Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 31, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Labor and Employment · Source
100%
of itemized money from Iowa 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 Iowa. Ranks 195th of 1,983, where 1st is the highest share. 9 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 Iowa, 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. Jacoby sits at −0.87 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 82% of State House Democrats. 5.0% of the 60 bills Jacoby sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Iowa House.
The measures on which Jacoby 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 Iowa, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 195th of 1,983 State House Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.87
More liberal than 82% of State House Democrats · ± 0.07
Out of committee
5.0%
Iowa House average 13% · ranks 79th of 98
Attendance
89%
Iowa House average 91.8% · ranks 73rd of 98 · 822 roll calls
Itemized, 2026
$25.1K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1260th of 2,082
Party unity
97.2%
Iowa House average 96.0% · ranks 52nd of 98 · 55 votes against the majority of Iowa House Democrats
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Jacoby, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Jacoby is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Jacoby says
Jacoby claims credit less than 95% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 0% of 45 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 729th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Jacoby’s 45 statements in the IA 2025–26 session (45 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 House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the IA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Jacoby
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion10 statements
22%
39%
610th of 764
Policy criticism7 statements
16%
10%
192nd of 764
Personal attacks3 statements
7%
3%
95th of 764
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
676th of 764
Credit claiming0 statements
0%
14%
729th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Jacoby | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 22% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 16% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 7% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 14% |
45
statements classified
45 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 45 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Jacoby; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Jacoby does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Jacoby used extreme labels in 4.4% of statements, 4.6 times the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at Noard of Regents; peers 1.0%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Noard of Regents1
- right wing1
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 IA 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 IA 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; 6 of them have no statements.
In Jacoby’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 2, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: US Department of Housing and Urban Development · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 5, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at right wing · 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: US Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Texas governorSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: unknownSource
All 45 statements
Newest first, the IA 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: 45 posts on X.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what Jacoby talks about most: 40% of policy statements, 3.8 times the peer share. Peers give it 11%. 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 Jacoby talks about. The bills Jacoby sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Jacoby talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the IA 2025–26 session
0%44%
Jacoby
Peers
Economics and Public Finance4 statements
40%
11%
Labor and Employment2 statements
20%
6%
Taxation2 statements
20%
4%
Education1 statements
10%
15%
Foreign Trade and International Finance1 statements
10%
1%
Show the data
| Row | Jacoby | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 40% | 11% |
| Labor and Employment | 20% | 6% |
| Taxation | 20% | 4% |
| Education | 10% | 15% |
| Foreign Trade and International Finance | 10% | 1% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Jacoby’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 44%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 40% | 11% | 4% | 2% |
| Labor and Employment | 20% | 6% | 16% | 6% |
| Taxation | 20% | 4% | 16% | 7% |
| Education | 10% | 15% | 16% | 10% |
| Foreign Trade and International Finance | 10% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
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 Jacoby legislates on exactly the areas Jacoby 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 Jacoby sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Jacoby sits at −0.87 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 82% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.94 to −0.81, which understates the uncertainty; from 103 donors and 561 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”.
−0.87
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.94 to −0.81. From 103 donors and 561 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Jacoby, 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 Jacoby’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 Jacoby sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Iowa House99 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Jacoby |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 18% |
| Iowa House | 99 | +0.4 | 6% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 8% |
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 Jacoby 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 Jacoby.
Money
Jacoby reported $25.1K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Iowa.
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.
$25.1K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 9 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)3 squares$790
- PACs and other committees97 squares$24.4K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $790 | 3.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $24.4K | 96.9% |
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.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $63.8K |
| 2022 cycle | $54.8K |
| 2024 cycle | $49.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $25.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Iowa.
- Iowa$790
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 |
|---|---|
| Iowa | $790 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
9
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Iowa
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 Iowa. 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.
- HY-VEE, INC. EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$4,500
- CREDIT UNION PAC$4,000
- RPAC IOWA - REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,500
- ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF IOWA PAC$1,000
- BANKERS UNITE IN LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS AKA: BUILD$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Jacoby voted with the majority of Iowa House Democrats on 97.2% of party-line votes and missed 11% of 822 roll calls. Iowa House on average: 96.0% party unity, 91.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Jacoby voted against the majority of Iowa House Democrats 55 times.
822 roll calls Jacoby could vote on in the IA 2025–26 session, compared with Iowa 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 Jacoby voted with the majority of Iowa House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
55
votes against the majority of Iowa House Democrats
Party unity 97.2%, Iowa House average 96.0%, ranks 52nd of 98. 822 roll calls in the IA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Jacoby, the thin grey bar the Iowa House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Jacoby
Peers
Rank
Attendance
89%
91.8%
73rd of 98
Party unity
97.2%
96.0%
52nd of 98
Show the data
| Row | Jacoby | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 89% | 91.8% |
| Party unity | 97.2% | 96.0% |
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 IA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2026 | HF 2801 A bill for an act modifying the major economic growth attraction program, and including effective date provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 16–15 · R 59–2Democrats 16 yea, 15 nay; Republicans 59 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 639 A bill for an act creating a specialty business court, and including effective date provisions. Shall amendment H-8456 be adopted? | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–27 · R 8–50Democrats 0 yea, 27 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 50 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | HF 2770 A bill for an act relating to and making appropriations to the justice system, providing fees, and including applicability provisions. Shall amendment H-8451, to amendment H-8414, be adopted? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 55–3Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 55 yea, 3 nay | became law |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 2480 A bill for an act relating to the taxation and regulation of alternative nicotine products and vapor products, making appropriations, and including effective date provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 14–13 · R 53–5Democrats 14 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 53 yea, 5 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 2465 A bill for an act relating to agriculture, including by providing for the powers and duties of the department of agriculture and land stewardship, including the promotion and regulation of commodities and products, the regulation of the transportation of agricultural items, the use of agricultural l Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 22–3 · R 59–1Democrats 22 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 59 yea, 1 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 Jacoby most often
- Larry McBurneyD735 shared votes93%
- Bob KressigD690 shared votes93%
- Amy NielsenD607 shared votes92%
- Ross WilburnD723 shared votes92%
- Tracy EhlertD695 shared votes92%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Jacoby least often
- Mark CisnerosR687 shared votes52%
- Wendy LarsonR421 shared votes52%
- Charley ThomsonR735 shared votes52%
- Bill GustoffR653 shared votes53%
- Brent SiegristR481 shared votes54%
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
IA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Jacoby sponsored 60 bills in the IA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 5.0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Iowa House average 13%; 79th of 98).
The bills Jacoby sponsored and cosponsored in the IA 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 IA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 60 | 59 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Jacoby sponsored, ochre blocks bills Jacoby cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
5.0%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Iowa House average 13%. Ranks 79th of 98.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Jacoby, by number of shared bills in the IA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Bob Kressig21
- Brian Meyer20
- Ken Croken19
- Eric Gjerde18
- Tracy Ehlert18
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 Jacoby’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 112 | A resolution recognizing the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the University of Northern Iowa. | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Resolution adopted. Mar 25, 2026 |
| HF 2740 | A bill for an act relating to the confidentiality of certain information filed with the secretary of state by foreign persons holding agricultural land. | Sponsor | Mar 17, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | Introduced, referred to State Government. Mar 17, 2026 |
| HF 2735 | A bill for an act relating to programs administered by the Iowa finance authority including the firsthome program and home ownership assistance program for military members, making appropriations, and including effective date provisions. | Sponsor | Mar 9, 2026 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | Introduced, referred to Appropriations. Mar 9, 2026 |
| HF 2738 | A bill for an act establishing a state-based health insurance subsidy, and making an appropriation. | Sponsor | Mar 9, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Introduced, referred to Ways and Means. Mar 9, 2026 |
| HF 2733 | A bill for an act relating to water quality, including a water quality monitoring network and the water quality initiative, an agricultural best management practices tax credit, an Iowa clean water farm program and property tax credit, and water quality practices loans, making appropriations, and in | Sponsor | Mar 9, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection(model) | Introduced, referred to Ways and Means. Mar 9, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Jacoby’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Jacoby’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 Jacoby posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Jacoby posted
No images from Jacoby’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
40 turns, Feb 24, 2026 to Oct 2, 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 Jacoby 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
- 55c46119-e6fa-4b22-ade6-18990aeacf0c
- Open States
- ocd-person/55c46119-e6fa-4b22-ade6-18990aeacf0c
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