Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship; credit claiming · Source
3.8%
of statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of State House Democrats
3.8% of 288 statements discuss policy (11 statements); the average for State House Democrats is 39%. Ranks 736th of 764, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Whitsett’s posts on X and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. Whitsett sits at −0.24 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 95% of State House Democrats. 1.0% of Whitsett’s statements claim credit, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats (average 14%).
The measures on which Whitsett 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.
Policy discussion
3.8%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 736th of 764
CSIP ideology
−0.24
More conservative than 95% of State House Democrats · ± 0.03
Credit claiming
1.0%
State House Democrats average 14% · ranks 678th of 764
Policy criticism
0.7%
State House Democrats average 10% · ranks 657th of 764
Personal attacks
5.2%
State House Democrats average 2.5% · ranks 135th of 764
Bipartisanship
0.7%
State House Democrats average 2.9% · ranks 551st of 764
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Whitsett, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Whitsett is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Whitsett says
Whitsett criticizes policies less than 85% of State House Democrats. Policy criticism in 0.7% of 288 statements, against 10% for the average State House Democrat; 657th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Whitsett’s 288 statements in the MI 2025–26 session (288 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.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Whitsett
Peers
Rank
Personal attacks15 statements
5%
3%
135th of 764
Policy discussion11 statements
4%
39%
736th of 764
Credit claiming3 statements
1%
14%
678th of 764
Policy criticism2 statements
1%
10%
657th of 764
Bipartisanship2 statements
1%
3%
551st of 764
Show the data
| Row | Whitsett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 5% | 3% |
| Policy discussion | 4% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 1% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 1% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
288
statements classified
288 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 288 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Whitsett; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Whitsett does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Whitsett used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, below the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at Teflon Don; peers 1.0%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Teflon Don1
- Unnamed Individual1
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 MI 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 | 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) |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’26 | 98 | 4.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 62 | 3.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 43 | 9.3% | 2.3% | 7.0% | 2.3% | 4.7% | 2.3% |
| 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 | 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) |
| Aug ’26 | 37 | 13.5% | 0.0% | 10.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 21.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 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 MI 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%. 16 months are hatched here; 11 of them have no statements.
In Whitsett’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 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health; Labor and Employment · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Teflon Don · 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 · Health · target: Bobby LaVallleySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Leslie MarshallSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Commerce · target: Leslie MarshallSource
All 288 statements
Newest first, the MI 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: 288 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Whitsett talks about most: 45% of policy statements, 3.0 times the peer share. Peers give it 15%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
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 Whitsett talks about. The bills Whitsett sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Whitsett talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MI 2025–26 session
0%59%
Whitsett
Peers
Health5 statements
45%
15%
Government Operations and Politics2 statements
18%
15%
Commerce1 statements
9%
3%
Crime and Law Enforcement1 statements
9%
8%
Energy1 statements
9%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Whitsett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 45% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 15% |
| Commerce | 9% | 3% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 9% | 8% |
| Energy | 9% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Whitsett’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.
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 59%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 45% | 15% | 53% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 15% | 0% | 8% |
| Commerce | 9% | 3% | 0% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 9% | 8% | 7% | 9% |
| Energy | 9% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Whitsett legislates on exactly the areas Whitsett 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 Whitsett sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Whitsett sits at −0.24 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 95% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.27 to −0.22, which understates the uncertainty; from 160 donors and 768 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”.
−0.24
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.27 to −0.22. From 160 donors and 768 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Whitsett, 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 Whitsett’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 Whitsett sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Michigan House110 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Whitsett |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 95% |
| Michigan House | 110 | +0.4 | 46% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 43% |
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 Whitsett 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 Whitsett.
Money
Whitsett reported $37.1K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 90% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
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.
$37.1K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 27 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)52 squares$19.3K
- PACs and other committees48 squares$17.8K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $19.3K | 52.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $17.8K | 47.9% |
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 State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $28.3K |
| 2022 cycle | $65.1K |
| 2024 cycle | $84.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $37.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 90% came from Michigan.
- Michigan$17.3K
- New York$1,000
- Maryland$1,000
- North Carolina$25
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 |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $17.3K |
| New York | $1,000 |
| Maryland | $1,000 |
| North Carolina | $25 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | 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 |
27
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
90%
from Michigan
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 Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- PARTNER$4,000 4 donors
- OWNER$1,750 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MICHIGAN BEER AND WINE WHOLESALERS STATE PAC$3,500
- ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS PAC$1,000
- AUTO DEALERS OF MICHIGAN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- DTE ENERGY COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- AT LAND DEVELOPMENT$4,000 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Whitsett voted with the majority of Michigan House Democrats on 0% of party-line votes and missed none of 58 roll calls. Michigan House on average: 93.2% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Whitsett voted against the majority of Michigan House Democrats 36 times.
58 roll calls Whitsett could vote on in the MI 2025–26 session, compared with Michigan 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 Whitsett voted with the majority of Michigan House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
36
votes against the majority of Michigan House Democrats
Party unity 0%, Michigan House average 93.2%, ranks 110th of 110. 58 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Whitsett, the thin grey bar the Michigan House average. The scale runs from 0% to 100% to show the gap.
0%100%
Whitsett
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.9%
55th of 110
Party unity
0%
93.2%
110th of 110
Show the data
| Row | Whitsett | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 0% | 93.2% |
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 MI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2025 | HB 4706 Appropriations: omnibus; appropriations for multiple departments and branches for the fiscal year 2025-2026 and supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2024-2025; provide for. Creates appropriation act. passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #181 Yeas 59 Nays 45 Excused 0 Not Voting 6 | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 1–45 · R 58–0Democrats 1 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 58 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Aug 21, 2025 | HB 4303 Holidays: other; Chaldean American Month; establish. Creates new act. passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #179 Yeas 99 Nays 1 Excused 0 Not Voting 10 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 43–0 · R 56–1Democrats 43 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 21, 2025 | HJR M Legislature: other; enactment of appropriation bills by a certain date; require. Amends sec. 31 of art. IV, sec. 18 of art. V & sec. 17 of art. IX of the state constitution. roll call Roll Call #180 Yeas 70 Nays 30 Excused 0 Not Voting 10 | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 13–30 · R 57–0Democrats 13 yea, 30 nay; Republicans 57 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| May 7, 2025 | HB 4007 Energy: alternative sources; clean energy system; expand definition of. Amends sec. 3 of 2008 PA 295 (MCL 460.1003). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #91 Yeas 82 Nays 27 Excused 0 Not Voting 1 | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 25–27 · R 57–0Democrats 25 yea, 27 nay; Republicans 57 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| May 7, 2025 | HB 4283 Energy: alternative sources; electricity generated from RICE generators; authorize use of to meet renewable and clean energy standards. Amends secs. 28, 29 & 32 of 2008 PA 295 (MCL 460.1028 et seq.) & adds sec. 34. passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #92 Yeas 83 Nays 26 Excused 0 Not Voting 1 | Yea | — | pass | D 26–26 · R 57–0Democrats 26 yea, 26 nay; Republicans 57 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
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 Whitsett most often
- Mike HoadleyR58 shared votes100%
- Brian BeGoleR58 shared votes100%
- Luke MeermanR58 shared votes100%
- Pat OutmanR58 shared votes100%
- Doug WozniakR58 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Whitsett least often
- Morgan ForemanD52 shared votes31%
- Phil SkaggsD57 shared votes32%
- Carrie RheingansD58 shared votes33%
- Tonya PhillipsD56 shared votes34%
- Laurie PohutskyD56 shared votes34%
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
MI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Whitsett sponsored 1 bill in the MI 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 12 others.
The bills Whitsett sponsored and cosponsored in the MI 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 MI 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 | 12 | 12 | 8 | 2 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Whitsett sponsored, ochre blocks bills Whitsett 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 Whitsett, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Jaime Greene5
- Donavan McKinney4
- Tom Kunse4
- Jerry Neyer4
- Samantha Steckloff4
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 Whitsett’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 4867 | Children: health; referral of certain children with elevated blood lead levels to the early on program administered by the department of lifelong education, advancement, and potential; require. Amends sec. 5474 of 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.5474). | Sponsor | Sep 11, 2025 | In committee | Health(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/11/2025 Sep 16, 2025 |
| HB 4485 | Retirement: county employees; employment of retirant in a county sheriff's office; allow without forfeiting retirement allowance. Amends sec. 12a of 1851 PA 156 (MCL 46.12a). | Cosponsor | May 8, 2025 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | bill electronically reproduced 05/08/2025 May 13, 2025 |
| HB 4475 | Civil rights: employment discrimination; discrimination based on certain vaccination status; prohibit. Amends title of 1976 PA 453 (MCL 37.2101 - 37.2804) & adds art. 5A. | Cosponsor | May 8, 2025 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | bill electronically reproduced 05/08/2025 May 13, 2025 |
| HB 4418 | Probate: other; designation of a patient surrogate for health care decisions; allow. Amends 1998 PA 386 (MCL 700.1101 - 700.8206) by adding pt. 6 to art. V & repeals sec. 66h of 1939 PA 280 (MCL 400.66h). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4419'25 | Cosponsor | May 1, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Health(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE (S-3) Jan 29, 2026 |
| HB 4419 | Probate: other; designation of a patient surrogate for health care decisions; allow. Amends 1998 PA 386 (MCL 700.1101 - 700.8206) by adding secs. 5605 & 5606. TIE BAR WITH: HB 4418'25 | Cosponsor | May 1, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Health(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Jan 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Whitsett’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Whitsett’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 Whitsett posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 3
pages crawled
4changes 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 Whitsett posted
No images from Whitsett’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 Whitsett 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 1b71cbce-bf12-4009-b1cd-79da2f22b9aa
- Open States
- ocd-person/1b71cbce-bf12-4009-b1cd-79da2f22b9aa
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