Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 10, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics · Source
$500
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of State Senate Democrats
The median for State Senate Democrats is $55.5K. Ranks 739th of 746, where 1st raised the most. 0 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State Senate Democrats. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
5 measures against the Minnesota Senate. 5.4% of the 56 bills Xiong sponsored got out of committee, in the top tenth of the Minnesota Senate. Xiong sits at −0.76 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 67% of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Xiong sits furthest from the middle of the Minnesota Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
$500
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 739th of 746
Out of committee
5.4%
Minnesota Senate average 3.1% · ranks 4th of 67
Party unity
100%
Minnesota Senate average 93.0% · ranks 8th of 67 · 1 votes against the majority of Minnesota Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.76
More liberal than 67% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.13
Attendance
100%
Minnesota Senate average 100% · ranks 34th of 67 · 152 roll calls
Statements
5
5 posts on X
Peer group: Minnesota Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Xiong, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Xiong is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Xiong says
Xiong criticizes policies less than 91% of State Senate Democrats. Policy criticism in 0% of 5 statements, against 10% for the average State Senate Democrat; 304th of 330.
An AI model reads each of Xiong’s 5 statements in the MN 2025–26 session (5 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MN 2025–26 session
0%80%
Xiong
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1 statements
20%
43%
291st of 330
Credit claiming1 statements
20%
16%
115th of 330
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
249th of 330
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
10%
304th of 330
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
294th of 330
Show the data
| Row | Xiong | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 20% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 20% | 16% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
5
statements classified
5 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 5 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Xiong; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Xiong does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Xiong used no extreme labels in 5 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
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 MN 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 MN 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; 18 of them have no statements.
In Xiong’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
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 5 statements
Newest first, the MN 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: 5 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Xiong talks about most: 100% of policy statements, 7.0 times the peer share. Peers give it 14%. 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 Xiong talks about. The bills Xiong sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Xiong talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MN 2025–26 session
0%100%
Xiong
Peers
Government Operations and Politics1 statements
100%
14%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
5%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
3%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues0 statements
0%
8%
Commerce0 statements
0%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Xiong | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 100% | 14% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 8% |
| Commerce | 0% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Xiong’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 100%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 100% | 14% | 20% | 8% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% | 1% | 3% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 3% | 3% | 1% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 8% | 1% | 5% |
| Commerce | 0% | 4% | 4% | 4% |
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 Xiong legislates on exactly the areas Xiong 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 Xiong sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Xiong sits at −0.76 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 67% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.88 to −0.63, which understates the uncertainty; from 36 donors and 422 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”.
−0.76
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.88 to −0.63. From 36 donors and 422 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Xiong, 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 Xiong’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 Xiong sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Minnesota Senate67 · median −0.3
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Xiong |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 33% |
| Minnesota Senate | 67 | −0.3 | 12% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 14% |
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 Xiong 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 Xiong.
Money
Xiong reported $500 in the 2026 cycle, 0.9% of the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
$500
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 0 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- PACs and other committees100 squares$500
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| PACs and other committees | $500 | 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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $8,850 |
| 2022 cycle | $21.8K |
| 2024 cycle | $6,550 |
| 2026 cycle | $500 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state.
No itemized donors with an address.
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
0
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
No itemized individual money.
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Minnesota. 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.
- PRAIRIE ISLAND INDIAN COMMUNITY PAC$500
- LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF MINN & ND POL FUND$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Xiong voted with the majority of Minnesota Senate Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed none of 152 roll calls. Minnesota Senate on average: 93.0% party unity, 100% attendance. Across all roll calls, Xiong voted against the majority of Minnesota Senate Democrats 1 time.
152 roll calls Xiong could vote on in the MN 2025–26 session, compared with Minnesota 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 Xiong voted with the majority of Minnesota Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1
votes against the majority of Minnesota Senate Democrats
Party unity 100%, Minnesota Senate average 93.0%, ranks 8th of 67. 152 roll calls in the MN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Xiong, the thin grey bar the Minnesota Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Xiong
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
100%
34th of 67
Party unity
100%
93.0%
8th of 67
Show the data
| Row | Xiong | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 100% |
| Party unity | 100% | 93.0% |
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 MN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2026 | SF 3967 Due date of the pediatric hospital-to-home transition pilot program report modification Third reading Passed as amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 34–0 · R 6–27Democrats 34 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 6 yea, 27 nay | party crossover |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 3629 Program payment withholding provided for credible allegation of fraud, grant management provisions changed, and program integrity reports required. Third reading Passed as amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 34–0 · R 33–0Democrats 34 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 33 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 719 Safe routes to school grant program funding provided, bonds issued, and money appropriated. Third reading Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 34–0 · R 26–7Democrats 34 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 26 yea, 7 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 4492 Read Act modified, early literacy field experiences required for teacher candidates, high school diploma established for veterans, and rulemaking required. Third reading Passed as amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 34–0 · R 33–0Democrats 34 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 33 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 2484 Bonding bill; spending authorized to acquire and better land and buildings and for other improvements of a capital nature, new programs established and existing programs modified, report required, prior appropriations modified and canceled, and money appropriated. Third reading Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 34–0 · R 16–17Democrats 34 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 17 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 Xiong most often
- Sandy PappasD145 shared votes100%
- Bonnie WestlinD152 shared votes100%
- Erin MurphyD152 shared votes100%
- Bobby Joe ChampionD152 shared votes100%
- Steve CwodzinskiD152 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Xiong least often
- Eric LuceroR148 shared votes38%
- Cal BahrR149 shared votes38%
- Nathan WesenbergR151 shared votes40%
- Bill LieskeR150 shared votes41%
- Bruce AndersonR53 shared votes42%
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
MN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Xiong sponsored 56 bills in the MN 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 57 others. 5.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Minnesota Senate average 3.1%; 4th of 67).
The bills Xiong sponsored and cosponsored in the MN 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 MN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 56 | 56 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 57 | 57 | 7 | 5 | 4 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Xiong sponsored, ochre blocks bills Xiong cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
5.4%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Minnesota Senate average 3.1%. Ranks 4th of 67.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Xiong, by number of shared bills in the MN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Susan Pha22
- Foung Hawj21
- Jim Abeler10
- Liz Boldon9
- Amanda Hemmingsen-Jaeger8
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 Xiong’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SF 5195 | Tax establishment on certain individuals and organizations convicted of and benefitting from fraud | Cosponsor | Apr 22, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Referred to Taxes Apr 22, 2026 |
| SF 5190 | City of North St. Paul new water tower appropriation and prior appropriation cancellation | Sponsor | Apr 21, 2026 | In committee | Water Resources Development(model) | Referred to Capital Investment Apr 21, 2026 |
| SF 5133 | City of Oakdale water infrastructure appropriation and bons issuance authorization | Sponsor | Apr 15, 2026 | In committee | Water Resources Development(model) | Referred to Capital Investment Apr 15, 2026 |
| SF 5132 | City of Oakdale certain government facilities construction sales and use tax exemption | Sponsor | Apr 15, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Referred to Taxes Apr 15, 2026 |
| SF 5088 | State and local government policy provisions modifications and appropriations | Sponsor | Apr 13, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Referred to State and Local Government Apr 13, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Xiong’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Xiong’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 Xiong posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Xiong posted
No images from Xiong’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
69 turns, Mar 2, 2023 to May 16, 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 Xiong is most unusual among Minnesota Senate, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 5d9e1da5-ecf9-45d9-b104-7d1238032aff
- Open States
- ocd-person/5d9e1da5-ecf9-45d9-b104-7d1238032aff
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