Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
5.3×
the State House Republican rate of extreme labels
7.6% of 1,094 statements use an extreme label (83 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 1.4%. Ranks 21st of 791, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at radical left.
An AI model reads each of Schubert’s posts on X and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 17% of Schubert’s statements criticize a policy, 1.9 times the State House Republican average of 9.3%. Schubert voted against the majority of Montana House Republicans 489 times; party unity 86%, in the bottom quarter of the Montana House (average 89%).
The measures on which Schubert sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Extreme labels
7.6%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 21st of 791
Policy criticism
17%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 132nd of 791
Party unity
86%
Montana House average 89% · ranks 76th of 97 · 489 votes against the majority of Montana House Republicans
From Montana, 2026
85%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1836th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Policy discussion
45%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 194th of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.50
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.05
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Schubert, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Schubert is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Schubert says
Schubert criticizes policies more than 83% of State House Republicans. Policy criticism in 17% of 1,094 statements, against 9.3% for the average State House Republican; 132nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Schubert’s 1,094 statements in the MT 2025–26 session (1,094 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MT 2025–26 session
0%80%
Schubert
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion487 statements
45%
32%
194th of 791
Policy criticism190 statements
17%
9%
132nd of 791
Credit claiming77 statements
7%
13%
480th of 791
Personal attacks42 statements
4%
3%
201st of 791
Bipartisanship11 statements
1%
2%
400th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Schubert | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 45% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 17% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 7% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 4% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
1,094
statements classified
1,094 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,094 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Schubert; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Schubert does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Schubert used extreme labels in 7.6% of statements, 5.3 times the peer average. 83 statements, most often aimed at radical left; peers 1.4%.
- “radical”27
- “far left”12
- “woke”6
- “communist”4
- “MAGA”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- radical left11
- RINOs4
- Democrats3
- judges3
- judiciary3
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 MT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 64 | 3.1% | 21.9% | 39.1% | 0.0% | 7.8% | 3.1% |
| Feb ’25 | 36 | 8.3% | 19.4% | 41.7% | 2.8% | 25.0% | 2.8% |
| Mar ’25 | 59 | 3.4% | 15.3% | 40.7% | 1.7% | 30.5% | 3.4% |
| Apr ’25 | 36 | 2.8% | 33.3% | 50.0% | 5.6% | 16.7% | 2.8% |
| May ’25 | 57 | 7.0% | 21.1% | 36.8% | 3.5% | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| Jun ’25 | 110 | 3.6% | 20.0% | 40.9% | 0.0% | 3.6% | 5.5% |
| Jul ’25 | 88 | 1.1% | 22.7% | 48.9% | 1.1% | 4.5% | 8.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 55 | 1.8% | 23.6% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 1.8% | 5.5% |
| Sep ’25 | 47 | 6.4% | 8.5% | 21.3% | 0.0% | 6.4% | 12.8% |
| Oct ’25 | 43 | 9.3% | 14.0% | 39.5% | 0.0% | 14.0% | 18.6% |
| Nov ’25 | 64 | 3.1% | 23.4% | 32.8% | 1.6% | 3.1% | 10.9% |
| Dec ’25 | 79 | 5.1% | 11.4% | 50.6% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 5.1% |
| Jan ’26 | 66 | 7.6% | 3.0% | 59.1% | 3.0% | 7.6% | 1.5% |
| Feb ’26 | 42 | 7.1% | 16.7% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 2.4% | 14.3% |
| Mar ’26 | 53 | 0.0% | 24.5% | 35.9% | 0.0% | 3.8% | 18.9% |
| Apr ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 25.9% | 59.3% | 0.0% | 7.4% | 3.7% |
| May ’26 | 32 | 3.1% | 18.8% | 56.3% | 3.1% | 9.4% | 9.4% |
| Jun ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 16.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 16.0% | 48.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 52.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 15.8% | 73.7% | 0.0% | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 55 | 3.6% | 7.3% | 70.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.5% |
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 MT 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%.
In Schubert’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.
Oct 18, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical, woke” aimed at radical left · 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 · International AffairsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: judgeSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · bipartisanship · target: melanietoelcke, MGMonfortonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: American elected officialsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “extreme” aimed at John Cornyn · target: John CornynSource
All 1,094 statements
Newest first, the MT 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: 1,094 posts on X.
Policy
Immigration is what Schubert talks about most: 47% of policy statements, 10.2 times the peer share. Peers give it 4.7%.
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 Schubert talks about. The bills Schubert sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Schubert talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MT 2025–26 session
0%52%
Schubert
Peers
Immigration231 statements
47%
5%
Government Operations and Politics78 statements
16%
18%
International Affairs68 statements
14%
2%
Crime and Law Enforcement54 statements
11%
11%
Labor and Employment53 statements
11%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Schubert | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Immigration | 47% | 5% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 18% |
| International Affairs | 14% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 11% |
| Labor and Employment | 11% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Schubert’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. 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 52%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
No sponsored or cosponsored bills with a policy area in this window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Schubert legislates on exactly the areas Schubert 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 Schubert sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Schubert sits at +0.50 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 75% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.46 to +0.55, which understates the uncertainty; from 168 donors and 295 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”.
+0.50
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.46 to +0.55. From 168 donors and 295 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Schubert, 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 Schubert’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 Schubert sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Montana House100 · median +0.1
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Schubert |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 75% |
| Montana House | 100 | +0.1 | 90% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 86% |
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 Schubert 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 Schubert.
Money
Schubert reported $20.6K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 85% of itemized individual money came from Montana.
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.
$20.6K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 77 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)86 squares$17.8K
- PACs and other committees2 squares$450
- Party committees12 squares$2,350
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $17.8K | 86.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $450 | 2.2% |
| Party committees | $2,350 | 11.4% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $32.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $20.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 85% came from Montana.
- Montana$15.0K
- Wyoming$1,108
- North Dakota$625
- Tennessee$252
- Texas$204
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 |
|---|---|
| Montana | $15.0K |
| Wyoming | $1,108 |
| North Dakota | $625 |
| Tennessee | $252 |
| Texas | $204 |
| Minnesota | $152 |
| Arizona | $104 |
| Missouri | $100 |
| Illinois | $52 |
| New York | $52 |
| New Jersey | $52 |
| California | $52 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | 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 |
| Florida | No data |
77
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
85%
from Montana
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 Montana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$6,617 28 donors
- HOMEMAKER$1,668 4 donors
- BUSINESS OWNER$972 4 donors
- FARMER$662 3 donors
- OWNER$654 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- FLATHEAD COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE$2,350
- M.T.A. HOSPITALITY PAC$250
- MONTANA BANKERS PAC$200
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Schubert voted with the majority of Montana House Republicans on 86% of party-line votes and missed 0.8% of 2,755 roll calls. Montana House on average: 89% party unity, 99.2% attendance. Across all roll calls, Schubert voted against the majority of Montana House Republicans 489 times.
2,755 roll calls Schubert could vote on in the MT 2025–26 session, compared with Montana 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 Schubert voted with the majority of Montana House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
489
votes against the majority of Montana House Republicans
Party unity 86%, Montana House average 89%, ranks 76th of 97. 2,755 roll calls in the MT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Schubert, the thin grey bar the Montana House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Schubert
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.2%
99.2%
67th of 97
Party unity
86%
89%
76th of 97
Show the data
| Row | Schubert | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.2% | 99.2% |
| Party unity | 86% | 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
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 Schubert most often
- Ron MarshallR759 shared votes85%
- Caleb HinkleR2,733 shared votes85%
- Kathy LoveR2,731 shared votes85%
- Tom MillettR2,732 shared votes85%
- Jedediah HinkleR2,723 shared votes84%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Schubert least often
- Zooey ZephyrD2,672 shared votes50%
- S.J. HowellD2,732 shared votes52%
- Kelly KortumD2,733 shared votes52%
- Mary CaferroD2,684 shared votes53%
- Donavon HawkD2,654 shared votes53%
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
MT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Schubert sponsored 1 bill in the MT 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others.
The bills Schubert sponsored and cosponsored in the MT 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 MT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Schubert sponsored, ochre blocks bills Schubert cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Schubert, by number of shared bills in the MT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 Schubert’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HJ 22 | Joint resolution acknowledging that Christ is King | Sponsor | Jan 18, 2025 | In committee | Unassigned | (H) Died in Process May 20, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 7 times in 90 days. Schubert’s campaign site had 11 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Schubert’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 Schubert posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 11
pages crawled
7changes 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 Schubert posted
No images from Schubert’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
1 turn, Jan 30, 2025 to Jan 30, 2025
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 Schubert is most unusual among State House Republicans, 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
- 14a4fd05-5a3c-444e-82dc-5216deb9cd62
- Open States
- ocd-person/14a4fd05-5a3c-444e-82dc-5216deb9cd62
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