Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 6, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Transportation and Public Works; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
105
statements classified
105 posts on X in the DC 2025–26 session. No measure in the DC 2025–26 session stands far from the peer average.
Every post, press release, newsletter and floor speech the lab collected and ran through its classifier.
At a glance
3 measures against the District of Columbia Legislature. White missed 3.9% of 1,680 roll calls, attendance in the bottom half of the District of Columbia Legislature (average 97.8%). 70% of the 84 bills White sponsored got out of committee, in the top half of the District of Columbia Legislature. White sits at −0.68 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 59% of Unicameral-legislature Democrats.
The measures on which White sits furthest from the middle of the District of Columbia Legislature, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
96.0%
District of Columbia Legislature average 97.8% · ranks 10th of 13 · 1,680 roll calls
Out of committee
70%
District of Columbia Legislature average 62% · ranks 4th of 12
CSIP ideology
−0.68
More liberal than 59% of Unicameral-legislature Democrats · ± 0.03
Statements
105
105 posts on X
Roll calls
1,680
Compared with District of Columbia Legislature
Bills sponsored
84
and 0 cosponsored
Peer group: District of Columbia Legislature. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is White, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which White is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What White says
White stresses bipartisanship less than 85% of Unicameral-legislature Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0% of 105 statements, against 1.3% for the average Unicameral-legislature Democrat; 10th of 10.
An AI model reads each of White’s 105 statements in the DC 2025–26 session (105 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 Unicameral-legislature Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the DC 2025–26 session
0%80%
White
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion79 statements
75%
47%
1st of 10
Credit claiming25 statements
24%
14%
2nd of 10
Policy criticism5 statements
5%
8%
5th of 10
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
0%
7th of 10
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
1%
10th of 10
Show the data
| Row | White | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 75% | 47% |
| Credit claiming | 24% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 5% | 8% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 0% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 1% |
105
statements classified
105 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 105 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is White; the thin grey bar is the average Unicameral-legislature Democrats. A longer thick bar means White does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
White used no extreme labels in 105 statements. The peer average is 0.1%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 DC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’26 | 31 | 0.0% | 3.2% | 77.4% | 0.0% | 29.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 83.3% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
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 DC 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.
In White’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Housing and Community Development · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 105 statements
Newest first, the DC 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: 105 posts on X.
Policy
Housing and Community Development is what White talks about most: 63% of policy statements, 2.7 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.49 on a 0–1 scale (Unicameral-legislature Democrats average 0.49; 6th of 9).
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 White talks about. The bills White sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What White talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the DC 2025–26 session
0%77%
White
Peers
Housing and Community Development50 statements
63%
24%
Government Operations and Politics15 statements
19%
21%
Law11 statements
14%
3%
Economics and Public Finance9 statements
11%
14%
Energy5 statements
6%
3%
Show the data
| Row | White | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Housing and Community Development | 63% | 24% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 21% |
| Law | 14% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 14% |
| Energy | 6% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of White’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Unicameral-legislature 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 77%. Grey ticks are the Unicameral-legislature Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Unicameral-legislature Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | Unicameral-legislature Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Housing and Community Development | 63% | 24% | 70% | 19% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 21% | 5% | 15% |
| Law | 14% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 14% | 0% | 2% |
| Energy | 6% | 3% | 5% | 3% |
0.49
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Unicameral-legislature Democrats average 0.49. Ranks 6th of 9.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means White legislates on exactly the areas White 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 White sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
White sits at −0.68 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 59% of Unicameral-legislature Democrats. Approximate range −0.71 to −0.65, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,560 donors and 468 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”.
−0.68
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.71 to −0.65. From 2,560 donors and 468 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is White, 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 White’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 White sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Unicameral-legislature Democrats11 · median −0.4
District of Columbia Legislature13 · median −0.5
All Unicameral legislature62 · median 0.0
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of White |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unicameral-legislature Democrats | 11 | −0.4 | 36% |
| District of Columbia Legislature | 13 | −0.5 | 38% |
| All Unicameral legislature | 62 | 0.0 | 13% |
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 White 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 White.
Money
White reported $50 in the 2026 cycle, 0.1% of the Unicameral-legislature Democrats’ median of $36.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from District of Columbia.
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.
$50
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 1 itemized donors. Unicameral-legislature Democrats’ median $36.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)100 squares$50
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $50 | 100.0% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Unicameral-legislature Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $337.8K |
| 2022 cycle | $300 |
| 2024 cycle | $117.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $50 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from District of Columbia.
- District of Columbia$50
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 |
|---|---|
| District of Columbia | $50 |
| 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 |
| Massachusetts | 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 |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | 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 |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | 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 |
1
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from District of Columbia
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 District of Columbia. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
White missed 3.9% of 1,680 roll calls. District of Columbia Legislature average attendance 97.8%.
1,680 roll calls White could vote on in the DC 2025–26 session, compared with District of Columbia Legislature. 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 White voted with the majority of District of Columbia Legislature Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1,680
roll calls
No party-line votes. Attendance 96.0%, ranks 10th of 13.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is White, the thin grey bar the District of Columbia Legislature average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
White
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.0%
97.8%
10th of 13
Party unity
—
—
Show the data
| Row | White | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.0% | 97.8% |
| Party unity | — | — |
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
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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 White most often
- Doni CrawfordI523 shared votes98%
- Brianne NadeauD1,601 shared votes98%
- Charles AllenD1,605 shared votes97%
- Christina HendersonI1,595 shared votes97%
- Brooke PintoD1,489 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as White least often
- Kenyan McDuffieI843 shared votes95%
- Phil MendelsonD1,605 shared votes96%
- Trayon WhiteD1,025 shared votes96%
- Wendell FelderD1,585 shared votes96%
- Matt FruminD1,605 shared votes96%
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
DC 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
White sponsored 84 bills in the DC 2025–26 session; 59 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 70% of sponsored bills got out of committee (District of Columbia Legislature average 62%; 4th of 12).
The bills White sponsored and cosponsored in the DC 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 DC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 84 | 83 | 59 | 59 | 59 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills White sponsored, ochre blocks bills White cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
70%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
District of Columbia Legislature average 62%. Ranks 4th of 12.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with White, by number of shared bills in the DC 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Brooke Pinto3
- Brianne Nadeau1
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 White’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| PR 26-0825 | Proposed Contract No. 2025-147 with Southern Avenue Owner LLC Disapproval Resolution of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Retained by the Council Oct 20, 2026 |
| CER 26-0211 | Kappa Psi Chapter Centennial Ceremonial Recognition Resolution of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Approved with Resolution Number ACR26-0206 Oct 6, 2026 |
| CER 26-0209 | 17th Street High Heel Race Recognition Resolution of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 2, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Approved with Resolution Number ACR26-0204 Oct 6, 2026 |
| B 26-0832 | Advisory Neighborhood Commissions Payment Modernization Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Public Hearing on B26-0832 Oct 26, 2026 |
| B 26-0830 | Vacated Rates Clarification Amendment Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | Notice of Intent to Act on B26-0830 Published in the District of Columbia Register Oct 9, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. White’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls White’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 White posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 35
pages crawled
39changes 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 White posted
No images from White’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
171 turns, Mar 3, 2020 to Sep 22, 2026
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 White is most unusual among District of Columbia Legislature, 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. That is the case for White in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 07b9c384-a232-40d5-b445-61db9e4bb65b
- Open States
- ocd-person/07b9c384-a232-40d5-b445-61db9e4bb65b
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