Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
99%
of State Senate Republicans score to the left of Rogers on the CSIP scale
CSIP score +1.00 (approximate range +0.98 to +1.02, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 51,011 donors and 882 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 Rogers sits among State Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. The policy areas Rogers talks about and legislates on agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale, in the top 5% of State Senate Republicans. Rogers reported $595.7K in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of State Senate Republicans (median $46.2K).
The measures on which Rogers sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
+1.00
More conservative than 99% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.02
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.69
State Senate Republicans average 0.52 · ranks 8th of 226
Itemized, 2026
$595.7K
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 51st of 936
Policy discussion
12%
State Senate Republicans average 37% · ranks 322nd of 354
From Arizona, 2026
49%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 788th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Party unity
99.2%
Arizona Senate average 95.6% · ranks 4th of 30 · 21 votes against the majority of Arizona Senate Republicans
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Rogers, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Rogers is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Rogers says
Rogers stresses bipartisanship less than 72% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0.3% of 9,911 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 256th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Rogers’s 9,911 statements in the AZ 2025–26 session (9,911 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 AZ 2025–26 session
0%80%
Rogers
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,197 statements
12%
37%
322nd of 354
Personal attacks536 statements
5%
2%
53rd of 354
Credit claiming462 statements
5%
15%
277th of 354
Policy criticism158 statements
2%
9%
272nd of 354
Bipartisanship32 statements
0%
2%
256th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Rogers | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 12% | 37% |
| Personal attacks | 5% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 5% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 2% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
9,911
statements classified
9,911 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 9,911 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Rogers; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Rogers does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Rogers used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, below the peer average. 76 statements, most often aimed at Left; peers 1.3%.
- “MAGA”18
- “communist”5
- “radical”5
- “woke”4
- “extreme”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Left4
- The Left4
- Democrat2
- Democrats2
- MAGA2
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 AZ 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 579 | 3.5% | 2.1% | 10.9% | 0.4% | 5.7% | 1.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 701 | 4.7% | 2.6% | 10.3% | 0.3% | 3.9% | 0.4% |
| Mar ’25 | 484 | 2.9% | 0.8% | 7.4% | 0.2% | 3.9% | 0.4% |
| Apr ’25 | 424 | 2.4% | 0.9% | 8.5% | 0.5% | 4.3% | 0.5% |
| May ’25 | 554 | 2.0% | 1.3% | 7.8% | 0.2% | 4.2% | 0.2% |
| Jun ’25 | 315 | 4.1% | 1.9% | 8.3% | 0.3% | 3.2% | 0.6% |
| Jul ’25 | 407 | 4.7% | 1.0% | 6.6% | 0.3% | 3.7% | 1.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 360 | 3.1% | 1.9% | 7.8% | 0.0% | 1.4% | 0.3% |
| Sep ’25 | 476 | 2.9% | 1.5% | 5.7% | 0.6% | 2.9% | 1.1% |
| Oct ’25 | 401 | 2.7% | 0.8% | 5.7% | 0.3% | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Nov ’25 | 349 | 4.6% | 1.1% | 6.9% | 0.3% | 2.3% | 0.9% |
| Dec ’25 | 342 | 5.9% | 0.9% | 17.0% | 0.0% | 3.2% | 1.2% |
| Jan ’26 | 513 | 5.5% | 0.8% | 18.3% | 0.0% | 3.1% | 0.2% |
| Feb ’26 | 401 | 1.3% | 5.7% | 30.9% | 2.0% | 20.2% | 1.5% |
| Mar ’26 | 387 | 2.8% | 2.8% | 17.6% | 0.3% | 10.1% | 1.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 348 | 4.9% | 0.9% | 17.2% | 0.9% | 7.8% | 0.6% |
| May ’26 | 342 | 8.5% | 2.6% | 10.8% | 0.6% | 5.0% | 1.2% |
| Jun ’26 | 466 | 7.9% | 3.6% | 16.1% | 0.4% | 9.7% | 2.8% |
| Jul ’26 | 517 | 8.7% | 0.6% | 14.7% | 0.0% | 3.9% | 0.6% |
| Aug ’26 | 375 | 14.4% | 1.1% | 14.9% | 0.0% | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 558 | 10.9% | 0.7% | 13.4% | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.2% |
| Oct ’26 | 612 | 9.3% | 0.2% | 11.3% | 0.2% | 2.5% | 0.3% |
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 AZ 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 Rogers’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.
Oct 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; extreme label “radical” aimed at socialist agenda; target: Hobbs · 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: HobbsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “radical” aimed at socialist agenda · target: HobbsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: MayesSource
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: Kris MayesSource
All 9,911 statements
Newest first, the AZ 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: 9,911 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Rogers talks about most: 20% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 8th of 226).
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 Rogers talks about. The bills Rogers sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Rogers talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the AZ 2025–26 session
0%35%
Rogers
Peers
Government Operations and Politics232 statements
20%
17%
Armed Forces and National Security196 statements
17%
6%
Immigration138 statements
12%
4%
Crime and Law Enforcement119 statements
10%
12%
Transportation and Public Works103 statements
9%
6%
Show the data
| Row | Rogers | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 17% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 17% | 6% |
| Immigration | 12% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 10% | 12% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 9% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Rogers’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 17% | 11% | 12% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 17% | 6% | 7% | 2% |
| Immigration | 12% | 4% | 12% | 1% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 10% | 12% | 13% | 10% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 9% | 6% | 10% | 6% |
0.69
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 8th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Rogers legislates on exactly the areas Rogers 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 Rogers sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Rogers sits at +1.00 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 99% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.98 to +1.02, which understates the uncertainty; from 51,011 donors and 882 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”.
+1.00
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.98 to +1.02. From 51,011 donors and 882 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Rogers, 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 Rogers’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 Rogers sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Arizona Senate30 · median +0.2
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Rogers |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 99% |
| Arizona Senate | 30 | +0.2 | 97% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 99% |
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 Rogers 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 Rogers.
Money
Rogers reported $595.7K in the 2026 cycle, 12.9 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 49% of itemized individual money came from Arizona.
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.
$595.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 2,466 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.
- Individuals (itemized)99 squares$589.5K
- PACs and other committees1 squares$6,200
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $589.5K | 99.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $6,200 | 1.0% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.1M |
| 2022 cycle | $3.3M |
| 2024 cycle | $1.1M |
| 2026 cycle | $595.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 49% came from Arizona.
- Arizona$288.0K
- California$55.1K
- Texas$46.4K
- Florida$24.5K
- Colorado$23.1K
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 |
|---|---|
| Arizona | $288.0K |
| California | $55.1K |
| Texas | $46.4K |
| Florida | $24.5K |
| Colorado | $23.1K |
| Alabama | $11.6K |
| Arkansas | $11.4K |
| Illinois | $10.1K |
| Oregon | $9,123 |
| New York | $9,034 |
| Montana | $7,255 |
| Iowa | $6,638 |
| Minnesota | $6,469 |
| Kansas | $6,075 |
| Alaska | $6,029 |
| Pennsylvania | $5,760 |
| Michigan | $5,686 |
| Ohio | $5,453 |
| Maryland | $5,088 |
| Delaware | $5,081 |
| North Carolina | $4,471 |
| Massachusetts | $4,312 |
| Virginia | $4,309 |
| New Jersey | $3,645 |
| Idaho | $2,695 |
| Nevada | $2,376 |
| Washington | $2,084 |
| Tennessee | $1,940 |
| Wisconsin | $1,880 |
| South Carolina | $1,743 |
| Indiana | $1,300 |
| Missouri | $1,259 |
| Utah | $1,146 |
| New Mexico | $1,111 |
| Oklahoma | $865 |
| Georgia | $847 |
| Nebraska | $840 |
| West Virginia | $735 |
| South Dakota | $713 |
| Maine | $570 |
| Connecticut | $512 |
| Louisiana | $451 |
| Kentucky | $401 |
| Mississippi | $350 |
| New Hampshire | $212 |
| Hawaii | $131 |
| Vermont | $127 |
| Rhode Island | $125 |
| North Dakota | $115 |
| Wyoming | $115 |
| District of Columbia | $56 |
2,466
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
49%
from Arizona
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 Arizona. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$365.8K 2,002 donors
- OWNER$33.4K 13 donors
- CEO$23.0K 9 donors
- HOMEMAKER$17.7K 17 donors
- REAL ESTATE$11.0K 5 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- RCRC COMMITTEE$5,500
- AZ POLICE ASSOCIATION$500
- ARIZONA STATE FOP LODGE PAC$200
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- INFORMATION REQUESTED PER BEST EFFORT$1,652 24 donors
- UNKNOWN$229 4 donors
- NOT PROVIDED$75 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Rogers voted with the majority of Arizona Senate Republicans on 99.2% of party-line votes and missed 5.1% of 1,589 roll calls. Arizona Senate on average: 95.6% party unity, 94.2% attendance. Across all roll calls, Rogers voted against the majority of Arizona Senate Republicans 21 times.
1,589 roll calls Rogers could vote on in the AZ 2025–26 session, compared with Arizona 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 Rogers voted with the majority of Arizona Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
21
votes against the majority of Arizona Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.2%, Arizona Senate average 95.6%, ranks 4th of 30. 1,589 roll calls in the AZ 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Rogers, the thin grey bar the Arizona Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Rogers
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.9%
94.2%
20th of 30
Party unity
99.2%
95.6%
4th of 30
Show the data
| Row | Rogers | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 94.9% | 94.2% |
| Party unity | 99.2% | 95.6% |
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 AZ 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 12–0 · R 16–0Democrats 12 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 13–0 · R 15–1Democrats 13 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Jun 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–13 · R 15–1Democrats 0 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 1 nay | close vote | |
| Jun 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–13 · R 15–1Democrats 0 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 1 nay | became law · close vote | |
| Jun 12, 2026 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 12–0 · R 0–16Democrats 12 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 16 nay | much discussed |
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 Rogers most often
- T.J. ShopeR1,480 shared votes98%
- Tim DunnR1,508 shared votes98%
- John KavanaghR1,466 shared votes98%
- Mark FinchemR1,461 shared votes98%
- Carine WernerR1,460 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Rogers least often
- Sally GonzalesD1,352 shared votes37%
- Mitzi EpsteinD1,456 shared votes38%
- Priya SundareshanD1,415 shared votes39%
- Analise OrtizD1,437 shared votes40%
- Theresa HatathlieD1,230 shared votes41%
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
AZ 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Rogers sponsored 87 bills in the AZ 2025–26 session; 4 became law. Cosponsored 42 others. 70% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Arizona Senate average 42%; 7th of 29).
The bills Rogers sponsored and cosponsored in the AZ 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 AZ 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 87 | 69 | 61 | 34 | 4 |
| Cosponsored | 42 | 35 | 34 | 19 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Rogers sponsored, ochre blocks bills Rogers cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
70%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Arizona Senate average 42%. Ranks 7th of 29.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Rogers, by number of shared bills in the AZ 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Mark Finchem48
- Hildy Angius19
- Janae Shamp14
- Dave Farnsworth13
- Kevin Payne13
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 Rogers’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HCR 2063 | Yvonne Fedderson; death resolution | Cosponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| SCR 1055 | death resolution; Bill Van Dyke | Cosponsor | Jun 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HCR 2065 | Alfredo Gutierrez death resolution | Cosponsor | Apr 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Transmit to Senate Apr 30, 2026 |
| SR 1002 | Salvatore Carpitano; death resolution | Cosponsor | Mar 31, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Transmit to Secretary of State Mar 31, 2026 |
| HCR 2064 | Barbara Leff; death resolution | Cosponsor | Mar 9, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Transmit to Secretary of State Mar 9, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 33 times in 90 days. Rogers’s campaign site had 23 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Rogers’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 Rogers posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 23
pages crawled
33changes 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 Rogers posted
No images from Rogers’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
264 turns, Jan 11, 2021 to Jun 12, 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 Rogers is most unusual among State Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 417c9599-7617-4b6d-ac0a-1d1b2a005f4e
- Open States
- ocd-person/417c9599-7617-4b6d-ac0a-1d1b2a005f4e
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