Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health · Source
0.69
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top 5% of State Senate Democrats
Agreement 0.69 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State Senate Democrats is 0.56. Ranks 9th of 228, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Blanco’s statements matches the mix in the bills Blanco sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State Senate Democrats.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. Blanco sits at −0.22 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 95% of State Senate Democrats. Blanco voted against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats 225 times; party unity 64%, in the bottom quarter of the Texas Senate (average 89%).
The measures on which Blanco sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.69
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 9th of 228
CSIP ideology
−0.22
More conservative than 95% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.02
Party unity
64%
Texas Senate average 89% · ranks 25th of 28 · 225 votes against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats
Itemized, 2026
$247.0K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 121st of 746
Credit claiming
25%
State Senate Democrats average 16% · ranks 68th of 329
Policy discussion
59%
State Senate Democrats average 43% · ranks 75th of 329
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Blanco, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Blanco is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Blanco says
Blanco attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State Senate Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.1% of 1,163 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 166th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Blanco’s 1,163 statements in the TX 2025–26 session (1,163 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the TX 2025–26 session
0%80%
Blanco
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion687 statements
59%
43%
75th of 329
Credit claiming294 statements
25%
16%
68th of 329
Policy criticism80 statements
7%
10%
182nd of 329
Bipartisanship11 statements
1%
3%
235th of 329
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
2%
166th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Blanco | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 59% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 25% | 16% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
1,163
statements classified
1,163 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,163 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Blanco; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Blanco does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Blanco used no extreme labels in 1,163 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
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 TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 5.0% | 45.0% | 5.0% | 22.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 102 | 0.0% | 20.6% | 56.9% | 1.0% | 28.4% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 55 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 49.1% | 0.0% | 25.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 70 | 0.0% | 5.7% | 68.6% | 0.0% | 42.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 78 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 70.5% | 3.9% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 33 | 0.0% | 3.0% | 72.7% | 0.0% | 57.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 51 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 76.5% | 0.0% | 19.6% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 69 | 0.0% | 29.0% | 59.4% | 1.5% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 52 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 63.5% | 0.0% | 42.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 54 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 48.1% | 3.7% | 29.6% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 47 | 0.0% | 4.3% | 42.5% | 2.1% | 38.3% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 42 | 0.0% | 2.4% | 40.5% | 0.0% | 35.7% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 42 | 0.0% | 2.4% | 69.0% | 0.0% | 19.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 41 | 0.0% | 2.4% | 51.2% | 0.0% | 17.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 42 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 38.1% | 0.0% | 9.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 42 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 66.7% | 0.0% | 9.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 57 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 54.4% | 0.0% | 17.5% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 51 | 0.0% | 7.8% | 45.1% | 2.0% | 17.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 44 | 0.0% | 4.5% | 68.2% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 49 | 0.0% | 8.2% | 73.5% | 0.0% | 8.2% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 56 | 1.8% | 3.6% | 60.7% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 46 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 71.7% | 0.0% | 6.5% | 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 TX 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 Blanco’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.
Jun 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 13, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Bo · 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: BoSource
All 1,163 statements
Newest first, the TX 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: 1,163 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Blanco talks about most: 21% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 9th of 228).
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 Blanco talks about. The bills Blanco sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Blanco talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TX 2025–26 session
0%35%
Blanco
Peers
Health141 statements
21%
17%
Education118 statements
17%
15%
Government Operations and Politics92 statements
13%
14%
Transportation and Public Works68 statements
10%
5%
Armed Forces and National Security58 statements
8%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Blanco | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 21% | 17% |
| Education | 17% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 13% | 14% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 10% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 8% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Blanco’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 21% | 17% | 17% | 15% |
| Education | 17% | 15% | 10% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 13% | 14% | 9% | 8% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 10% | 5% | 1% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 8% | 3% | 2% | 1% |
0.69
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 9th of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Blanco legislates on exactly the areas Blanco 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 Blanco sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Blanco sits at −0.22 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 95% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.24 to −0.20, which understates the uncertainty; from 530 donors and 554 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”.
−0.22
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.24 to −0.20. From 530 donors and 554 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Blanco, 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 Blanco’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 Blanco sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Texas Senate30 · median +0.4
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Blanco |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 95% |
| Texas Senate | 30 | +0.4 | 33% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 41% |
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 Blanco 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 Blanco.
Money
Blanco reported $247.0K in the 2026 cycle, 4.5 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Texas.
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.
$247.0K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 145 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)38 squares$94.4K
- PACs and other committees62 squares$152.6K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $94.4K | 38.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $152.6K | 61.8% |
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $590.0K |
| 2022 cycle | $469.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $546.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $247.0K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Texas.
- Texas$94.4K
- New Mexico$25
- North Carolina$25
- Virginia$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 |
|---|---|
| Texas | $94.4K |
| Virginia | $25 |
| New Mexico | $25 |
| North Carolina | $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 |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Florida | No data |
145
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Texas
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 Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- PRESIDENT$22.7K 8 donors
- OWNER$7,025 5 donors
- RETIRED$5,759 73 donors
- ATTORNEY$1,625 5 donors
- CONSULTANT$1,250 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- TEXAS TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION PAC$15.0K
- AGC OF TEXAS PAC ACCOUNT$10.0K
- HILLCO PAC$10.0K
- TEXAS APARTMENT ASSOCIATION PAC$7,500
- TEXANS FOR REASONABLE SOLUTIONS PAC$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- TROPICANA HOMES$20.0K 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Blanco voted with the majority of Texas Senate Democrats on 64% of party-line votes and missed 1.3% of 1,290 roll calls. Texas Senate on average: 89% party unity, 97.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Blanco voted against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats 225 times.
1,290 roll calls Blanco could vote on in the TX 2025–26 session, compared with Texas Senate. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Blanco voted with the majority of Texas Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
225
votes against the majority of Texas Senate Democrats
Party unity 64%, Texas Senate average 89%, ranks 25th of 28. 1,290 roll calls in the TX 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Blanco, the thin grey bar the Texas Senate average. The scale runs from 60% to 100% to show the gap.
60%100%
Blanco
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.6%
97.9%
19th of 28
Party unity
64%
89%
25th of 28
Show the data
| Row | Blanco | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.6% | 97.9% |
| Party unity | 64% | 89% |
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 TX 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4, 2025 | HB 18 Relating to a restriction on the acceptance of political contributions and the making of certain political expenditures by a member of the legislature and certain political committees during certain periods in which a member is absent from a legislative session; authorizing a civil penalty. final passage | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–8 · R 18–0Democrats 0 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 18 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 18 Relating to a restriction on the acceptance of political contributions and the making of certain political expenditures by a member of the legislature and certain political committees during certain periods in which a member is absent from a legislative session; authorizing a civil penalty. passage | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–8 · R 18–0Democrats 0 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 18 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 7 Relating to prohibitions on the manufacture and provision of abortion-inducing drugs, including the jurisdiction of and effect of certain judgments by courts within and outside this state with respect to the manufacture and provision of those drugs, and to protections from certain counteractions und final passage | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–8 · R 17–0Democrats 0 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 17 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 3, 2025 | SB 8 Relating to the designation and use of certain spaces and facilities according to sex; authorizing a civil penalty and a private civil right of action. concur in the House amendment to SB 8. | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–8 · R 18–0Democrats 0 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 18 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 2, 2025 | HB 7 Relating to prohibitions on the manufacture and provision of abortion-inducing drugs, including the jurisdiction of and effect of certain judgments by courts within and outside this state with respect to the manufacture and provision of those drugs, and to protections from certain counteractions und passage | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–9 · R 17–0Democrats 0 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 17 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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 Blanco most often
- Chuy HinojosaD1,272 shared votes88%
- Judith ZaffiriniD1,270 shared votes83%
- Royce WestD1,237 shared votes82%
- Carol AlvaradoD1,271 shared votes81%
- José MenéndezD1,245 shared votes80%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Blanco least often
- Bryan HughesR1,271 shared votes41%
- Mayes MiddletonR1,272 shared votes50%
- Brandon CreightonR1,269 shared votes55%
- Kevin SparksR1,272 shared votes55%
- Brent HagenbuchR1,272 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
TX 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Blanco sponsored 192 bills in the TX 2025–26 session; 43 became law. Cosponsored 194 others. 57% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Texas Senate average 65%; 20th of 28).
The bills Blanco sponsored and cosponsored in the TX 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 TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 192 | 177 | 109 | 47 | 43 |
| Cosponsored | 194 | 194 | 170 | 137 | 130 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Blanco sponsored, ochre blocks bills Blanco cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
57%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Texas Senate average 65%. Ranks 20th of 28.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Blanco, by number of shared bills in the TX 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Royce West79
- Chuy Hinojosa75
- José Menéndez58
- Carol Alvarado58
- Judith Zaffirini56
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 Blanco’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SR 50 | Recognizing the Ochoa family on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the opening of their family restaurant, Palenque Grill. | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled Sep 4, 2025 |
| HCR 13 | Urging the federal government to take immediate action to curb the spread of the New World screwworm in Texas. | Cosponsor | Aug 22, 2025 | Became law | Agriculture and Food(model) | Signed by the Governor Sep 17, 2025 |
| SR 1 | Honoring the lives lost during the 2025 Texas flooding. | Sponsor | Aug 21, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled Sep 4, 2025 |
| SB 42 | Relating to exceptions to certain laws prohibiting abortion. | Sponsor | Aug 18, 2025 | Introduced | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Filed Aug 18, 2025 |
| SB 43 | Relating to exceptions to and the repeal of certain laws prohibiting abortion. | Sponsor | Aug 18, 2025 | Introduced | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Filed Aug 18, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 3 times in 90 days. Blanco’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Blanco’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 Blanco posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
3changes in 90 days
- 2
pages crawled
0changes 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 Blanco posted
No images from Blanco’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 Blanco is most unusual among State Senate 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
- 3e0f0e51-20c0-4da4-82b5-ff81606148d0
- Open States
- ocd-person/3e0f0e51-20c0-4da4-82b5-ff81606148d0
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