Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 6, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism · Source
94%
of State Senate Republicans score to the right of Hamilton on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.04 (approximate range −0.06 to −0.01, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 275 donors and 587 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 Hamilton sits among State Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. Hamilton reported $6,146 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans (median $46.2K). 100% of Hamilton’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Oklahoma, in the top quarter of State Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Hamilton 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
−0.04
More liberal than 94% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.02
Itemized, 2026
$6,146
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 811th of 936
From Oklahoma, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 136th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Attendance
97.2%
Oklahoma Senate average 93.7% · ranks 9th of 47 · 1,658 roll calls
Party unity
89%
Oklahoma Senate average 90.2% · ranks 31st of 47 · 271 votes against the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans
Out of committee
59%
Oklahoma Senate average 56% · ranks 25th of 47
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hamilton, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hamilton is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hamilton says
Hamilton stresses bipartisanship less than 87% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0% of 34 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 311th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Hamilton’s 34 statements in the OK 2025–26 session (34 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 OK 2025–26 session
0%80%
Hamilton
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion5 statements
15%
37%
311th of 354
Credit claiming3 statements
9%
15%
222nd of 354
Policy criticism2 statements
6%
9%
189th of 354
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
272nd of 354
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
311th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Hamilton | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 15% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 9% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 6% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
34
statements classified
34 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 34 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Hamilton; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Hamilton does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Hamilton used no extreme labels in 34 statements. The peer average is 1.3%.
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 OK 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 OK 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 12 of them have no statements.
In Hamilton’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.
May 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Immigration · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 34 statements
Newest first, the OK 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: 34 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Hamilton talks about most: 40% of policy statements, 3.4 times the peer share. Peers give it 12%. 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 Hamilton talks about. The bills Hamilton sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Hamilton talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the OK 2025–26 session
0%44%
Hamilton
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement2 statements
40%
12%
Immigration2 statements
40%
4%
Public Lands and Natural Resources2 statements
40%
2%
Agriculture and Food1 statements
20%
6%
Health1 statements
20%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Hamilton | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 40% | 12% |
| Immigration | 40% | 4% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 40% | 2% |
| Agriculture and Food | 20% | 6% |
| Health | 20% | 9% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Hamilton’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 44%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 40% | 12% | 31% | 10% |
| Immigration | 40% | 4% | 0% | 1% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 40% | 2% | 3% | 3% |
| Agriculture and Food | 20% | 6% | 2% | 3% |
| Health | 20% | 9% | 8% | 11% |
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 Hamilton legislates on exactly the areas Hamilton 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 Hamilton sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Hamilton sits at −0.04 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 94% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range −0.06 to −0.01, which understates the uncertainty; from 275 donors and 587 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”.
−0.04
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.06 to −0.01. From 275 donors and 587 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hamilton, 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 Hamilton’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 Hamilton sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Oklahoma Senate47 · median +0.4
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hamilton |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 6% |
| Oklahoma Senate | 47 | +0.4 | 26% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 46% |
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 Hamilton 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 Hamilton.
Money
Hamilton reported $6,146 in the 2026 cycle, 13% of the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Oklahoma.
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.
$6,146
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 3 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)100 squares$6,146
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $6,146 | 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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $89.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $3,100 |
| 2024 cycle | $67.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $6,146 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Oklahoma.
- Oklahoma$6,146
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 |
|---|---|
| Oklahoma | $6,146 |
| 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 |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
3
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Oklahoma
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 Oklahoma. 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.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Hamilton voted with the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans on 89% of party-line votes and missed 2.7% of 1,658 roll calls. Oklahoma Senate on average: 90.2% party unity, 93.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hamilton voted against the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans 271 times.
1,658 roll calls Hamilton could vote on in the OK 2025–26 session, compared with Oklahoma 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 Hamilton voted with the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
271
votes against the majority of Oklahoma Senate Republicans
Party unity 89%, Oklahoma Senate average 90.2%, ranks 31st of 47. 1,658 roll calls in the OK 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Hamilton, the thin grey bar the Oklahoma Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Hamilton
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.2%
93.7%
9th of 47
Party unity
89%
90.2%
31st of 47
Show the data
| Row | Hamilton | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.2% | 93.7% |
| Party unity | 89% | 90.2% |
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 OK 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2026 | SB 1360 Mathematics instruction; Oklahoma Math Achievement and Proficiency Act; teacher training; creating the Office of Mathematics Improvement; Director; screening instrument; funding. Effective date. Emergency. Fourth Reading | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 35–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 35 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 14, 2026 | SJR 52 Joint resolution; approving certain proposed permanent rules of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority. Fourth Reading | Yea | With majority | pass | D 8–0 · R 28–8Democrats 8 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 28 yea, 8 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 14, 2026 | HB 3004 Professions and occupations; Board of Examiners in Optometry; sunset; effective date; emergency. Veto Override With Emergency | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 38–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 38 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 14, 2026 | HJR 1092 Joint Resolution; Oklahoma Uniform Building Code Commission; approving certain proposed permanent rule changes; directing distribution. Third Reading | Yea | With majority | pass | D 8–1 · R 29–9Democrats 8 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 29 yea, 9 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 14, 2026 | SB 2071 Agriculture; Oklahoma Milk and Milk Products Act; clarifying jurisdictional authority of dairy inspection and grading programs. Effective date. House Amendments | Nay | With majority | fail | D 1–7 · R 16–20Democrats 1 yea, 7 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 20 nay | 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 Hamilton most often
- Micheal BergstromR1,554 shared votes89%
- Bryan LoganR863 shared votes88%
- Jonathan WingardR1,459 shared votes87%
- Tom WoodsR1,397 shared votes86%
- George BurnsR1,524 shared votes86%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hamilton least often
- Regina GoodwinD1,538 shared votes63%
- Nikki NiceD1,587 shared votes64%
- Carri HicksD1,533 shared votes65%
- Julia KirtD1,549 shared votes65%
- Michael BrooksD1,441 shared votes67%
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
OK 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Hamilton sponsored 122 bills in the OK 2025–26 session; 22 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 59% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Oklahoma Senate average 56%; 25th of 47).
The bills Hamilton sponsored and cosponsored in the OK 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 OK 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 122 | 121 | 56 | 30 | 22 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Hamilton sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hamilton cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
59%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Oklahoma Senate average 56%. Ranks 25th of 47.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hamilton, by number of shared bills in the OK 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Tim Turner26
- Jim Olsen7
- Ross Ford6
- Jim Grego4
- John George4
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 Hamilton’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 3695 | Motor vehicles; personal injury accidents; modifying scope of certain defined term; effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | Became law | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Becomes law without Governor's signature 05/06/2026 May 6, 2026 |
| SB 1924 | Oklahoma Employees Insurance and Benefits Act; increasing opt-out amount for certain employees. Effective date. Emergency. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Second Reading referred to Business and Insurance Committee then to Appropriations Committee Feb 3, 2026 |
| HB 4144 | Oklahoma Open Records Act; law enforcement records; arrest and incident reports; public inspection; effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Placed on General Order Apr 23, 2026 |
| SB 1814 | Economic development; removing requirement for members of the Legislative Evaluation and Development Committee to submit to certain nondisclosure agreements. Emergency. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Second Reading referred to Economic Development, Workforce and Tourism Feb 3, 2026 |
| SB 1510 | Energy; Oklahoma Wind Energy Development Act; modifying property restoration requirements; modifying allowable financial assurance instruments. Effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Energy(model) | Coauthored by Representative Turner (principal House author) Mar 4, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Hamilton’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Hamilton’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 Hamilton posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
Campaign site
www.votehamilton.org/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ3rd9leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFVZjMxcEluSzZSMkg5azRwAR6F3KBjraqLvTSqvzfr9H5oV_ZtcTnrWIMghoAOKdSd43w2BIud4_yTk4MLbQ_aem_x6kJT2E6ELfsebzoxM0NCALast crawled Oct 1, 2026
8pages 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 Hamilton posted
No images from Hamilton’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
314 turns, May 27, 2021 to May 14, 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 Hamilton 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
- 48d6aa7c-97e1-4c69-8014-8818ae9ad055
- Open States
- ocd-person/48d6aa7c-97e1-4c69-8014-8818ae9ad055
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