Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance · Source
86%
of Unicameral-legislature Democrats score to the left of Parker on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.20 (approximate range −0.22 to −0.17, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 1,990 donors and 260 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 Parker sits among Unicameral-legislature Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against Unicameral-legislature Democrats. 74% of the 91 bills Parker sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the District of Columbia Legislature. 48% of Parker’s statements discuss policy, in the top quarter of Unicameral-legislature Democrats (average 47%).
The measures on which Parker sits furthest from the middle of Unicameral-legislature Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
−0.20
More conservative than 86% of Unicameral-legislature Democrats · ± 0.03
Out of committee
74%
District of Columbia Legislature average 62% · ranks 3rd of 12
Policy discussion
48%
Unicameral-legislature Democrats average 47% · ranks 3rd of 10
Policy criticism
7.4%
Unicameral-legislature Democrats average 7.7% · ranks 4th of 10
Extreme labels
0%
Unicameral-legislature Democrats average 0.1% · ranks 7th of 10
Personal attacks
0%
Unicameral-legislature Democrats average 0.4% · ranks 7th of 10
Peer group: Unicameral-legislature Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Parker, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Parker is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Parker says
Parker attacks opponents personally less than 55% of Unicameral-legislature Democrats. Personal attacks in 0% of 215 statements, against 0.4% for the average Unicameral-legislature Democrat; 7th of 10.
An AI model reads each of Parker’s 215 statements in the DC 2025–26 session (215 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 Unicameral-legislature Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the DC 2025–26 session
0%80%
Parker
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion104 statements
48%
47%
3rd of 10
Credit claiming29 statements
13%
14%
6th of 10
Policy criticism16 statements
7%
8%
4th of 10
Bipartisanship2 statements
1%
1%
5th of 10
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
0%
7th of 10
Show the data
| Row | Parker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 48% | 47% |
| Credit claiming | 13% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 8% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 1% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 0% |
215
statements classified
215 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 215 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Parker; the thin grey bar is the average Unicameral-legislature Democrats. A longer thick bar means Parker does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Parker used no extreme labels in 215 statements. The peer average is 0.1%.
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 DC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| 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 | 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 ’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 | 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 ’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 | 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 | 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 | 37 | 0.0% | 8.1% | 59.5% | 0.0% | 13.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 46.4% | 3.6% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 42 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 42.9% | 2.4% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 46.7% | 0.0% | 13.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 55.6% | 0.0% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 46 | 0.0% | 4.3% | 30.4% | 0.0% | 6.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 24.1% | 69.0% | 0.0% | 3.5% | 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 DC 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%. 15 months are hatched here; none has any statements.
In Parker’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 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 4, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics · 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 215 statements
Newest first, the DC 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: 215 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Parker talks about most: 27% of policy statements, 2.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.52 on a 0–1 scale (Unicameral-legislature Democrats average 0.49; 3rd of 9).
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 Parker talks about. The bills Parker sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Parker talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the DC 2025–26 session
0%35%
Parker
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement28 statements
27%
12%
Government Operations and Politics19 statements
18%
21%
Housing and Community Development17 statements
16%
24%
Economics and Public Finance14 statements
13%
14%
Families14 statements
13%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Parker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 27% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 21% |
| Housing and Community Development | 16% | 24% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 13% | 14% |
| Families | 13% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Parker’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Unicameral-legislature 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 Unicameral-legislature Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Unicameral-legislature Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | Unicameral-legislature Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 27% | 12% | 11% | 7% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 21% | 7% | 15% |
| Housing and Community Development | 16% | 24% | 4% | 19% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 13% | 14% | 0% | 2% |
| Families | 13% | 5% | 20% | 3% |
0.52
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Unicameral-legislature Democrats average 0.49. Ranks 3rd of 9.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Parker legislates on exactly the areas Parker 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 Parker sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Parker sits at −0.20 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 86% of Unicameral-legislature Democrats. Approximate range −0.22 to −0.17, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,990 donors and 260 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”.
−0.20
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.22 to −0.17. From 1,990 donors and 260 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Parker, 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 Parker’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 Parker sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Unicameral-legislature Democrats11 · median −0.4
District of Columbia Legislature13 · median −0.5
All Unicameral legislature62 · median 0.0
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Parker |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unicameral-legislature Democrats | 11 | −0.4 | 82% |
| District of Columbia Legislature | 13 | −0.5 | 85% |
| All Unicameral legislature | 62 | 0.0 | 44% |
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 Parker 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 Parker.
Money
Parker reported $89.0K in the 2026 cycle, 2.4 times the Unicameral-legislature Democrats’ median of $36.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 79% of itemized individual money came from District of Columbia.
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.
$89.0K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 544 itemized donors. Unicameral-legislature Democrats’ median $36.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)100 squares$89.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $89.0K | 100.0% |
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 Unicameral-legislature Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $66.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $89.0K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 79% came from District of Columbia.
- District of Columbia$70.6K
- Maryland$7,521
- Virginia$2,275
- Georgia$2,025
- California$1,205
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 |
|---|---|
| District of Columbia | $70.6K |
| Maryland | $7,521 |
| Virginia | $2,275 |
| Georgia | $2,025 |
| California | $1,205 |
| Illinois | $1,203 |
| Florida | $1,020 |
| New York | $700 |
| Pennsylvania | $500 |
| South Carolina | $500 |
| Massachusetts | $400 |
| New Jersey | $350 |
| Oregon | $250 |
| Rhode Island | $200 |
| Tennessee | $100 |
| Louisiana | $100 |
| Maine | $25 |
| Indiana | $20 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
544
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
79%
from District of Columbia
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 District of Columbia. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$14.1K 108 donors
- ATTORNEY$6,350 29 donors
- CONSULTANT$4,194 24 donors
- CEO$2,925 12 donors
- LAWYER$2,325 8 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- DC GOVERNMENT$1,300 13 donors
- COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA$800 3 donors
- AMAZON$650 3 donors
- GOVERNMENT$650 3 donors
- DC PUBLIC SCHOOLS$560 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Parker missed 1.2% of 1,680 roll calls. District of Columbia Legislature average attendance 97.8%.
1,680 roll calls Parker could vote on in the DC 2025–26 session, compared with District of Columbia Legislature. 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 Parker voted with the majority of District of Columbia Legislature Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1,680
roll calls
No party-line votes. Attendance 98.8%, ranks 8th of 13.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Parker, the thin grey bar the District of Columbia Legislature average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Parker
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.8%
97.8%
8th of 13
Party unity
—
—
Show the data
| Row | Parker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.8% | 97.8% |
| Party unity | — | — |
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 Parker most often
- Doni CrawfordI572 shared votes98%
- Charles AllenD1,657 shared votes97%
- Christina HendersonI1,651 shared votes97%
- Brooke PintoD1,541 shared votes97%
- Janeese Lewis GeorgeD1,644 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Parker least often
- Phil MendelsonD1,658 shared votes96%
- Brianne NadeauD1,654 shared votes96%
- Kenyan McDuffieI851 shared votes96%
- Trayon WhiteD1,074 shared votes96%
- Robert WhiteD1,585 shared votes96%
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
DC 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Parker sponsored 91 bills in the DC 2025–26 session; 58 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 74% of sponsored bills got out of committee (District of Columbia Legislature average 62%; 3rd of 12).
The bills Parker sponsored and cosponsored in the DC 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 DC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 91 | 91 | 67 | 67 | 58 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Parker sponsored, ochre blocks bills Parker cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
74%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
District of Columbia Legislature average 62%. Ranks 3rd of 12.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Parker, by number of shared bills in the DC 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Janeese Lewis George1
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 Parker’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| B 26-0872 | Closing of Public Streets and Dedication of Land for Street and Alley Purposes in and abutting Squares 3953, 3954, 4024, 4025, and Parcel 143/45, S.O. 14-20357 Repeal Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 16, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Committee of the Whole Oct 20, 2026 |
| B 26-0825 | Alternative Breakfast Service Model Emergency Amendment Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Agriculture and Food(model) | Final Reading Oct 6, 2026 |
| B 26-0826 | Alternative Breakfast Service Model Temporary Amendment Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Agriculture and Food(model) | Final Reading, CC Oct 20, 2026 |
| PR 26-0812 | Alternative Breakfast Service Model Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2026 | Sponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | Became law | Agriculture and Food(model) | Approved with Resolution Number R26-0525 Oct 6, 2026 |
| CER 26-0190 | Kinship Care Month Recognition Resolution of 2026 | Sponsor | Jul 9, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Resolution ACR26-0185, Effective from Jul 14, 2026 Published in DC Register Vol 73 and Page 011955 Aug 21, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Parker’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Parker’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 Parker posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
- 7
pages crawled
14changes 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 Parker posted
No images from Parker’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
164 turns, Jan 17, 2023 to Oct 20, 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 Parker is most unusual among Unicameral-legislature Democrats, 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
- 30cb555a-f684-418e-8b63-8101e7a34552
- Open States
- ocd-person/30cb555a-f684-418e-8b63-8101e7a34552
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