Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 10, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: fake Republicans · Source
2.9×
the State House Republican rate of extreme labels
4.1% of 558 statements use an extreme label (23 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 1.4%. Ranks 86th of 791, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at Freedom Caucus.
An AI model reads each of Rodriguez-Williams’s posts on X and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. 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. 67% of the 6 bills Rodriguez-Williams sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the Wyoming House. Rodriguez-Williams reported $24.1K in the 2024 cycle, in the top half of State House Republicans (median $10.7K).
The measures on which Rodriguez-Williams 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.
Party unity
98.8%
Wyoming House average 76% · ranks 5th of 62 · 62 votes against the majority of Wyoming House Republicans
Extreme labels
4.1%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 86th of 791
Out of committee
67%
Wyoming House average 44% · ranks 9th of 43
Attendance
99.4%
Wyoming House average 96.5% · ranks 14th of 62 · 955 roll calls
Itemized, 2024
$24.1K
State House Republicans’ median $10.7K · ranks 62nd of 240
CSIP ideology
+0.36
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Rodriguez-Williams, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Rodriguez-Williams is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Rodriguez-Williams says
Rodriguez-Williams stresses bipartisanship about as often as the median State House Republican. Bipartisanship in 0.7% of 558 statements, against 1.8% for the average State House Republican; 461st of 791.
An AI model reads each of Rodriguez-Williams’s 558 statements in the WY 2025–26 session (558 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 WY 2025–26 session
0%80%
Rodriguez-Williams
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion201 statements
36%
32%
320th of 791
Credit claiming78 statements
14%
13%
311th of 791
Policy criticism42 statements
8%
9%
362nd of 791
Personal attacks12 statements
2%
3%
286th of 791
Bipartisanship4 statements
1%
2%
461st of 791
Show the data
| Row | Rodriguez-Williams | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 36% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 14% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
558
statements classified
558 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 558 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Rodriguez-Williams; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Rodriguez-Williams does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Rodriguez-Williams used extreme labels in 4.1% of statements, 2.9 times the peer average. 23 statements, most often aimed at Freedom Caucus; peers 1.4%.
- “woke”5
- “radical”3
- “MAGA”2
- “communist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Freedom Caucus2
- America First1
- Barlow1
- DOH director1
- liberal judges1
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 WY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 18 | 5.6% | 16.7% | 50.0% | 5.6% | 33.3% | 5.6% |
| Feb ’25 | 15 | 6.7% | 6.7% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 26.7% | 6.7% |
| Mar ’25 | 35 | 5.7% | 5.7% | 28.6% | 5.7% | 20.0% | 8.6% |
| Apr ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 5.9% | 17.6% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 5.9% |
| May ’25 | 35 | 2.9% | 5.7% | 22.9% | 0.0% | 8.6% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 6.5% | 25.8% | 0.0% | 16.1% | 3.2% |
| Jul ’25 | 40 | 2.5% | 12.5% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 2.5% |
| Aug ’25 | 31 | 3.2% | 19.4% | 38.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 16.1% |
| Sep ’25 | 42 | 2.4% | 9.5% | 30.9% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 7.1% |
| Oct ’25 | 30 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 3.3% |
| Nov ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 5.9% |
| Dec ’25 | 25 | 4.0% | 4.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 12.0% | 4.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 27 | 3.7% | 7.4% | 70.4% | 0.0% | 7.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 33 | 6.1% | 9.1% | 42.4% | 3.0% | 24.2% | 3.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 12.0% | 0.0% | 12.0% | 12.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 84.6% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 32 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 28.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 31 | 0.0% | 3.2% | 32.3% | 0.0% | 16.1% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 8.7% | 65.2% | 0.0% | 13.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the WY 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 Rodriguez-Williams’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at 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 attacks · target: fake RepublicansSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: CooperSource
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 · Law · target: FoxSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: BarlowSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Charlie KirkSource
All 558 statements
Newest first, the WY 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: 558 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Rodriguez-Williams talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.57 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 171st of 504).
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 Rodriguez-Williams talks about. The bills Rodriguez-Williams sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Rodriguez-Williams talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the WY 2025–26 session
0%37%
Rodriguez-Williams
Peers
Government Operations and Politics67 statements
33%
18%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues36 statements
18%
6%
Health28 statements
14%
10%
Agriculture and Food21 statements
10%
4%
Education19 statements
9%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Rodriguez-Williams | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 33% | 18% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 18% | 6% |
| Health | 14% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 10% | 4% |
| Education | 9% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Rodriguez-Williams’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 37%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 33% | 18% | 14% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 18% | 6% | 30% | 4% |
| Health | 14% | 10% | 9% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 10% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
| Education | 9% | 15% | 9% | 9% |
0.57
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 171st of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Rodriguez-Williams legislates on exactly the areas Rodriguez-Williams 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 Rodriguez-Williams sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Rodriguez-Williams sits at +0.36 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 52% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.33 to +0.40, which understates the uncertainty; from 75 donors and 596 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 +0.33 to +0.40. From 75 donors and 596 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Rodriguez-Williams, 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 Rodriguez-Williams’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 Rodriguez-Williams sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Wyoming House62 · median +0.2
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Rodriguez-Williams |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 52% |
| Wyoming House | 62 | +0.2 | 66% |
| 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 Rodriguez-Williams 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 Rodriguez-Williams.
Money
Rodriguez-Williams reported $24.1K in the 2024 cycle, 2.3 times the State House Republicans’ median of $10.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Wyoming.
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.
$24.1K
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 54 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $10.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)80 squares$19.3K
- PACs and other committees14 squares$3,300
- Party committees6 squares$1,500
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $19.3K | 80.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $3,300 | 13.7% |
| Party committees | $1,500 | 6.2% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2024. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $12.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $8,908 |
| 2024 cycle | $24.1K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Wyoming.
- Wyoming$19.3K
- Minnesota$25
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Wyoming | $19.3K |
| Minnesota | $25 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| North Carolina | 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 |
54
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Wyoming
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 Wyoming. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
- SBA PRO-LIFE AMERICA$2,500
- PARK REPUBLICAN PARTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE$1,500
- ALLEN JAGGI-CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES$500
- TRUCKING INDUSTRY PAC$300
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Rodriguez-Williams voted with the majority of Wyoming House Republicans on 98.8% of party-line votes and missed 0.5% of 955 roll calls. Wyoming House on average: 76% party unity, 96.5% attendance. Across all roll calls, Rodriguez-Williams voted against the majority of Wyoming House Republicans 62 times.
955 roll calls Rodriguez-Williams could vote on in the WY 2025–26 session, compared with Wyoming 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 Rodriguez-Williams voted with the majority of Wyoming House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
62
votes against the majority of Wyoming House Republicans
Party unity 98.8%, Wyoming House average 76%, ranks 5th of 62. 955 roll calls in the WY 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Rodriguez-Williams, the thin grey bar the Wyoming House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Rodriguez-Williams
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.4%
96.5%
14th of 62
Party unity
98.8%
76%
5th of 62
Show the data
| Row | Rodriguez-Williams | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.4% | 96.5% |
| Party unity | 98.8% | 76% |
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
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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 Rodriguez-Williams most often
- Paul HoeftR945 shared votes95%
- Pepper OttmanR944 shared votes94%
- Darin McCannR942 shared votes94%
- Ann LucasR885 shared votes94%
- Nina WebberR914 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Rodriguez-Williams least often
- Karlee ProvenzaD942 shared votes42%
- Liz StorerD911 shared votes43%
- Ken ChestekD948 shared votes43%
- Bob NicholasR894 shared votes46%
- Trey SherwoodD949 shared votes46%
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
WY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Rodriguez-Williams sponsored 6 bills in the WY 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 40 others. 67% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Wyoming House average 44%; 9th of 43).
The bills Rodriguez-Williams sponsored and cosponsored in the WY 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 WY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 6 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 40 | 37 | 21 | 11 | 10 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Rodriguez-Williams sponsored, ochre blocks bills Rodriguez-Williams cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
67%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Wyoming House average 44%. Ranks 9th of 43.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Rodriguez-Williams, by number of shared bills in the WY 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Scott Heiner18
- Cheri Steinmetz16
- Lynn Hutchings16
- Chip Neiman13
- Jeremy Haroldson13
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 Rodriguez-Williams’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 179 | Hospital pricing transparency. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | H Failed Introduction 31-29-2-0-0 Feb 14, 2026 |
| HB 186 | Baby Olivia act-requiring human development education. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | H Failed Introduction 39-20-3-0-0 Feb 14, 2026 |
| SJ 7 | Right of health care access-separation of powers. | Cosponsor | Feb 10, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | S Failed Introduction 20-11-0-0-0 Feb 12, 2026 |
| SJ 4 | Confirmation of justices and judicial nominations. | Cosponsor | Feb 10, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | S Failed Introduction 16-15-0-0-0 Feb 11, 2026 |
| SF 103 | Courts-retired judges, constitutional cases and injunctions. | Cosponsor | Feb 10, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | S Failed Introduction 18-13-0-0-0 Feb 12, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Rodriguez-Williams’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Rodriguez-Williams’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 Rodriguez-Williams posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 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 Rodriguez-Williams posted
No images from Rodriguez-Williams’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 Rodriguez-Williams 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
- 2fc47a70-0bf7-4d7c-bda2-5cdbf75a99ea
- Open States
- ocd-person/2fc47a70-0bf7-4d7c-bda2-5cdbf75a99ea
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