8.5% of 1,835 statements contain a personal attack (155 statements); the average for State Senate Republicans is 2.3%. Ranks 24th of 354, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Nesbitt’s posts on X and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 4.5% of Nesbitt’s statements use an extreme label, 3.6 times the State Senate Republican average of 1.3%. 23% of Nesbitt’s statements criticize a policy, 2.4 times the State Senate Republican average of 9.5%.
The measures on which Nesbitt sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Personal attacks
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 24th of 354
Extreme labels
State Senate Republicans average 1.3% · ranks 28th of 354
Policy criticism
State Senate Republicans average 9.5% · ranks 36th of 354
Out of committee
Michigan Senate average 38% · ranks 34th of 38
Talk-to-bills agreement
State Senate Republicans average 0.52 · ranks 200th of 226
CSIP ideology
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Nesbitt, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Nesbitt is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Nesbitt attacks opponents personally more than 93% of State Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 8.5% of 1,835 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 24th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Nesbitt’s 1,835 statements in the MI 2025–26 session (1,835 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the MI 2025–26 session
| Row | Nesbitt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 44% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 23% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 8% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 8% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
statements classified
1,835 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,835 |
The thick bar is Nesbitt; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Nesbitt does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Nesbitt used extreme labels in 4.5% of statements, 3.6 times the peer average. 83 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 1.3%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the MI 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 84 | 9.5% | 57.1% | 65.5% | 3.6% | 8.3% | 5.9% |
| Feb ’25 | 125 | 11.2% | 33.6% | 43.2% | 4.8% | 7.2% | 5.6% |
| Mar ’25 | 206 | 3.9% | 21.4% | 40.3% | 1.5% | 8.7% | 3.9% |
| Apr ’25 | 164 | 7.3% | 26.8% | 39.6% | 1.2% | 8.5% | 1.8% |
| May ’25 | 93 | 11.8% | 28.0% | 47.3% | 1.1% | 11.8% | 5.4% |
| Jun ’25 | 198 | 4.0% | 19.2% | 42.4% | 0.5% | 6.1% | 3.5% |
| Jul ’25 | 60 | 10.0% | 16.7% | 41.7% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 3.3% |
| Aug ’25 | 73 | 6.9% | 30.1% | 32.9% | 2.7% | 1.4% | 1.4% |
| Sep ’25 | 103 | 6.8% | 13.6% | 20.4% | 1.0% | 8.7% | 4.9% |
| Oct ’25 | 154 | 6.5% | 26.6% | 37.0% | 0.0% | 11.0% | 11.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 69 | 14.5% | 26.1% | 31.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 11.6% |
| Dec ’25 | 75 | 5.3% | 12.0% | 64.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 2.7% |
| Jan ’26 | 93 | 18.3% | 3.2% | 69.9% | 0.0% | 11.8% | 1.1% |
| Feb ’26 | 121 | 15.7% | 23.1% | 41.3% | 1.7% | 9.9% | 4.1% |
| Mar ’26 | 43 | 0.0% | 25.6% | 32.6% | 0.0% | 7.0% | 7.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 38 | 5.3% | 7.9% | 55.3% | 0.0% | 7.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 25 | 8.0% | 24.0% | 52.0% | 4.0% | 8.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 28 | 7.1% | 32.1% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 3.6% | 7.1% |
| Jul ’26 | 31 | 12.9% | 6.5% | 64.5% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 24 | 20.8% | 16.7% | 66.7% | 4.2% | 4.2% | 4.2% |
| Sep ’26 | 21 | 4.8% | 9.5% | 61.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.8% |
| Oct ’26 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 MI 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%. One month is hatched here.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 7, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Economics and Public Finance; target: Jocelyn Benson · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 10, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “radical” aimed at left · Source
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 · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Economics and Public Finance · target: Jocelyn BensonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Commerce · Education · target: WhitmerSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: SheSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Jocelyn BensonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Immigration · target: Jocelyn BensonSource
Newest first, the MI 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,835 posts on X.
Economics and Public Finance is what Nesbitt talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.37 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 200th of 226).
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 Nesbitt talks about. The bills Nesbitt sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the MI 2025–26 session
| Row | Nesbitt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 17% |
| Immigration | 16% | 4% |
| Education | 15% | 14% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 10% | 12% |
The thick bar is the share of Nesbitt’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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.
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 Senate Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 12% | 2% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 17% | 5% | 12% |
| Immigration | 16% | 4% | 0% | 1% |
| Education | 15% | 14% | 20% | 10% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 10% | 12% | 13% | 10% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 200th of 226.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Nesbitt legislates on exactly the areas Nesbitt 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 Nesbitt sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Nesbitt sits at +0.59 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 82% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.56 to +0.62, which understates the uncertainty; from 512 donors and 1,196 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.56 to +0.62. From 512 donors and 1,196 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Nesbitt, 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 Nesbitt’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Nesbitt |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 82% |
| Michigan Senate | 38 | −0.4 | 82% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 90% |
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 Nesbitt 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 Nesbitt.
Nesbitt reported $187.2K in the 2026 cycle, 4.0 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 91% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 20 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $10.7K | 5.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $176.6K | 94.3% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $118.3K |
| 2022 cycle | $223.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $174.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $187.2K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 91% came from Michigan.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $9,651 |
| Texas | $500 |
| Kansas | $250 |
| Florida | $250 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Michigan
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Nesbitt voted with the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans on 93.2% of party-line votes and missed none of 523 roll calls. Michigan Senate on average: 92.6% party unity, 95.5% attendance. Across all roll calls, Nesbitt voted against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans 30 times.
523 roll calls Nesbitt could vote on in the MI 2025–26 session, compared with Michigan 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 Nesbitt voted with the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Michigan Senate Republicans
Party unity 93.2%, Michigan Senate average 92.6%, ranks 28th of 37. 523 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Nesbitt, the thin grey bar the Michigan Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Nesbitt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 95.5% |
| Party unity | 93.2% | 92.6% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the MI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 2026 | HB 5356 Vehicles: title; requirements for transfer of title by a dealer; provide for. Amends 14, 41a, 78, 217, 217c, 233, 233a, 233b, 234, 238, 239, 240, 248, 248a, 248j, 249, 250, 258, 801b, 806 & 810a of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.14 et seq.) & adds sec. 9b. PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 263 YEAS 31 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 4 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 18–1 · R 13–2Democrats 18 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | SB 947 Natural resources: inland lakes; dam safety regulations; provide for. Amends and adds (See bill). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5485'26 ROLL CALL: ROLL CALL # 260 YEAS 34 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 14–2Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | HB 5485 Natural resources: inland lakes; dam safety regulations; provide for. Amends secs. 31502, 31503, 31504, 31505, 31506, 31507, 31508, 31509, 31510, 31511, 31513, 31515, 31516, 31517, 31518, 31520, 31521 & 31523 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.31502 et seq.) & adds secs. 31506a, 31509a, 31509b, 31517a, 31518a, PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 247 YEAS 34 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 14–2Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 2 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 1, 2026 | HB 4598 Crimes: organized; gift card fraud; provide for. Amends sec. 4 of 2012 PA 455 (MCL 752.1084). PASSED; GIVEN IMMEDIATE EFFECT ROLL CALL # 253 YEAS 36 NAYS 0 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 16–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 1, 2026 | SB 791 Highways: memorial; portion of I-475; designate as the "St. John Street Community Memorial Highway". Amends 2001 PA 142 (MCL 250.1001 - 250.2092) by adding sec. 124. PASSED ROLL CALL # 258 YEAS 33 NAYS 3 EXCUSED 2 NOT VOTING 0 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 13–3Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 3 nay | party crossover |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Nesbitt most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Nesbitt least often
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.
MI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Nesbitt sponsored 8 bills in the MI 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 48 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Michigan Senate average 38%; 34th of 38).
The bills Nesbitt sponsored and cosponsored in the MI 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.
Counts for the MI 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 8 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 48 | 47 | 17 | 7 | 1 |
Ink blocks are bills Nesbitt sponsored, ochre blocks bills Nesbitt cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Michigan Senate average 38%. Ranks 34th of 38.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Nesbitt, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Nesbitt’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SCR 16 | A concurrent resolution of tribute offered as a memorial for John Pappageorge, former member of the Michigan Senate and Michigan House of Representatives. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SENATE AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NAMED CO-SPONSORS Oct 14, 2026 |
| SR 146 | A resolution of tribute offered as a memorial for John Joseph Henry Schwarz, M.D., former member of the Michigan Senate. | Cosponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SENATE AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NAMED CO-SPONSORS Oct 14, 2026 |
| SR 136 | A resolution to designate September 2026 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. | Cosponsor | Sep 9, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ADOPTED Sep 9, 2026 |
| SJR K | State management: other; use of autopen to sign bills, executive orders, or clemency documents; prohibit. Amends sec. 14, art. V & adds sec. 31 to art. V of the state constitution. | Cosponsor | Jul 1, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS Jul 1, 2026 |
| SB 1083 | Taxation: administration; calculation of interest and penalties related to the issuance of certain refunds; provide for. Amends sec. 30 of 1941 PA 122 (MCL 205.30). | Cosponsor | Jul 1, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Jul 1, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Nesbitt’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Nesbitt’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 Nesbitt posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Nesbitt’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Nesbitt is most unusual among State Senate 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
