Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 26, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
87%
of State House Democrats score to the right of Cahill on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.94 (approximate range −1.00 to −0.87, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 307 donors and 133 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 Cahill sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 100% of Cahill’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Massachusetts, in the top quarter of State House Democrats. Cahill missed 1.7% of 234 roll calls, attendance in the bottom half of the Massachusetts House (average 97.4%).
The measures on which Cahill 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.
CSIP ideology
−0.94
More liberal than 87% of State House Democrats · ± 0.06
From Massachusetts, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 412th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Party unity
100%
Massachusetts House average 98.5% · ranks 58th of 156 · 0 votes against the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats
Attendance
98.2%
Massachusetts House average 97.4% · ranks 91st of 156 · 234 roll calls
Itemized, 2026
$55.1K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 866th of 2,082
Out of committee
2.0%
Massachusetts House average 4.0% · ranks 66th of 147
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Cahill, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Cahill is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Cahill says
Cahill criticizes policies less than 93% of State House Democrats. Policy criticism in 0% of 3 statements, against 10% for the average State House Democrat; 717th of 765.
An AI model reads each of Cahill’s 3 statements in the MA 2025–26 session (3 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 MA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Cahill
Peers
Rank
Credit claiming3 statements
100%
14%
1st of 765
Policy discussion2 statements
67%
39%
52nd of 765
Bipartisanship1 statements
33%
3%
1st of 765
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
584th of 765
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
10%
717th of 765
Show the data
| Row | Cahill | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Credit claiming | 100% | 14% |
| Policy discussion | 67% | 39% |
| Bipartisanship | 33% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 10% |
3
statements classified
3 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 3 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Cahill; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Cahill does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Cahill used no extreme labels in 3 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
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 MA 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 MA 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; 19 of them have no statements.
In Cahill’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 20, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Crime and Law Enforcement · 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 3 statements
Newest first, the MA 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: 3 posts on X.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Cahill talks about most: 50% of policy statements, 16.1 times the peer share. Peers give it 3.1%. 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 Cahill talks about. The bills Cahill sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Cahill talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MA 2025–26 session
0%55%
Cahill
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security1 statements
50%
3%
Crime and Law Enforcement1 statements
50%
8%
Health1 statements
50%
15%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
5%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues0 statements
0%
10%
Show the data
| Row | Cahill | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 50% | 3% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 50% | 8% |
| Health | 50% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 10% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Cahill’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 55%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 50% | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 50% | 8% | 4% | 9% |
| Health | 50% | 15% | 16% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% | 2% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 10% | 3% | 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 Cahill legislates on exactly the areas Cahill 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 Cahill sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Cahill sits at −0.94 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 87% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.00 to −0.87, which understates the uncertainty; from 307 donors and 133 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”.
−0.94
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.00 to −0.87. From 307 donors and 133 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Cahill, 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 Cahill’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 Cahill sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Massachusetts House157 · median −0.6
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Cahill |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 13% |
| Massachusetts House | 157 | −0.6 | 18% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 6% |
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 Cahill 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 Cahill.
Money
Cahill reported $55.1K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Massachusetts.
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.
$55.1K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 153 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)76 squares$42.1K
- PACs and other committees24 squares$13.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $42.1K | 76.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $13.0K | 23.6% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $24.7K |
| 2022 cycle | $33.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $65.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $55.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Massachusetts.
- Massachusetts$42.0K
- New Hampshire$500
- Michigan$500
- Rhode Island$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 |
|---|---|
| Massachusetts | $42.0K |
| New Hampshire | $500 |
| Michigan | $500 |
| Rhode Island | $200 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| New York | 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 |
153
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Massachusetts
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 Massachusetts. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- ATTORNEY$7,650 32 donors
- PRINCIPAL$5,050 19 donors
- OWNER$4,500 8 donors
- CONSULTANT$3,325 15 donors
- PRESIDENT$2,800 8 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. / ENTERPRISE MOBILITY MASSACHUSETTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- INT'L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 4 SOCIAL POL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMM$1,000
- GREATER BOSTON REAL ESTATE BOARD PAC$600
- MA ASSOC. OF REALTORS POL ACTION COMM. - MA RPAC$600
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- ISSUES MANAGEMENT GROUP$1,600 7 donors
- SMITH COSTELLO & CRAWFORD$1,000 5 donors
- BRIAN HICKEY ASSOCIATES$800 3 donors
- O'NEILL AND ASSOCIATES$800 3 donors
- TREMONT STRATEGIES GROUP$800 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Cahill voted with the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 1.7% of 234 roll calls. Massachusetts House on average: 98.5% party unity, 97.4% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cahill never voted against the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats.
234 roll calls Cahill could vote on in the MA 2025–26 session, compared with Massachusetts 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 Cahill voted with the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
0
votes against the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats
Party unity 100%, Massachusetts House average 98.5%, ranks 58th of 156. 234 roll calls in the MA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Cahill, the thin grey bar the Massachusetts House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Cahill
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.2%
97.4%
91st of 156
Party unity
100%
98.5%
58th of 156
Show the data
| Row | Cahill | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.2% | 97.4% |
| Party unity | 100% | 98.5% |
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 MA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 117–9 · R 0–24 · I 1–0Democrats 117 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 24 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 22, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 127–0 · R 24–0 · I 1–0Democrats 127 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 22, 2026 | H 5388 An Act authorizing the transfer of a certain parcel of land in the town of Marion from the Open Space Acquisition Commission to the Select Board H. 5388 On Enactment Land Taking | Yea | With majority | pass | D 128–0 · R 24–0 · I 1–0Democrats 128 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jul 15, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 127–0 · R 24–0 · I 1–0Democrats 127 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 8, 2026 | H 5569 An Act relative to property tax classifications in the city of Watertown for fiscal year 2027 and subsequent fiscal years H. 5569 On passing to be engrossed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 125–0 · R 23–0 · I 1–0Democrats 125 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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 Cahill most often
- Jay LivingstoneD230 shared votes100%
- Bill GalvinD218 shared votes100%
- David LinskyD218 shared votes100%
- Patrick KearneyD211 shared votes100%
- Jessica GianninoD230 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cahill least often
- Nick BoldygaR197 shared votes35%
- Marc LombardoR219 shared votes35%
- John GaskeyR212 shared votes35%
- David DeCosteR230 shared votes46%
- Ken SweezeyR229 shared votes46%
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
MA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Cahill sponsored 51 bills in the MA 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 91 others. 2.0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Massachusetts House average 4.0%; 66th of 147).
The bills Cahill sponsored and cosponsored in the MA 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 MA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 51 | 50 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 91 | 91 | 11 | 6 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Cahill sponsored, ochre blocks bills Cahill cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
2.0%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Massachusetts House average 4.0%. Ranks 66th of 147.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Cahill, by number of shared bills in the MA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Natalie Higgins13
- Sean Reid13
- Manny Cruz12
- Sam Montaño11
- Carmine Gentile11
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 Cahill’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H 5697 | An Act relative to firefighter retirement benefits | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read third and passed to be engrossed Oct 21, 2026 |
| H 5631 | An Act mandating access to cancer screenings for firefighters through health care benefits plans or programs provided by the public employer | Cosponsor | Jul 31, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Health(model) | Referred to the committee on Bills in the Third Reading Oct 19, 2026 |
| H 5625 | An Act relative to the Massachusetts Credit Union Share Insurance Corporation | Cosponsor | Jul 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Finance and Financial Sector(model) | Read; and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means Aug 4, 2026 |
| H 5626 | An Act to improve outcomes for persons with limb loss and limb difference | Cosponsor | Jul 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Health(model) | Read; and referred to the committee on Senate Ways and Means Aug 4, 2026 |
| H 5491 | An Act implementing the recommendations of the Walsh-Kennedy Commission Report | Cosponsor | Jun 10, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Referred to the committee on Bills in the Third Reading Aug 17, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Cahill’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Cahill’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 Cahill 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 Cahill posted
No images from Cahill’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
12 turns, Apr 29, 2025 to Jul 30, 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 Cahill 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
- 5f227f77-f58b-4ac6-b193-9f406bde4055
- Open States
- ocd-person/5f227f77-f58b-4ac6-b193-9f406bde4055
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