Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
60%
of itemized money from Idaho donors, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans
60% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Idaho. Ranks 773rd of 860, where 1st is the highest share. 2 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Idaho, ranked among State Senate Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. Hart sits at +0.61 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 84% of State Senate Republicans. Hart reported $9,199 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans (median $46.2K).
The measures on which Hart sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From Idaho, 2026
60%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 773rd of 860 State Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.61
More conservative than 84% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
Extreme labels
2.6%
State Senate Republicans average 1.3% · ranks 54th of 354
Itemized, 2026
$9,199
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 757th of 936
Policy discussion
46%
State Senate Republicans average 37% · ranks 113th of 354
Attendance
96.4%
Idaho Senate average 97.3% · ranks 25th of 35 · 791 roll calls
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hart, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hart is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hart says
Hart attacks opponents personally more than 61% of State Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 1.3% of 233 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 135th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Hart’s 233 statements in the ID 2025–26 session (233 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the ID 2025–26 session
0%80%
Hart
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion108 statements
46%
37%
113th of 354
Credit claiming44 statements
19%
15%
125th of 354
Policy criticism26 statements
11%
9%
114th of 354
Bipartisanship4 statements
2%
2%
165th of 354
Personal attacks3 statements
1%
2%
135th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Hart | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 46% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 19% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 11% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
233
statements classified
233 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 233 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Hart; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Hart does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Hart used extreme labels in 2.6% of statements, 2.0 times the peer average. 6 statements, most often aimed at left wing activist judges; peers 1.3%.
- “MAGA”1
- “far left”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- left wing activist judges1
- Nancy Pelosi1
- Ninth Circuit1
- Traditional Republicans1
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 ID 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 20.8% | 54.2% | 4.2% | 29.2% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 8.0% | 56.0% | 8.0% | 28.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 72.0% | 0.0% | 32.0% | 4.0% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 45.5% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 4.5% |
| Jul ’25 | 20 | 10.0% | 10.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 5.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 15.4% | 15.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 7.7% |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Jan ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 81.8% | 9.1% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 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 ’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 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
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 ID 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%. 13 months are hatched here.
In Hart’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.
Apr 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 31, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Traditional Republicans · 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 attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Kootenai Kangaroo JudgeSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: McCreaSource
All 233 statements
Newest first, the ID 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: 233 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Hart talks about most: 20% of policy statements, above the peer share. Peers give it 17%.
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 Hart talks about. The bills Hart sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Hart talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the ID 2025–26 session
0%35%
Hart
Peers
Government Operations and Politics21 statements
20%
17%
Law15 statements
14%
4%
Economics and Public Finance12 statements
11%
12%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues10 statements
9%
5%
Taxation10 statements
9%
7%
Show the data
| Row | Hart | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 17% |
| Law | 14% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 9% | 5% |
| Taxation | 9% | 7% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Hart’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 Senate 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 Hart legislates on exactly the areas Hart 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 Hart sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Hart sits at +0.61 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 84% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.57 to +0.65, which understates the uncertainty; from 48 donors and 590 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”.
+0.61
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.57 to +0.65. From 48 donors and 590 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hart, 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 Hart’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 Hart sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Idaho Senate35 · median +0.1
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hart |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 84% |
| Idaho Senate | 35 | +0.1 | 77% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 91% |
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 Hart 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 Hart.
Money
Hart reported $9,199 in the 2026 cycle, 20% of the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 60% of itemized individual money came from Idaho.
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.
$9,199
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 2 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)27 squares$2,499
- PACs and other committees19 squares$1,700
- Party committees54 squares$5,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $2,499 | 27.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $1,700 | 18.5% |
| Party committees | $5,000 | 54.4% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $10.1K |
| 2024 cycle | $23.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $9,199 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 60% came from Idaho.
- Idaho$1,499
- North Carolina$1,000
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 |
|---|---|
| Idaho | $1,499 |
| North Carolina | $1,000 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| 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 |
2
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
60%
from Idaho
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 Idaho. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- SHOSHONE COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE$3,000
- CLEARWATER COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE$1,000
- SENATE REPUBLICAN PAC OF IDAHO$1,000
- RHINO HUNTERS OF THE INLAND NORTHWEST$750
- WINNING FOR IDAHO$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Hart voted with the majority of Idaho Senate Republicans on 87% of party-line votes and missed 3.5% of 791 roll calls. Idaho Senate on average: 87% party unity, 97.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hart voted against the majority of Idaho Senate Republicans 151 times.
791 roll calls Hart could vote on in the ID 2025–26 session, compared with Idaho Senate. 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 Hart voted with the majority of Idaho Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
151
votes against the majority of Idaho Senate Republicans
Party unity 87%, Idaho Senate average 87%, ranks 23rd of 35. 791 roll calls in the ID 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Hart, the thin grey bar the Idaho Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Hart
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.4%
97.3%
25th of 35
Party unity
87%
87%
23rd of 35
Show the data
| Row | Hart | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.4% | 97.3% |
| Party unity | 87% | 87% |
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 ID 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 974 APPROPRIATIONS – IDAHO STATE POLICE – Relates to the appropriation to the Idaho State Police for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–0 · R 29–0Democrats 4 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 29 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 972 APPROPRIATIONS – HEALTH AND WELFARE – DIVISION OF WELFARE – Relates to the appropriation to the Department of Health and Welfare for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–0 · R 21–8Democrats 4 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 21 yea, 8 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 973 APPROPRIATIONS – MILITARY DIVISION – Relates to the appropriation to the Military Division for fiscal year 2026. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 24–2Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 2 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 959 TAXATION – Amends and adds to existing law to provide for an initiative petition to raise or lower the property tax budgets for fire protection districts and ambulance service districts and to revise provisions regarding certain property tax budget limits. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–0 · R 29–0Democrats 4 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 29 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 896 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding compliance with the law. Read third time in full – | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–6 · R 8–21Democrats 0 yea, 6 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 21 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 Hart most often
- Tammy NicholsR761 shared votes89%
- Josh KohlR762 shared votes86%
- Christy ZitoR763 shared votes86%
- Glenneda ZuiderveldR760 shared votes85%
- Josh KeyserR746 shared votes85%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hart least often
- Melissa WintrowD752 shared votes62%
- Ron TaylorD745 shared votes64%
- Ali RabeD421 shared votes64%
- Carrie SemmelrothD708 shared votes64%
- James RuchtiD691 shared votes65%
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
ID 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
No bills for the ID 2025–26 session.No sponsored or cosponsored bills are recorded for this official in this time window.
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Hart’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Hart’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 Hart posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 32
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 Hart posted
No images from Hart’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 Hart is most unusual among State Senate 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
- 202344ed-fa6e-4d6d-b746-516abb5c962d
- Open States
- ocd-person/202344ed-fa6e-4d6d-b746-516abb5c962d
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