Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 5, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
$5,000
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans
The median for State Senate Republicans is $46.2K. Ranks 834th of 936, where 1st raised the most. 0 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State Senate Republicans. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
5 measures against the Mississippi Senate. Hill sits at +0.61 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 84% of State Senate Republicans. 15% of the 110 bills Hill sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Mississippi Senate.
The measures on which Hill sits furthest from the middle of the Mississippi Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
$5,000
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 834th of 936
CSIP ideology
+0.61
More conservative than 84% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.03
Out of committee
15%
Mississippi Senate average 35% · ranks 40th of 47
Attendance
95.0%
Mississippi Senate average 97.1% · ranks 41st of 51 · 2,121 roll calls
Party unity
89%
Mississippi Senate average 88% · ranks 36th of 51 · 111 votes against the majority of Mississippi Senate Republicans
Statements
128
128 posts on X
Peer group: Mississippi Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hill, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hill is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hill says
Hill claims credit less than 86% of State Senate Republicans. Credit claiming in 2.3% of 128 statements, against 15% for the average State Senate Republican; 307th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Hill’s 128 statements in the MS 2025–26 session (128 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MS 2025–26 session
0%80%
Hill
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion18 statements
14%
37%
315th of 354
Policy criticism8 statements
6%
9%
184th of 354
Personal attacks6 statements
5%
2%
63rd of 354
Credit claiming3 statements
2%
15%
307th of 354
Bipartisanship1 statements
1%
2%
217th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Hill | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 14% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 6% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 5% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 2% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
128
statements classified
128 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 128 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Hill; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Hill does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Hill used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, below the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at Code for America; peers 1.3%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Code for America1
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 MS 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 19 | 15.8% | 15.8% | 21.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 8 | — (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 | 7 | — (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 | 17 | 5.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 5 | — (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 | 12 | 8.3% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 1 | — (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 | 5 | — (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 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 7 | — (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 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 5 | — (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 ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the MS 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%. 19 months are hatched here.
In Hill’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 3, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · 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) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Code for America · 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: liberal womenSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: unspecifiedSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: SheSource
All 128 statements
Newest first, the MS 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: 128 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Hill talks about most: 29% of policy statements, 3.2 times the peer share. Peers give it 9.1%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Hill talks about. The bills Hill sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Hill talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MS 2025–26 session
0%35%
Hill
Peers
Health5 statements
29%
9%
Government Operations and Politics3 statements
18%
17%
Agriculture and Food2 statements
12%
6%
Economics and Public Finance2 statements
12%
12%
Immigration2 statements
12%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Hill | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 29% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 17% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 6% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 12% | 12% |
| Immigration | 12% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Hill’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 29% | 9% | 15% | 11% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 17% | 9% | 12% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 6% | 7% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 12% | 12% | 1% | 3% |
| Immigration | 12% | 4% | 2% | 1% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Hill legislates on exactly the areas Hill 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 Hill sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Hill sits at +0.61 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 84% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.57 to +0.64, which understates the uncertainty; from 1 donors and 964 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”.
+0.61
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.57 to +0.64. From 1 donors and 964 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hill, 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 Hill’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 Hill sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Mississippi Senate51 · median 0.0
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hill |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 84% |
| Mississippi Senate | 51 | 0.0 | 94% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 91% |
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 Hill 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 Hill.
Money
Hill reported $5,000 in the 2026 cycle, 11% of the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total.
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.
$5,000
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 0 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- PACs and other committees100 squares$5,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| PACs and other committees | $5,000 | 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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $32.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $5,000 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state.
No itemized donors with an address.
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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| 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 |
0
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
No itemized individual money.
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 Mississippi. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANESTHESIOLOGY PAC$1,000
- MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL POLITICAL ACTION COMM$1,000
- MS DENTAL PAC$1,000
- MS RAIL AGENTS ASSN$1,000
- CARE SOURCE MISSION PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Hill voted with the majority of Mississippi Senate Republicans on 89% of party-line votes and missed 4.9% of 2,121 roll calls. Mississippi Senate on average: 88% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hill voted against the majority of Mississippi Senate Republicans 111 times.
2,121 roll calls Hill could vote on in the MS 2025–26 session, compared with Mississippi 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 Hill voted with the majority of Mississippi Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
111
votes against the majority of Mississippi Senate Republicans
Party unity 89%, Mississippi Senate average 88%, ranks 36th of 51. 2,121 roll calls in the MS 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Hill, the thin grey bar the Mississippi Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Hill
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.0%
97.1%
41st of 51
Party unity
89%
88%
36th of 51
Show the data
| Row | Hill | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.0% | 97.1% |
| Party unity | 89% | 88% |
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 MS 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 13–0 · R 25–0Democrats 13 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 25 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed | |
| Jul 16, 2026 | HB 1 Appropriation; Department of Human Services to establish and implement youth diversion program. Passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 14–0 · R 25–0Democrats 14 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 25 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Jul 15, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 1–9 · R 24–1Democrats 1 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Apr 2, 2026 | SB 2474 Rare Disease Task Force; establish within the Mississippi Rare Disease Advisory Council. Adopt Conference Report | Yea | With majority | pass | D 18–0 · R 34–0Democrats 18 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 34 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | HB 1761 Alcoholic beverages; extend repealers relating to festival wine permits. Adopt Conference Report | Yea | With majority | pass | D 16–2 · R 32–2Democrats 16 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 32 yea, 2 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 Hill most often
- Jeff TateR1,942 shared votes95%
- Don HartnessR976 shared votes95%
- Lane TaylorR1,086 shared votes95%
- Ben SuberR2,000 shared votes95%
- Tyler McCaughnR1,995 shared votes95%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hill least often
- Derrick SimmonsD1,900 shared votes88%
- David JordanD960 shared votes88%
- Albert ButlerD1,808 shared votes88%
- Bradford BlackmonD2,010 shared votes88%
- Reginald JacksonD2,004 shared votes88%
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
MS 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Hill sponsored 110 bills in the MS 2025–26 session; 6 became law. Cosponsored 65 others. 15% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Mississippi Senate average 35%; 40th of 47).
The bills Hill sponsored and cosponsored in the MS 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 MS 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 110 | 110 | 16 | 7 | 6 |
| Cosponsored | 65 | 65 | 57 | 42 | 21 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Hill sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hill cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
15%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Mississippi Senate average 35%. Ranks 40th of 47.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hill, by number of shared bills in the MS 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Briggs Hopson27
- Dennis DeBar25
- Jeff Tate24
- Mike Seymour22
- Sollie Norwood20
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 Hill’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 123 | Commend Dr. Linda Nix as "Instructor of the Year" at the Jackson County Campus of MGCCC. | Cosponsor | Mar 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Mar 31, 2026 |
| SR 124 | Commend Dr. Gabriel Posadas as "Instructor of the Year" at the George County Center of MGCCC. | Cosponsor | Mar 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Mar 31, 2026 |
| SR 122 | Commend Vic A. Gauthreaux, Jr., as "Instructor of the Year" for MGCCC Harrison County Campus. | Cosponsor | Mar 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Mar 31, 2026 |
| SR 125 | Commend Patrick Wilcher as "Instructor of the Year" at the Perkinston Campus of MGCCC. | Cosponsor | Mar 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Mar 31, 2026 |
| SC 537 | Commend Patrick Wilcher as "Instructor of the Year" at the Perkinston Campus of MGCCC. | Cosponsor | Mar 23, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Enrolled Bill Signed Apr 6, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Hill’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Hill’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 Hill posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Hill posted
No images from Hill’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 Hill is most unusual among Mississippi Senate, 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
- 4004cf9a-6d23-4323-b158-00f22078d2b4
- Open States
- ocd-person/4004cf9a-6d23-4323-b158-00f22078d2b4
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