Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Transportation and Public Works · Source
10.0%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom quarter of the New York House
Attendance 90.0%; the average within the New York House is 93.9%. Ranks 122nd of 149, where 1st has the highest attendance. 2,019 roll calls in the NY 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Chandler-Waterman could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the New York House. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
4 measures against the New York House. 9.7% of the 62 bills Chandler-Waterman sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the New York House. Chandler-Waterman sits at −0.69 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 61% of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Chandler-Waterman sits furthest from the middle of the New York House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
100%
New York House average 92.9% · ranks 18th of 149 · 1 votes against the majority of New York House Democrats
Attendance
90.0%
New York House average 93.9% · ranks 122nd of 149 · 2,019 roll calls
Out of committee
9.7%
New York House average 20% · ranks 118th of 148
CSIP ideology
−0.69
More liberal than 61% of State House Democrats · ± 0.13
Statements
37
37 posts on X
Roll calls
2,019
Compared with New York House
Peer group: New York House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Chandler-Waterman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Chandler-Waterman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Chandler-Waterman says
Chandler-Waterman stresses bipartisanship less than 88% of State House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0% of 37 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Democrat; 676th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Chandler-Waterman’s 37 statements in the NY 2025–26 session (37 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 NY 2025–26 session
0%80%
Chandler-Waterman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion11 statements
30%
39%
534th of 764
Credit claiming4 statements
11%
14%
411th of 764
Policy criticism3 statements
8%
10%
369th of 764
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
584th of 764
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
676th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Chandler-Waterman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 30% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 11% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
37
statements classified
37 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 37 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Chandler-Waterman; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Chandler-Waterman does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Chandler-Waterman used no extreme labels in 37 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 NY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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 ’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 | 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 | 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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’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) |
| 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 | 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 ’26 | 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) |
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 NY 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%. 21 months are hatched here; 15 of them have no statements.
In Chandler-Waterman’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Immigration · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Education; Families · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 37 statements
Newest first, the NY 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: 37 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Chandler-Waterman talks about most: 27% of policy statements, 3.4 times the peer share. Peers give it 8.0%. 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 Chandler-Waterman talks about. The bills Chandler-Waterman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Chandler-Waterman talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NY 2025–26 session
0%35%
Chandler-Waterman
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement3 statements
27%
8%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues2 statements
18%
10%
Education2 statements
18%
15%
Families2 statements
18%
5%
Transportation and Public Works2 statements
18%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Chandler-Waterman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 27% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 18% | 10% |
| Education | 18% | 15% |
| Families | 18% | 5% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 18% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Chandler-Waterman’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 27% | 8% | 27% | 9% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 18% | 10% | 10% | 4% |
| Education | 18% | 15% | 6% | 10% |
| Families | 18% | 5% | 6% | 3% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 18% | 5% | 6% | 5% |
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 Chandler-Waterman legislates on exactly the areas Chandler-Waterman 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 Chandler-Waterman sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Chandler-Waterman sits at −0.69 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 61% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.82 to −0.56, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 629 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”.
−0.69
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.82 to −0.56. From 0 donors and 629 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Chandler-Waterman, 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 Chandler-Waterman’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 Chandler-Waterman sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
New York House150 · median −0.5
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Chandler-Waterman |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 39% |
| New York House | 150 | −0.5 | 33% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 18% |
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 Chandler-Waterman 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 Chandler-Waterman.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Chandler-Waterman voted with the majority of New York House Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 10.0% of 2,019 roll calls. New York House on average: 92.9% party unity, 93.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Chandler-Waterman voted against the majority of New York House Democrats 1 time.
2,019 roll calls Chandler-Waterman could vote on in the NY 2025–26 session, compared with New York 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 Chandler-Waterman voted with the majority of New York House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1
votes against the majority of New York House Democrats
Party unity 100%, New York House average 92.9%, ranks 18th of 149. 2,019 roll calls in the NY 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Chandler-Waterman, the thin grey bar the New York House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Chandler-Waterman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
90.0%
93.9%
122nd of 149
Party unity
100%
92.9%
18th of 149
Show the data
| Row | Chandler-Waterman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 90.0% | 93.9% |
| Party unity | 100% | 92.9% |
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 NY 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 86–0 · R 43–0Democrats 86 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 5, 2026 | S 10001 Provides for a license to sell liquor at retail for consumption on certain premises Assembly Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 85–2 · R 43–0Democrats 85 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 5, 2026 | S 10655 Relates to the compensation, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment of certain state officers and employees; repealer Assembly Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 86–0 · R 43–0Democrats 86 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 64–23 · R 30–13Democrats 64 yea, 23 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 66–21 · R 30–13Democrats 66 yea, 21 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 13 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 Chandler-Waterman most often
- Amanda SeptimoD1,462 shared votes100%
- Jordan WrightD1,433 shared votes100%
- Vivian CookD995 shared votes100%
- Steven RagaD1,521 shared votes100%
- Jonathan JacobsonD1,818 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Chandler-Waterman least often
- Dave DiPietroR1,782 shared votes72%
- Chris FriendR1,634 shared votes73%
- Ari BrownR1,727 shared votes78%
- Sam PirozzoloR1,798 shared votes78%
- Lester ChangR1,813 shared votes79%
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
NY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Chandler-Waterman sponsored 62 bills in the NY 2025–26 session; 3 became law. Cosponsored 135 others. 9.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New York House average 20%; 118th of 148).
The bills Chandler-Waterman sponsored and cosponsored in the NY 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 NY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 62 | 62 | 6 | 4 | 3 |
| Cosponsored | 135 | 135 | 9 | 8 | 3 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Chandler-Waterman sponsored, ochre blocks bills Chandler-Waterman cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
9.7%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
New York House average 20%. Ranks 118th of 148.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Chandler-Waterman, by number of shared bills in the NY 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Al Taylor34
- Jo Anne Simon30
- Demond Meeks29
- Maritza Davila27
- Khaleel Anderson26
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 Chandler-Waterman’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| K 1418 | Commemorating the 104th Anniversary of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc., to be celebrated on November 12, 2026 | Sponsor | May 20, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ADOPTED May 20, 2026 |
| A 11044 | Requires a mortgagor to provide notice of imminent foreclosure | Sponsor | Apr 24, 2026 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | REFERRED TO JUDICIARY Apr 24, 2026 |
| A 11073 | Provides for the use of rooms within a public school at a reasonable rate | Sponsor | Apr 24, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | REFERRED TO EDUCATION Apr 24, 2026 |
| A 10803 | Establishes a state seal of artistic achievement | Cosponsor | Apr 1, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | REFERRED TO EDUCATION Apr 1, 2026 |
| A 10713 | Designates the first Sunday in November as "New York City Marathon Day" | Sponsor | Mar 26, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | REFERRED TO GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS Mar 26, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Chandler-Waterman’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Chandler-Waterman’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 Chandler-Waterman posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 6
pages crawled
1changes 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 Chandler-Waterman posted
No images from Chandler-Waterman’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
49 turns, May 31, 2022 to Jun 5, 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 Chandler-Waterman is most unusual among New York 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
- 24fb9f1e-0bd6-4ac2-8a49-1091016863d2
- Open States
- ocd-person/24fb9f1e-0bd6-4ac2-8a49-1091016863d2
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