cook sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Cook sits at −0.30 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 92% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.32 to −0.28, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,136 donors and 594 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”.
−0.30
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.32 to −0.28. From 3,136 donors and 594 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Cook, 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 Cook’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
What this means, and what it doesn’t
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.
Where Cook sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Texas Senate30 · median +0.4
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Cook |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 92% |
| Texas Senate | 30 | +0.4 | 23% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 40% |
How to read the strips
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 Cook 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 Cook.
Money
Cook reported $156.7K in the 2026 cycle, 2.8 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from Texas.
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.
$156.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 855 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)71 squares$111.7K
- PACs and other committees29 squares$45.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $111.7K | 71.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $45.0K | 28.7% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
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.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $163.1K |
| 2024 cycle | $1.0M |
| 2026 cycle | $156.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from Texas.
- Texas$103.4K
- California$1,416
- New York$894
- Washington$878
- Massachusetts$438
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Texas | $103.4K |
| California | $1,416 |
| New York | $894 |
| Washington | $878 |
| Massachusetts | $438 |
| Pennsylvania | $431 |
| Maryland | $355 |
| Oregon | $332 |
| North Carolina | $299 |
| Vermont | $280 |
| Minnesota | $253 |
| Ohio | $225 |
| Michigan | $209 |
| Missouri | $205 |
| Florida | $195 |
| Maine | $188 |
| District of Columbia | $183 |
| Colorado | $177 |
| Arizona | $151 |
| Virginia | $144 |
| Illinois | $115 |
| Hawaii | $107 |
| Oklahoma | $103 |
| New Jersey | $95 |
| Nevada | $88 |
| Connecticut | $84 |
| South Dakota | $60 |
| South Carolina | $56 |
| New Hampshire | $48 |
| Georgia | $35 |
| Iowa | $31 |
| Utah | $30 |
| Indiana | $25 |
| New Mexico | $24 |
| Tennessee | $21 |
| Rhode Island | $19 |
| Idaho | $17 |
| Alabama | $15 |
| Montana | $15 |
| Wisconsin | $11 |
| Kansas | $11 |
| Nebraska | $10 |
| Delaware | $10 |
| West Virginia | $9 |
| Louisiana | $3 |
| Alaska | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
855
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
93%
from Texas
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$31.7K 491 donors
- PHYSICIAN$13.4K 10 donors
- LAWYER$7,293 14 donors
- ATTORNEY$6,572 20 donors
- RETIRED$4,929 26 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- HOUSTON FIREFIGHTERS POLITICAL ACTION FUND$5,000
- TEXAS TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION PAC$5,000
- TSAPAC$4,000
- NRG ENERGY INC PAC$3,000
- TEXANS FOR REASONABLE SOLUTIONS PAC$3,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RICE UNIVERSITY$885 5 donors
- BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE$160 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Cook voted with the majority of Texas Senate Democrats on 50% of party-line votes and missed 1.8% of 5,045 roll calls. Texas Senate on average: 89% party unity, 97.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cook voted against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats 1,403 times.
5,045 roll calls Cook could vote on in the TX 2025–26 session, compared with Texas Senate. 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 Cook voted with the majority of Texas Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1,403
votes against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats
Party unity 50%, Texas Senate average 89%, ranks 27th of 28. 5,045 roll calls in the TX 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Cook, the thin grey bar the Texas Senate average. The scale runs from 50% to 100% to show the gap.
50%100%
Cook
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.2%
97.9%
20th of 28
Party unity
50%
89%
27th of 28
Show the data
| Row | Cook | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.2% | 97.9% |
| Party unity | 50% | 89% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
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.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the TX 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2025 | HB 18 Relating to a restriction on the acceptance of political contributions and the making of certain political expenditures by a member of the legislature and certain political committees during certain periods in which a member is absent from a legislative session; authorizing a civil penalty. final passage | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–8 · R 18–0Democrats 0 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 18 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 3, 2025 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 44–1 · R 46–37Democrats 44 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 37 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 45–0 · R 76–8Democrats 45 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 76 yea, 8 nay | became law · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 1–40 · R 78–7Democrats 1 yea, 40 nay; Republicans 78 yea, 7 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 18 Relating to a restriction on the acceptance of political contributions and the making of certain political expenditures by a member of the legislature and certain political committees during certain periods in which a member is absent from a legislative session; authorizing a civil penalty. passage | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–8 · R 18–0Democrats 0 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 18 yea, 0 nay | became law |
How key votes are chosen
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.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cook most often
- Sarah EckhardtD1,259 shared votes92%
- Roland GutierrezD1,238 shared votes83%
- Borris MilesD1,239 shared votes80%
- Carol AlvaradoD1,287 shared votes80%
- José MenéndezD1,261 shared votes80%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cook least often
- Bryan HughesR1,287 shared votes8.8%
- Mayes MiddletonR1,288 shared votes16%
- Brandon CreightonR1,285 shared votes22%
- Kevin SparksR1,288 shared votes22%
- Brent HagenbuchR1,288 shared votes23%
How to read the agreement lists
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.
Full voting record
TX 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Cook sponsored 188 bills in the TX 2025–26 session; 23 became law. Cosponsored 42 others. 44% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Texas Senate average 65%; 26th of 28).
The bills Cook sponsored and cosponsored in the TX 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.
Bills by stage
Counts for the TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 188 | 176 | 83 | 27 | 23 |
| Cosponsored | 42 | 42 | 35 | 28 | 25 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Cook sponsored, ochre blocks bills Cook cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
44%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Texas Senate average 65%. Ranks 26th of 28.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Cook, by number of shared bills in the TX 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Carol Alvarado53
- Sarah Eckhardt52
- Royce West44
- Borris Miles41
- César Blanco37
What this means, and what it doesn’t
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 Cook’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 42 | Relating to exceptions to certain laws prohibiting abortion. | Sponsor | Aug 18, 2025 | Introduced | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Filed Aug 18, 2025 |
| SB 43 | Relating to exceptions to and the repeal of certain laws prohibiting abortion. | Sponsor | Aug 18, 2025 | Introduced | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Filed Aug 18, 2025 |
| SB 1 | Relating to campground and youth camp safety. | Cosponsor | Aug 18, 2025 | Became law | Emergency Management(model) | Effective immediately Sep 5, 2025 |
| SB 8 | Relating to the designation and use of certain spaces and facilities according to sex; authorizing a civil penalty and a private civil right of action. | Cosponsor | Aug 15, 2025 | Became law | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Effective on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sep 22, 2025 |
| SB 5 | Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and preparedness and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. | Cosponsor | Aug 15, 2025 | Became law | Emergency Management(model) | Effective immediately Sep 18, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Cook’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Cook’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 Cook posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 9
pages crawled
5changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“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.
Social accounts
Images Cook posted
No images from Cook’s posts have been described.
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
State floor speeches
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
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
The headline is the measure on which Cook is most unusual among State Senate 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 06aed58e-f403-43a5-b4b9-8785a4acf981
- Open States
- ocd-person/06aed58e-f403-43a5-b4b9-8785a4acf981
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
Freshness of this profile’s data
- What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
- Roll calls (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
- Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
- Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; aggregates only.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
- State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.
How the measures work
- What politicians say
- Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
- Extreme labels
- A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
- Policy areas and agreement
- Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
- Ideology (CSIP)
- Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
- Campaign money
- Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
- Votes and key votes
- Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
- Peers and ranks
- Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab