Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
3.7×
the State House Republican rate of personal attacks
11% of 3,486 statements contain a personal attack (371 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 2.9%. Ranks 50th of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Roberts’s posts on X and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. 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. 61% of Roberts’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Kentucky, in the bottom tenth of State House Republicans. 3.7% of Roberts’s statements use an extreme label, 2.6 times the State House Republican average of 1.4%.
The measures on which Roberts 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.
Personal attacks
11%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 50th of 791
From Kentucky, 2026
61%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2123rd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Extreme labels
3.7%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 97th of 791
Party unity
92.3%
Kentucky House average 95.2% · ranks 80th of 100 · 64 votes against the majority of Kentucky House Republicans
Policy criticism
12%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 237th of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.36
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 Roberts, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Roberts is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Roberts says
Roberts attacks opponents personally more than 93% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 11% of 3,486 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 50th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Roberts’s 3,486 statements in the KY 2025–26 session (3,486 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 KY 2025–26 session
0%80%
Roberts
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion993 statements
28%
32%
433rd of 791
Policy criticism406 statements
12%
9%
237th of 791
Personal attacks371 statements
11%
3%
50th of 791
Credit claiming311 statements
9%
13%
423rd of 791
Bipartisanship19 statements
1%
2%
491st of 791
Show the data
| Row | Roberts | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 28% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 12% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 11% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 9% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
3,486
statements classified
3,486 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 3,486 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Roberts; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Roberts does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Roberts used extreme labels in 3.7% of statements, 2.6 times the peer average. 129 statements, most often aimed at Left; peers 1.4%.
- “communist”17
- “radical”15
- “far left”12
- “MAGA”9
- “woke”3
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Left7
- far left4
- America First3
- Andy Beshear3
- Democrat Party2
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 KY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 360 | 10.0% | 12.2% | 28.6% | 0.3% | 12.8% | 3.1% |
| Feb ’25 | 213 | 11.7% | 11.7% | 32.4% | 1.4% | 16.0% | 3.3% |
| Mar ’25 | 235 | 13.6% | 14.5% | 28.9% | 1.3% | 13.6% | 1.7% |
| Apr ’25 | 185 | 5.4% | 22.7% | 30.8% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 4.9% |
| May ’25 | 216 | 9.3% | 9.3% | 18.5% | 0.0% | 8.8% | 6.5% |
| Jun ’25 | 447 | 10.7% | 12.8% | 27.1% | 0.2% | 3.4% | 3.8% |
| Jul ’25 | 225 | 11.6% | 12.9% | 28.4% | 0.9% | 6.2% | 2.7% |
| Aug ’25 | 123 | 6.5% | 13.0% | 21.9% | 0.0% | 6.5% | 4.1% |
| Sep ’25 | 113 | 8.8% | 10.6% | 19.5% | 1.8% | 8.0% | 6.2% |
| Oct ’25 | 115 | 7.0% | 15.7% | 22.6% | 0.0% | 10.4% | 7.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 120 | 5.0% | 17.5% | 34.2% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 5.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 107 | 9.3% | 7.5% | 30.8% | 0.0% | 3.7% | 2.8% |
| Jan ’26 | 137 | 9.5% | 4.4% | 50.4% | 0.7% | 15.3% | 0.7% |
| Feb ’26 | 185 | 13.5% | 10.8% | 22.2% | 1.1% | 13.0% | 3.2% |
| Mar ’26 | 164 | 10.4% | 11.6% | 26.8% | 1.2% | 13.4% | 1.8% |
| Apr ’26 | 60 | 8.3% | 11.7% | 31.7% | 1.7% | 11.7% | 10.0% |
| May ’26 | 64 | 10.9% | 7.8% | 9.4% | 0.0% | 3.1% | 3.1% |
| Jun ’26 | 125 | 12.8% | 13.6% | 23.2% | 0.8% | 2.4% | 3.2% |
| Jul ’26 | 119 | 19.3% | 4.2% | 36.1% | 0.0% | 2.5% | 6.7% |
| Aug ’26 | 80 | 12.5% | 0.0% | 42.5% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 2.5% |
| Sep ’26 | 58 | 13.8% | 1.7% | 39.7% | 0.0% | 12.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 35 | 22.9% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 2.9% | 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 KY 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 Roberts’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: Rodney Hinton · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 5, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Taxation; Health; extreme label “far left” aimed at Democrat; target: opponent · 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 · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Rodney HintonSource
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 · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · HealthSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: ghostarmychickSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Bradley ThomasSource
All 3,486 statements
Newest first, the KY 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: 3,486 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Roberts talks about most: 23% of policy statements, above the peer share. Peers give it 18%.
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 Roberts talks about. The bills Roberts sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Roberts talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the KY 2025–26 session
0%35%
Roberts
Peers
Government Operations and Politics230 statements
23%
18%
Crime and Law Enforcement159 statements
16%
11%
Immigration150 statements
15%
5%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues117 statements
12%
6%
Law108 statements
11%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Roberts | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 18% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 16% | 11% |
| Immigration | 15% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 12% | 6% |
| Law | 11% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Roberts’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 35%. 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 Roberts legislates on exactly the areas Roberts 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 Roberts sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Roberts sits at +0.36 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 51% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.31 to +0.41, which understates the uncertainty; from 514 donors and 290 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”.
+0.36
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.31 to +0.41. From 514 donors and 290 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Roberts, 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 Roberts’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 Roberts sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Kentucky House100 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Roberts |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 51% |
| Kentucky House | 100 | +0.4 | 43% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 73% |
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 Roberts 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 Roberts.
Money
Roberts reported $66.6K in the 2026 cycle, 2.0 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 61% of itemized individual money came from Kentucky.
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.
$66.6K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 258 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)91 squares$60.8K
- PACs and other committees9 squares$5,750
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $60.8K | 91.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $5,750 | 8.6% |
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 | $87.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $66.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 61% came from Kentucky.
- Kentucky$37.3K
- Ohio$4,609
- Texas$3,750
- Georgia$2,301
- Florida$783
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 |
|---|---|
| Kentucky | $37.3K |
| Ohio | $4,609 |
| Texas | $3,750 |
| Georgia | $2,301 |
| Florida | $783 |
| Indiana | $550 |
| Tennessee | $390 |
| South Carolina | $350 |
| Alabama | $300 |
| South Dakota | $257 |
| Oklahoma | $250 |
| Illinois | $225 |
| Virginia | $225 |
| Nevada | $200 |
| Massachusetts | $175 |
| North Carolina | $104 |
| New York | $101 |
| Colorado | $100 |
| Arizona | $100 |
| North Dakota | $50 |
| Pennsylvania | $50 |
| Missouri | $50 |
| Mississippi | $50 |
| New Jersey | $41 |
| Maryland | $25 |
| Washington | $20 |
| Michigan | $20 |
| District of Columbia | $20 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
258
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
61%
from Kentucky
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 Kentucky. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$7,675 38 donors
- ATTORNEY$6,061 9 donors
- SELF$2,594 6 donors
- STATE REPRESENTATIVE$1,895 10 donors
- OWNER$1,850 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MAKING A SENSIBLE SHIFT IN ELECTIONS$2,000
- REINVENTING A NEW DIRECTION - RAND PAC$2,000
- KENTUCKY REALTORS PAC$1,250
- KY ATTORNEY'S PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY$1,884 11 donors
- BOONE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE$300 3 donors
- YOUNG AMERICANS FOR LIBERTY$300 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Roberts voted with the majority of Kentucky House Republicans on 92.3% of party-line votes and missed 9.8% of 784 roll calls. Kentucky House on average: 95.2% party unity, 91.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Roberts voted against the majority of Kentucky House Republicans 64 times.
784 roll calls Roberts could vote on in the KY 2025–26 session, compared with Kentucky 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 Roberts voted with the majority of Kentucky House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
64
votes against the majority of Kentucky House Republicans
Party unity 92.3%, Kentucky House average 95.2%, ranks 80th of 100. 784 roll calls in the KY 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Roberts, the thin grey bar the Kentucky House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Roberts
Peers
Rank
Attendance
90.1%
91.1%
66th of 100
Party unity
92.3%
95.2%
80th of 100
Show the data
| Row | Roberts | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 90.1% | 91.1% |
| Party unity | 92.3% | 95.2% |
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 KY 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 15, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–1 · R 80–0Democrats 17 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 80 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Apr 15, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 18–1 · R 62–14Democrats 18 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 62 yea, 14 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Apr 15, 2026 | SJR 116 A JOINT RESOLUTION directing the University of Kentucky, the University of Louisville, and Eastern Kentucky University to coordinate a search for actionable solutions to physician shortages and to explore and expand health care opportunities in medically underserved areas in collaboration with commu Adopt | Yea | With majority | pass | D 18–0 · R 78–0Democrats 18 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 78 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 15, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 19–0 · R 74–3Democrats 19 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 74 yea, 3 nay | became law | |
| Apr 15, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 14–4 · R 75–0Democrats 14 yea, 4 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 0 nay | became law · 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 Roberts most often
- Marianne ProctorR278 shared votes98%
- Savannah MaddoxR264 shared votes98%
- Steven DoanR269 shared votes98%
- Felicia RabournR277 shared votes97%
- Josh CallowayR270 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Roberts least often
- Pamela StevensonD241 shared votes58%
- Lindsey BurkeD231 shared votes58%
- Mary Lou MarzianD206 shared votes59%
- Adrielle CamuelD285 shared votes60%
- Lisa WillnerD236 shared votes61%
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
KY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
No bills for the KY 2025–26 session.No sponsored or cosponsored bills are recorded for this official in this time window.
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Roberts’s campaign site had 5 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Roberts’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 Roberts posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 5
pages crawled
0changes 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 Roberts posted
No images from Roberts’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
37 turns, Jan 7, 2025 to Apr 15, 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 Roberts 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
- 1c369689-ed04-484c-ab53-c50bd6011192
- Open States
- ocd-person/1c369689-ed04-484c-ab53-c50bd6011192
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