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; Government Operations and Politics · Source
87%
of State House Democrats score to the left of Garcia on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.35 (approximate range −0.44 to −0.25, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 0 donors and 254 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Garcia sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
5 measures against the Texas House. The policy areas Garcia talks about and legislates on agree at 0.46 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats. Garcia missed 8.4% of 3,521 roll calls, attendance in the bottom half of the Texas House (average 93.1%).
The measures on which Garcia sits furthest from the middle of the Texas House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
−0.35
More conservative than 87% of State House Democrats · ± 0.10
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.46
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 394th of 503
Attendance
91.6%
Texas House average 93.1% · ranks 100th of 143 · 3,521 roll calls
Out of committee
42%
Texas House average 49% · ranks 97th of 145
Party unity
87%
Texas House average 85% · ranks 85th of 143 · 114 votes against the majority of Texas House Democrats
Statements
113
113 posts on X
Peer group: Texas House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Garcia, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Garcia is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Garcia says
Garcia criticizes policies less than 85% of State House Democrats. Policy criticism in 0.9% of 113 statements, against 10% for the average State House Democrat; 653rd of 764.
An AI model reads each of Garcia’s 113 statements in the TX 2025–26 session (113 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 TX 2025–26 session
0%80%
Garcia
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion34 statements
30%
39%
528th of 764
Credit claiming13 statements
12%
14%
397th of 764
Personal attacks5 statements
4%
3%
149th of 764
Bipartisanship3 statements
3%
3%
286th of 764
Policy criticism1 statements
1%
10%
653rd of 764
Show the data
| Row | Garcia | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 30% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 12% | 14% |
| Personal attacks | 4% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 1% | 10% |
113
statements classified
113 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 113 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Garcia; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Garcia does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Garcia used no extreme labels in 113 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
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 TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’25 | 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 ’25 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 39 | 10.3% | 0.0% | 2.6% | 2.6% | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 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) |
| Oct ’25 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’26 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 90.9% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 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 TX 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 19 months are hatched here; 5 of them have no statements.
In Garcia’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.
Sep 14, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: colleagues · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 27, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health · 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 · target: colleaguesSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: ryanmtt1Source
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Greg AbbottSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Evening69StarSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Cyndi RoseSource
All 113 statements
Newest first, the TX 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 113 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Garcia talks about most: 21% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.46 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 394th of 503).
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 Garcia talks about. The bills Garcia sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Garcia talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TX 2025–26 session
0%35%
Garcia
Peers
Education7 statements
21%
15%
Government Operations and Politics7 statements
21%
15%
Water Resources Development7 statements
21%
1%
Armed Forces and National Security6 statements
18%
3%
Energy5 statements
15%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Garcia | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 21% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 15% |
| Water Resources Development | 21% | 1% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 18% | 3% |
| Energy | 15% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Garcia’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 35%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 21% | 15% | 9% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 15% | 3% | 8% |
| Water Resources Development | 21% | 1% | 2% | 1% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 18% | 3% | 9% | 1% |
| Energy | 15% | 4% | 3% | 3% |
0.46
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 394th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Garcia legislates on exactly the areas Garcia 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 Garcia sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Garcia sits at −0.35 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 87% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.44 to −0.25, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 254 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”.
−0.35
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.44 to −0.25. From 0 donors and 254 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Garcia, 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 Garcia’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 Garcia sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Texas House148 · median +0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Garcia |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 87% |
| Texas House | 148 | +0.3 | 34% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 39% |
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 Garcia 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 Garcia.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Garcia voted with the majority of Texas House Democrats on 87% of party-line votes and missed 8.4% of 3,521 roll calls. Texas House on average: 85% party unity, 93.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Garcia voted against the majority of Texas House Democrats 114 times.
3,521 roll calls Garcia could vote on in the TX 2025–26 session, compared with Texas 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 Garcia voted with the majority of Texas House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
114
votes against the majority of Texas House Democrats
Party unity 87%, Texas House average 85%, ranks 85th of 143. 3,521 roll calls in the TX 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Garcia, the thin grey bar the Texas House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Garcia
Peers
Rank
Attendance
91.6%
93.1%
100th of 143
Party unity
87%
85%
85th of 143
Show the data
| Row | Garcia | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 91.6% | 93.1% |
| Party unity | 87% | 85% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the TX 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2025 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 44–1 · R 46–37Democrats 44 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 37 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 45–0 · R 76–8Democrats 45 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 76 yea, 8 nay | became law · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 1–40 · R 78–7Democrats 1 yea, 40 nay; Republicans 78 yea, 7 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | SB 5 Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and preparedness and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. adopt the conference committee report on SB 5. | Did not vote | — | pass | D 43–0 · R 86–0Democrats 43 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 86 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 45–1 · R 41–41Democrats 45 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 41 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed |
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 Garcia most often
- Liz CamposD2,983 shared votes99%
- Aicha DavisD2,961 shared votes96%
- Mary Ann PerezD2,992 shared votes96%
- Ana HernandezD2,864 shared votes96%
- Venton JonesD2,658 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Garcia least often
- Briscoe CainR3,000 shared votes50%
- Brian HarrisonR3,139 shared votes50%
- David LoweR3,137 shared votes51%
- Mike OlcottR3,034 shared votes52%
- Steve TothR3,121 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
TX 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Garcia sponsored 60 bills in the TX 2025–26 session; 7 became law. Cosponsored 54 others. 42% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Texas House average 49%; 97th of 145).
The bills Garcia sponsored and cosponsored in the TX 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 60 | 60 | 25 | 7 | 7 |
| Cosponsored | 54 | 54 | 35 | 19 | 15 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Garcia sponsored, ochre blocks bills Garcia cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
42%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Texas House average 49%. Ranks 97th of 145.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Garcia, by number of shared bills in the TX 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Mihaela Pleșa17
- Liz Campos12
- Eddie Morales8
- Charlene Ward Johnson8
- Katrina Pierson7
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 Garcia’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 1130 | Congratulating Gregg Popovich on his retirement as head coach of the San Antonio Spurs. | Cosponsor | May 12, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled May 24, 2025 |
| HR 1028 | Recognizing May 21, 2025, as Texas Capitol Staff Appreciation Day. | Cosponsor | Apr 30, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled May 24, 2025 |
| HR 868 | Honoring the longstanding relationship between the Province of Québec and the State of Texas. | Cosponsor | Apr 15, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled May 16, 2025 |
| SB 23 | Relating to an increase in the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district of the appraised value of the residence homestead of a person who is elderly or disabled and the protection of school districts against certain losses in local revenue. | Cosponsor | Apr 15, 2025 | Became law | Taxation(model) | See remarks for effective date Jun 16, 2025 |
| SJR 85 | Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district of the market value of the residence homestead of a person who is elderly or disabled. | Cosponsor | Apr 14, 2025 | Passed both chambers | Taxation(model) | Filed with the Secretary of State May 22, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Garcia’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Garcia’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 Garcia posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 1
pages crawled
2changes 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.
Images Garcia posted
No images from Garcia’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 Garcia is most unusual among Texas House, 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
- 1ec50565-379f-4a8b-ab18-c54d31df9929
- Open States
- ocd-person/1ec50565-379f-4a8b-ab18-c54d31df9929
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