Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 24, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: AnnieForTruth · Source
36%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom 5% of the Oklahoma House
Attendance 64%; the average within the Oklahoma House is 90.1%. Ranks 96th of 97, where 1st has the highest attendance. 1,932 roll calls in the OK 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Tedford could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Oklahoma House. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
6 measures against the Oklahoma House. 77% of Tedford’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Oklahoma, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans. Tedford reported $50.7K in the 2026 cycle, in the top half of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Tedford sits furthest from the middle of the Oklahoma House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
64%
Oklahoma House average 90.1% · ranks 96th of 97 · 1,932 roll calls
Party unity
94.3%
Oklahoma House average 88% · ranks 7th of 97 · 34 votes against the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans
From Oklahoma, 2026
77%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1972nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Itemized, 2026
$50.7K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 973rd of 2,521
CSIP ideology
+0.38
More conservative than 55% of State House Republicans · ± 0.05
Out of committee
45%
Oklahoma House average 44% · ranks 54th of 98
Peer group: Oklahoma House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Tedford, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Tedford is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Tedford says
Tedford claims credit less than 68% of State House Republicans. Credit claiming in 5.5% of 55 statements, against 13% for the average State House Republican; 540th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Tedford’s 55 statements in the OK 2025–26 session (55 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 OK 2025–26 session
0%80%
Tedford
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion9 statements
16%
32%
627th of 791
Policy criticism5 statements
9%
9%
300th of 791
Credit claiming3 statements
5%
13%
540th of 791
Personal attacks1 statements
2%
3%
320th of 791
Bipartisanship1 statements
2%
2%
282nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Tedford | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 16% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 9% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 5% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
55
statements classified
55 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 55 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Tedford; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Tedford does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Tedford used no extreme labels in 55 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the OK 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the OK 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 22 months are hatched here; 5 of them have no statements.
In Tedford’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Agriculture and Food · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 19, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works · 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: AnnieForTruthSource
All 55 statements
Newest first, the OK 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 55 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Tedford talks about most: 56% of policy statements, 3.7 times the peer share. Peers give it 15%. 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 Tedford talks about. The bills Tedford sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Tedford talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the OK 2025–26 session
0%61%
Tedford
Peers
Education5 statements
56%
15%
Agriculture and Food1 statements
11%
4%
Finance and Financial Sector1 statements
11%
1%
Law1 statements
11%
3%
Transportation and Public Works1 statements
11%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Tedford | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 56% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 11% | 4% |
| Finance and Financial Sector | 11% | 1% |
| Law | 11% | 3% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 11% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Tedford’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 61%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 56% | 15% | 6% | 9% |
| Agriculture and Food | 11% | 4% | 2% | 3% |
| Finance and Financial Sector | 11% | 1% | 34% | 3% |
| Law | 11% | 3% | 7% | 3% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 11% | 4% | 5% | 6% |
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 Tedford legislates on exactly the areas Tedford 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 Tedford sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Tedford sits at +0.38 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 55% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.33 to +0.43, which understates the uncertainty; from 330 donors and 434 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”.
+0.38
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.33 to +0.43. From 330 donors and 434 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Tedford, 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 Tedford’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 Tedford sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Oklahoma House99 · median +0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Tedford |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 55% |
| Oklahoma House | 99 | +0.3 | 54% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 75% |
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 Tedford 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 Tedford.
Money
Tedford reported $50.7K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 77% of itemized individual money came from Oklahoma.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
$50.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 51 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)51 squares$25.8K
- PACs and other committees49 squares$24.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $25.8K | 50.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $24.9K | 49.1% |
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 | $22.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $69.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $50.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 77% came from Oklahoma.
- Oklahoma$19.8K
- Arkansas$3,500
- Texas$2,500
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Oklahoma | $19.8K |
| Arkansas | $3,500 |
| Texas | $2,500 |
| 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 |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Florida | No data |
51
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
77%
from Oklahoma
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Oklahoma. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- CEO$2,750 4 donors
- OWNER$2,600 5 donors
- PRESIDENT$2,500 4 donors
- ENTREPRENEUR$1,200 3 donors
- PARTNER$1,100 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN FIDELITY CORPORATION PAC$2,000
- AMBER INTEGRATED PAC$1,750
- DELTA DENTAL OF OKLAHOMA FOR ORAL HEALTH PAC$1,500
- OKLAHOMA DENTAL PAC$1,500
- OKLAHOMA'S ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES PAC$1,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT PROVIDED$400 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Tedford voted with the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans on 94.3% of party-line votes and missed 36% of 1,932 roll calls. Oklahoma House on average: 88% party unity, 90.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Tedford voted against the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans 34 times.
1,932 roll calls Tedford could vote on in the OK 2025–26 session, compared with Oklahoma 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 Tedford voted with the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
34
votes against the majority of Oklahoma House Republicans
Party unity 94.3%, Oklahoma House average 88%, ranks 7th of 97. 1,932 roll calls in the OK 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Tedford, the thin grey bar the Oklahoma House average. The scale runs from 60% to 100% to show the gap.
60%100%
Tedford
Peers
Rank
Attendance
64%
90.1%
96th of 97
Party unity
94.3%
88%
7th of 97
Show the data
| Row | Tedford | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 64% | 90.1% |
| Party unity | 94.3% | 88% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the OK 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2026 | SB 2 Wind energy; providing setback requirements for certain affected counties; waiver; referral of question to eligible voters; zoning; construction; exemptions; database. Fourth Reading | Did not vote | — | fail | D 4–10 · R 15–57Democrats 4 yea, 10 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 57 nay | party crossover · much discussed |
| May 14, 2026 | SB 1589 Crimes and punishments; modifying scope of certain offense related to gambling. Effective date. Veto Override Without Emer. | Did not vote | — | pass | D 15–0 · R 52–19Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 19 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 14, 2026 | HB 1370 Motor Fuel Tax Code; repealer; reduction in federal excise tax on gasoline or diesel fuel; emergency. Fourth Reading | Did not vote | — | pass | D 15–1 · R 73–0Democrats 15 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 73 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 14, 2026 | SB 893 Property and critical infrastructure; creating the Military Installation and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2025. Effective date. Fourth Reading | Did not vote | — | pass | D 16–0 · R 72–0Democrats 16 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 72 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 7, 2026 | SB 1209 Forcible entry and detainer; modifying time period for certain trial. Effective date. Reconsider Measure | Did not vote | — | pass | D 16–0 · R 34–40Democrats 16 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 34 yea, 40 nay | party crossover |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Tedford most often
- Kevin NorwoodR511 shared votes97%
- John PfeifferR1,036 shared votes97%
- John GeorgeR1,217 shared votes97%
- Eddy DempseyR1,014 shared votes97%
- Nicole MillerR1,076 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Tedford least often
- Tom GannR1,230 shared votes47%
- Molly JenkinsR1,230 shared votes49%
- Rick WestR1,177 shared votes55%
- Jim ShawR1,232 shared votes59%
- Jim OlsenR1,186 shared votes68%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
OK 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Tedford sponsored 116 bills in the OK 2025–26 session; 14 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 45% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Oklahoma House average 44%; 54th of 98).
The bills Tedford sponsored and cosponsored in the OK 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the OK 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 116 | 116 | 41 | 24 | 14 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Tedford sponsored, ochre blocks bills Tedford cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
45%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Oklahoma House average 44%. Ranks 54th of 98.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Tedford, by number of shared bills in the OK 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Dave Rader22
- Aaron Reinhardt21
- Bill Coleman8
- Avery Frix5
- Lonnie Paxton4
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 Tedford’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 2931 | Insurance; Oklahoma Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association coverage; annuities; effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Finance and Financial Sector(model) | Referred to Rules Feb 11, 2026 |
| SB 1765 | Oklahoma Producer Licensing Act; requiring disclosure of fees in advance of services. Effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Finance and Financial Sector(model) | Coauthored by Representative Tedford (principal House author) Feb 3, 2026 |
| HB 3045 | Motor vehicles; prohibiting the charging of certain fee for accident response by certain entities; effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Second Reading referred to Public Safety Apr 1, 2026 |
| HB 3656 | Hazing; establishing reporting requirements for hazing incidents; effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Second Reading referred to Rules Feb 3, 2026 |
| HB 3058 | Agriculture; Oklahoma Agriculture Act of 2026; effective date. | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | Second Reading referred to Rules Feb 3, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Tedford’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Tedford’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 Tedford posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 3
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
- XMarkTedfordOK
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/tedfordforoklahoma/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/tedford.mark/
- YouTubewww.youtube.com/@marktedford502
- Truth Socialtruthsocial.com/@MarkTedford
Images Tedford posted
No images from Tedford’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
93 turns, Feb 28, 2023 to May 7, 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 Tedford is most unusual among Oklahoma House, 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
- 6cac2a71-37ce-41be-8e9a-059f7a8667c5
- Open States
- ocd-person/6cac2a71-37ce-41be-8e9a-059f7a8667c5
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