Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health; Economics and Public Finance · Source
4.7×
the State House Democrat rate of policy criticism
49% of 594 statements criticize a policy (290 statements); the average for State House Democrats is 10%. Ranks 4th of 764, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Reives’s posts on X and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 77% of Reives’s statements discuss policy, 2.0 times the State House Democrat average of 39%. Reives reported $354.8K in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of State House Democrats (median $40.4K).
The measures on which Reives sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy criticism
49%
State House Democrats average 10% · ranks 4th of 764
Policy discussion
77%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 15th of 764
Itemized, 2026
$354.8K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 155th of 2,082
Bipartisanship
4.7%
State House Democrats average 2.9% · ranks 159th of 764
Extreme labels
1.2%
State House Democrats average 1.0% · ranks 187th of 764
CSIP ideology
−0.52
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Reives, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Reives is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Reives says
Reives attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 594 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 399th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Reives’s 594 statements in the NC 2025–26 session (594 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 NC 2025–26 session
0%80%
Reives
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion458 statements
77%
39%
15th of 764
Policy criticism290 statements
49%
10%
4th of 764
Credit claiming46 statements
8%
14%
496th of 764
Bipartisanship28 statements
5%
3%
159th of 764
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
3%
399th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Reives | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 77% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 49% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 8% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 5% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
594
statements classified
594 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 594 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Reives; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Reives does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Reives used extreme labels in 1.2% of statements, above the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.0%.
- “MAGA”2
- “extreme”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Republicans3
- GOP1
- MAGA agenda1
- Republican leadership1
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 NC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 14.3% | 21.4% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 56.3% | 87.5% | 12.5% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 46.7% | 73.3% | 0.0% | 13.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 44.4% | 66.7% | 2.8% | 8.3% | 2.8% |
| May ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 41.9% | 58.1% | 19.4% | 16.1% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 38.9% | 72.2% | 0.0% | 11.1% | 5.6% |
| Jul ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 52.9% | 82.3% | 5.9% | 23.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 39 | 0.0% | 64.1% | 84.6% | 2.6% | 10.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 70 | 0.0% | 70.0% | 82.9% | 11.4% | 1.4% | 1.4% |
| Oct ’25 | 48 | 2.1% | 54.2% | 62.5% | 6.3% | 4.2% | 2.1% |
| Nov ’25 | 32 | 0.0% | 81.3% | 87.5% | 3.1% | 6.3% | 3.1% |
| Dec ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 46.4% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 29.6% | 85.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 61.9% | 90.5% | 4.8% | 19.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 56.0% | 68.0% | 12.0% | 4.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 35 | 0.0% | 25.7% | 82.9% | 2.9% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 76.5% | 0.0% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 63.6% | 68.2% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 95.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 31.6% | 94.7% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 5.3% |
| Sep ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 35.7% | 78.6% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 7.1% |
| Oct ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 34.5% | 89.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 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 NC 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 Reives’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.
Oct 15, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Donald Trump · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 2, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA agenda, 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: Donald TrumpSource
All 594 statements
Newest first, the NC 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: 594 posts on X.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what Reives talks about most: 30% of policy statements, 2.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.56 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 226th of 503).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Reives talks about. The bills Reives sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Reives talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NC 2025–26 session
0%35%
Reives
Peers
Economics and Public Finance138 statements
30%
11%
Health118 statements
26%
15%
Government Operations and Politics79 statements
17%
15%
Education70 statements
15%
15%
Agriculture and Food36 statements
8%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Reives | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 30% | 11% |
| Health | 26% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 17% | 15% |
| Education | 15% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 8% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Reives’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 30% | 11% | 12% | 2% |
| Health | 26% | 15% | 11% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 17% | 15% | 7% | 8% |
| Education | 15% | 15% | 7% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 8% | 5% | 2% | 3% |
0.56
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 226th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Reives legislates on exactly the areas Reives 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 Reives sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Reives sits at −0.52 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 66% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.55 to −0.48, which understates the uncertainty; from 930 donors and 531 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”.
−0.52
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.55 to −0.48. From 930 donors and 531 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Reives, 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 Reives’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 Reives sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
North Carolina House120 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Reives |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 66% |
| North Carolina House | 120 | +0.4 | 36% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 30% |
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 Reives 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 Reives.
Money
Reives reported $354.8K in the 2026 cycle, 8.8 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 88% of itemized individual money came from North Carolina.
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.
$354.8K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 259 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)60 squares$212.2K
- PACs and other committees39 squares$138.8K
- Party committees1 squares$3,791
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $212.2K | 59.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $138.8K | 39.1% |
| Party committees | $3,791 | 1.1% |
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 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $280.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $913.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $739.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $354.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 88% came from North Carolina.
- North Carolina$186.5K
- California$13.6K
- New York$6,920
- District of Columbia$2,375
- South Carolina$2,225
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 |
|---|---|
| North Carolina | $186.5K |
| California | $13.6K |
| New York | $6,920 |
| District of Columbia | $2,375 |
| South Carolina | $2,225 |
| Pennsylvania | $255 |
| Kentucky | $251 |
| Virginia | $55 |
| 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 |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | 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 |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| West 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 |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
259
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
88%
from North Carolina
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 North Carolina. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$60.8K 114 donors
- ATTORNEY$25.2K 32 donors
- CEO$10.3K 3 donors
- PRESIDENT$9,205 4 donors
- EXECUTIVE$9,000 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- CATAWBA INDIAN NATION$6,800
- DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION PAC$6,800
- EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS$6,800
- NC ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE PAC$6,800
- NC ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES$6,800
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- STATE OF NC$1,100 5 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Reives voted with the majority of North Carolina House Democrats on 93.8% of party-line votes and missed 7.5% of 482 roll calls. North Carolina House on average: 92.6% party unity, 92.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Reives voted against the majority of North Carolina House Democrats 19 times.
482 roll calls Reives could vote on in the NC 2025–26 session, compared with North Carolina 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 Reives voted with the majority of North Carolina House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
19
votes against the majority of North Carolina House Democrats
Party unity 93.8%, North Carolina House average 92.6%, ranks 87th of 120. 482 roll calls in the NC 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Reives, the thin grey bar the North Carolina House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Reives
Peers
Rank
Attendance
92.5%
92.6%
76th of 120
Party unity
93.8%
92.6%
87th of 120
Show the data
| Row | Reives | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 92.5% | 92.6% |
| Party unity | 93.8% | 92.6% |
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 NC 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 2–40 · R 61–0 · I 1–0Democrats 2 yea, 40 nay; Republicans 61 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Oct 7, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 42–1 · R 66–0Democrats 42 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 66 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Oct 7, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 1–36 · R 64–0 · I 2–0Democrats 1 yea, 36 nay; Republicans 64 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | much discussed | |
| Oct 7, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 12–43 · R 81–0 · I 2–0Democrats 12 yea, 43 nay; Republicans 81 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | party crossover · much discussed | |
| Aug 5, 2026 | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 26–28 · R 67–0 · I 2–0Democrats 26 yea, 28 nay; Republicans 67 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 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 Reives most often
- Amos QuickD322 shared votes96%
- Kanika BrownD329 shared votes95%
- Ya LiuD359 shared votes95%
- Brandon LoftonD337 shared votes94%
- Allen BuansiD371 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Reives least often
- George ClevelandR171 shared votes49%
- Grey MillsR173 shared votes51%
- Jarrod LoweryR182 shared votes53%
- Tim MooreR190 shared votes54%
- Ken FontenotR156 shared votes56%
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
NC 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Reives sponsored 28 bills in the NC 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 103 others. 14% of sponsored bills got out of committee (North Carolina House average 27%; 68th of 110).
The bills Reives sponsored and cosponsored in the NC 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 NC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 28 | 28 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 103 | 103 | 18 | 4 | 4 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Reives sponsored, ochre blocks bills Reives cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
14%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
North Carolina House average 27%. Ranks 68th of 110.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Reives, by number of shared bills in the NC 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Pricey Harrison27
- Carolyn Logan27
- Mary Belk26
- Frances Jackson25
- Garland Pierce20
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 Reives’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 1240 | Constitutional Amendment/Early Voting. | Cosponsor | Jun 29, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Passed 1st Reading Jun 30, 2026 |
| HR 1239 | Honor Mike Clampitt. | Cosponsor | Jun 24, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Filed Jun 24, 2026 |
| HR 1238 | Honor 2026 Carolina Hurricanes Team. | Cosponsor | Jun 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Filed Jun 23, 2026 |
| HB 1235 | Restoring Separation of Powers and Legislative Transparency. | Cosponsor | Jun 2, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Passed 1st Reading Jun 3, 2026 |
| HB 1236 | Constitutional Amendment/Judicial Standards Commission. | Cosponsor | Jun 2, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | Passed 1st Reading Jun 3, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Reives’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Reives’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 Reives posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 21
pages crawled
5changes 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
- XLeaderReives
- Xelectreives
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/rreives
- Instagramelectreives
- YouTubewww.youtube.com/@robertreives8004
Images Reives posted
No images from Reives’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 Reives is most unusual among State House 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
- 3aa6f3c5-cd15-42e1-907e-92e6f5362c8f
- Open States
- ocd-person/3aa6f3c5-cd15-42e1-907e-92e6f5362c8f
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