Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
0.31
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the bottom 5% of State House Republicans
Agreement 0.31 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State House Republicans is 0.53. Ranks 486th of 504, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in McAlindon’s statements matches the mix in the bills McAlindon sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State House Republicans.
At a glance
5 measures against State House Republicans. 66% of McAlindon’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Arkansas, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans. McAlindon reported $59.3K in the 2026 cycle, in the top half of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which McAlindon sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.31
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 486th of 504
From Arkansas, 2026
66%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2094th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Itemized, 2026
$59.3K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 855th of 2,521
CSIP ideology
+0.31
More liberal than 57% of State House Republicans · ± 0.06
Out of committee
61%
Arkansas House average 56% · ranks 36th of 81
Statements
116
116 posts on X
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is McAlindon, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which McAlindon is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What McAlindon says
McAlindon criticizes policies less than 92% of State House Republicans. Policy criticism in 0% of 116 statements, against 9.3% for the average State House Republican; 735th of 791.
An AI model reads each of McAlindon’s 116 statements in the AR 2025–26 session (116 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the AR 2025–26 session
0%80%
McAlindon
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion25 statements
22%
32%
531st of 791
Credit claiming16 statements
14%
13%
313th of 791
Personal attacks1 statements
1%
3%
413th of 791
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
9%
735th of 791
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
677th of 791
Show the data
| Row | McAlindon | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 22% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 14% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
116
statements classified
116 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 116 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is McAlindon; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means McAlindon does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
McAlindon used extreme labels in 0.9% of statements, below the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at far leftists; peers 1.4%.
- “far left”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- far leftists1
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 AR 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 5.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 14 | 7.1% | 0.0% | 21.4% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 AR 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%. 17 months are hatched here; 5 of them have no statements.
In McAlindon’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.
Nov 1, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: joey dwy · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 30, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “far left” aimed at far leftists · 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: joey dwySource
All 116 statements
Newest first, the AR 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: 116 posts on X.
Policy
Agriculture and Food is what McAlindon talks about most: 20% of policy statements, 4.5 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.31 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 486th of 504).
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 McAlindon talks about. The bills McAlindon sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What McAlindon talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the AR 2025–26 session
0%35%
McAlindon
Peers
Agriculture and Food5 statements
20%
4%
Education5 statements
20%
15%
International Affairs4 statements
16%
2%
Armed Forces and National Security3 statements
12%
5%
Economics and Public Finance2 statements
8%
12%
Show the data
| Row | McAlindon | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 20% | 4% |
| Education | 20% | 15% |
| International Affairs | 16% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 12% | 5% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 8% | 12% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of McAlindon’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 20% | 4% | 0% | 3% |
| Education | 20% | 15% | 17% | 9% |
| International Affairs | 16% | 2% | 3% | 1% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 12% | 5% | 3% | 2% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 8% | 12% | 3% | 2% |
0.31
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 486th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means McAlindon legislates on exactly the areas McAlindon 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 McAlindon sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
McAlindon sits at +0.31 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 57% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.26 to +0.37, which understates the uncertainty; from 173 donors and 289 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”.
+0.31
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.26 to +0.37. From 173 donors and 289 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is McAlindon, 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 McAlindon’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 McAlindon sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Arkansas House97 · median +0.1
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of McAlindon |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 43% |
| Arkansas House | 97 | +0.1 | 87% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 69% |
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 McAlindon 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 McAlindon.
Money
McAlindon reported $59.3K in the 2026 cycle, 1.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 66% of itemized individual money came from Arkansas.
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.
$59.3K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 23 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)17 squares$10.3K
- PACs and other committees70 squares$41.5K
- Party committees13 squares$7,500
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $10.3K | 17.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $41.5K | 70.0% |
| Party committees | $7,500 | 12.6% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $50.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $149.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $59.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 66% came from Arkansas.
- Arkansas$6,791
- Tennessee$1,500
- Missouri$1,000
- California$500
- Georgia$200
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 |
|---|---|
| Arkansas | $6,791 |
| Tennessee | $1,500 |
| Missouri | $1,000 |
| California | $500 |
| Connecticut | $200 |
| Georgia | $200 |
| Florida | $100 |
| 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 |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | 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 |
| 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 |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
23
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
66%
from Arkansas
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 Arkansas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$800 6 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ARKANSAS REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$3,500
- REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ARKANSAS (STATE) PAPER$3,500
- REPUBLICAN PARTY OF BENTON COUNTY (P)$3,500
- TEAM SHS (SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS) PAC$3,500
- ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE HOUSE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the AR 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
McAlindon sponsored 31 bills in the AR 2025–26 session; 16 became law. Cosponsored 42 others. 61% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Arkansas House average 56%; 36th of 81).
The bills McAlindon sponsored and cosponsored in the AR 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 AR 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 31 | 31 | 19 | 17 | 16 |
| Cosponsored | 42 | 42 | 29 | 27 | 26 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills McAlindon sponsored, ochre blocks bills McAlindon cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
61%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Arkansas House average 56%. Ranks 36th of 81.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with McAlindon, by number of shared bills in the AR 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Rebecca Burkes13
- Robin Lundstrum11
- Alyssa Brown10
- Hope Duke10
- Kendra Moore9
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 McAlindon’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 1001 | TO REDUCE THE INCOME TAX RATES FOR INDIVIDUALS, TRUSTS, ESTATES, AND CORPORATIONS. | Cosponsor | May 1, 2026 | Became law | Taxation(model) | Notification that HB1001 is now Act 1 May 6, 2026 |
| HB 1103 | TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. | Cosponsor | Apr 21, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Taxation(model) | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's Office. Apr 28, 2026 |
| HB 1102 | AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR. | Sponsor | Apr 21, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. Apr 29, 2026 |
| HB 1992 | TO REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOR DANGEROUS DOGS AND VICIOUS DOGS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. | Sponsor | Apr 7, 2025 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR Apr 10, 2025 |
| HB 1990 | TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION. | Sponsor | Apr 3, 2025 | In committee | Education(model) | Recommended for study in the Interim by the Committee on EDUCATION COMMITTEE- HOUSE Apr 16, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 3 times in 90 days. McAlindon’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls McAlindon’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 McAlindon posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
3changes 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 McAlindon posted
No images from McAlindon’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
58 turns, Feb 21, 2023 to Apr 27, 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 McAlindon is most unusual among State House 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
- 5f09e022-f775-4da8-aaad-224793aa2230
- Open States
- ocd-person/5f09e022-f775-4da8-aaad-224793aa2230
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