Skip to content

Democrat · North Carolina House, district 58

Serving since Jan 1, 2017NC 2025–26 session

Portrait of Amos Quick, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
100%
of itemized money from North Carolina donors, in the top tenth of State House Democrats

100% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in North Carolina. Ranks 195th of 1,983, where 1st is the highest share. 2 itemized donors.

Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in North Carolina, ranked among State House Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.

At a glance

6 measures against State House Democrats. Quick reported $2,600 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom tenth of State House Democrats (median $40.4K). 0% of the 13 bills Quick sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the North Carolina House.

The measures on which Quick 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.

From North Carolina, 2026

100%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 195th of 1,983 State House Democrats

Itemized, 2026

$2,600

State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1900th of 2,082

Out of committee

0%

North Carolina House average 27% · ranks 95th of 110

Attendance

87%

North Carolina House average 92.6% · ranks 100th of 120 · 482 roll calls

Party unity

93.1%

North Carolina House average 92.6% · ranks 90th of 120 · 18 votes against the majority of North Carolina House Democrats

CSIP ideology

−0.63

More conservative than 50% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05

Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Quick, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Quick is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Quick says

No statements for the NC 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

No policy statements for the NC 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Quick sits at −0.63 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 50% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.68 to −0.57, which understates the uncertainty; from 5 donors and 570 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”.

−0.63

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.68 to −0.57. From 5 donors and 570 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Quick −0.6State House Democrats −0.6North Carolina House +0.4All State House +0.1

The outlined dot is Quick, 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 Quick’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 Quick sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →State House Democratsmedian −0.6Quick −0.6North Carolina Housemedian +0.4All State Housemedian +0.1
Show the data
Quick's CSIP score of −0.63 placed against State House Democrats, North Carolina House, All State House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Quick
State House Democrats2392−0.650%
North Carolina House120+0.427%
All State House5324+0.123%
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 Quick 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 Quick.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Quick reported $2,600 in the 2026 cycle, 6.4% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% 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.

Election cycle
$2,600

itemized in the 2026 cycle

From 2 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): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)Individuals (itemized): $1,000 (38.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)PACs and other committees: $1,600 (61.5%)
  • Individuals (itemized)38 squares$1,000
  • PACs and other committees62 squares$1,600
Show the data
Sources of Quick's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Individuals (itemized)$1,00038.5%
PACs and other committees$1,60061.5%
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.

2020 cycle: $14.3K$14.3K20202022 cycle: $19.1K$19.1K20222024 cycle: $6,750$6,75020242026 cycle: $2,600$2,6002026State House Democrats median $40.4K
Show the data
Quick's receipts by cycle against the 2026 State House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$14.3K
2022 cycle$19.1K
2024 cycle$6,750
2026 cycle$2,600

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from North Carolina.

  1. North Carolina$1,000

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

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: no dataILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: no dataNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: no dataCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: no dataVAMaryland: no dataMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $1,000NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: no dataDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: no dataTXFlorida: no dataFL
Show the data
Quick's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
North Carolina$1,000
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
IllinoisNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
New YorkNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
MassachusettsNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
CaliforniaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
VirginiaNo data
MarylandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
South CarolinaNo data
District of ColumbiaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
TexasNo data
FloridaNo data
2

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

100%

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.

No occupations reported.

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALTON FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER$1,000
  2. NC NURSES PAC$500
  3. COMMITTEE TO ELECT ANGIE MCMICHAEL$100

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Quick voted with the majority of North Carolina House Democrats on 93.1% of party-line votes and missed 13% of 482 roll calls. North Carolina House on average: 92.6% party unity, 92.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Quick voted against the majority of North Carolina House Democrats 18 times.

482 roll calls Quick 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 Quick 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.

18

votes against the majority of North Carolina House Democrats

Party unity 93.1%, North Carolina House average 92.6%, ranks 90th of 120. 482 roll calls in the NC 2025–26 session.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Quick, the thin grey bar the North Carolina House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Quick
Peers
Rank
Attendance
87%
92.6%
100th of 120
Party unity
93.1%
92.6%
90th of 120
Show the data
Quick's attendance and party unity against North Carolina House.
RowQuickPeers
Attendance87%92.6%
Party unity93.1%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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Oct 7, 2026
HJR 2
Adjourn 2026 First Extra Session Sine Die.
Second Reading
NayWith majoritypassD 2–40 · R 61–0 · I 1–0Democrats 2 yea, 40 nay; Republicans 61 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Oct 7, 2026
HB 3
Relief at the Pump.
Second Reading
Did not vote—passD 42–1 · R 66–0Democrats 42 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 66 yea, 0 naybecame law
Oct 7, 2026
HR 1
House Rules - 2026 First Extra Session.
R2 For Adoption M4 Previous Question
Present—passD 1–36 · R 64–0 · I 2–0Democrats 1 yea, 36 nay; Republicans 64 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 naymuch discussed
Oct 7, 2026
HR 1
House Rules - 2026 First Extra Session.
R2 For Adoption
NayWith majoritypassD 12–43 · R 81–0 · I 2–0Democrats 12 yea, 43 nay; Republicans 81 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayparty crossover · much discussed
Aug 5, 2026
SJR 1091
Adjournment Resolution.
Second Reading
YeaAgainst majoritypassD 26–28 · R 67–0 · I 2–0Democrats 26 yea, 28 nay; Republicans 67 yea, 0 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 naybecame 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 Quick most often

  1. Robert ReivesD322 shared votes96%
  2. James RobersonD366 shared votes95%
  3. Ya LiuD365 shared votes94%
  4. Abe JonesD391 shared votes93%
  5. Allen BuansiD390 shared votes93%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Quick least often

  1. George ClevelandR185 shared votes56%
  2. Grey MillsR186 shared votes56%
  3. Tim MooreR205 shared votes58%
  4. Jarrod LoweryR199 shared votes59%
  5. Kelly HastingsR326 shared votes60%
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

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Quick sponsored 13 bills in the NC 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 183 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (North Carolina House average 27%; 95th of 110).

The bills Quick 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

Sponsored13 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1313Sponsored, In committee: 1313Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored183 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 183183Cosponsored, In committee: 183183Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2626Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Quick sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1313000
Cosponsored1831832633
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Quick sponsored, ochre blocks bills Quick cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

North Carolina House average 27%. Ranks 95th of 110.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Quick, by number of shared bills in the NC 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.

  1. Pricey Harrison58
  2. Frances Jackson38
  3. Gloristine Brown38
  4. Maria Cervania37
  5. Julia Greenfield34
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 Quick’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
HB 1246Safeguarding Elections Act.CosponsorJul 30, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and Politics(model)Passed 1st Reading Aug 4, 2026
HR 1245Honor 250th Anniversary and NC's Role.CosponsorJul 30, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedAdopted Aug 5, 2026
HB 1240Constitutional Amendment/Early Voting.CosponsorJun 29, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and Politics(model)Passed 1st Reading Jun 30, 2026
HB 1235Restoring Separation of Powers and Legislative Transparency.CosponsorJun 2, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and Politics(model)Passed 1st Reading Jun 3, 2026
HB 1236Constitutional Amendment/Judicial Standards Commission.CosponsorJun 2, 2026In committeeLaw(model)Passed 1st Reading Jun 3, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Quick’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.

The lab crawls Quick’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 Quick posts with a vision model.

Websites

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.

Images Quick posted

No images from Quick’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.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

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 Quick 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
46275779-8191-48be-8b0b-8373376fa23d
Open States
ocd-person/46275779-8191-48be-8b0b-8373376fa23d

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

Back to top