Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 3, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: mothers · Source
23%
of itemized money from Tennessee donors, in the bottom 5% of State House Democrats
23% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Tennessee. Ranks 1891st of 1,983, where 1st is the highest share. 1,361 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Tennessee, ranked among State House Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. Behn sits at −1.00 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 91% of State House Democrats. 46% of the 28 bills Behn sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Tennessee House.
The measures on which Behn 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.
From Tennessee, 2026
23%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1891st of 1,983 State House Democrats
CSIP ideology
−1.00
More liberal than 91% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05
Out of committee
46%
Tennessee House average 71% · ranks 87th of 97
Party unity
99.5%
Tennessee House average 96.3% · ranks 9th of 97 · 110 votes against the majority of Tennessee House Democrats
Itemized, 2026
$81.6K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 645th of 2,082
Attendance
99.5%
Tennessee House average 99.1% · ranks 63rd of 97 · 4,434 roll calls
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Behn, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Behn is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Behn says
Behn stresses bipartisanship less than 88% of State House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0% of 54 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Democrat; 676th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Behn’s 54 statements in the TN 2025–26 session (54 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 TN 2025–26 session
0%80%
Behn
Peers
Rank
Personal attacks12 statements
22%
3%
8th of 764
Policy discussion2 statements
4%
39%
738th of 764
Policy criticism1 statements
2%
10%
611th of 764
Credit claiming1 statements
2%
14%
648th of 764
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
676th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Behn | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 22% | 3% |
| Policy discussion | 4% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 2% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 2% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
54
statements classified
54 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 54 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Behn; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Behn does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Behn used extreme labels in 28% of statements, 28.9 times the peer average. 15 statements, most often aimed at Aftyn Behn; peers 1.0%.
- “MAGA”8
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Aftyn Behn4
- MAGA3
- Matt Van Epps3
- Behn1
- leftist ideology1
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 TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| May ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
| Nov ’25 | 36 | 27.8% | 2.8% | 2.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 16 | 12.5% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 25.0% |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| 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 TN 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%. 20 months are hatched here; 19 of them have no statements.
In Behn’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.
Dec 1, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Immigration; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 4, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA · 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: mothersSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · credit claiming · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Behn · target: BehnSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Aftyn BehnSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Aftyn BehnSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Aftyn Behn · target: Aftyn BehnSource
All 54 statements
Newest first, the TN 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: 54 posts on X.
Policy
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues is what Behn talks about most: 50% of policy statements, 5.1 times the peer share. Peers give it 9.8%. 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 Behn talks about. The bills Behn sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Behn talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TN 2025–26 session
0%55%
Behn
Peers
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues1 statements
50%
10%
Economics and Public Finance1 statements
50%
11%
Immigration1 statements
50%
4%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
5%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Behn | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 50% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 50% | 11% |
| Immigration | 50% | 4% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Behn’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 50% | 10% | 0% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 50% | 11% | 0% | 2% |
| Immigration | 50% | 4% | 0% | 1% |
| Commerce | 0% | 3% | 6% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 0% | 8% | 25% | 9% |
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 Behn legislates on exactly the areas Behn 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 Behn sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Behn sits at −1.00 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 91% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.04 to −0.95, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,171 donors and 451 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”.
−1.00
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.04 to −0.95. From 2,171 donors and 451 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Behn, 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 Behn’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 Behn sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Tennessee House97 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Behn |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 9% |
| Tennessee House | 97 | +0.4 | 4% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 4% |
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 Behn 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 Behn.
Money
Behn reported $81.6K in the 2026 cycle, 2.0 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 23% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.
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.
$81.6K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 1,361 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)97 squares$79.3K
- PACs and other committees3 squares$2,250
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $79.3K | 97.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $2,250 | 2.8% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $173.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $81.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 23% came from Tennessee.
- Tennessee$18.2K
- California$15.5K
- New York$5,555
- Massachusetts$5,049
- Washington$3,078
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 |
|---|---|
| Tennessee | $18.2K |
| California | $15.5K |
| New York | $5,555 |
| Massachusetts | $5,049 |
| Washington | $3,078 |
| Oregon | $2,764 |
| Maryland | $2,293 |
| Virginia | $2,016 |
| Florida | $1,936 |
| Texas | $1,883 |
| Colorado | $1,742 |
| North Carolina | $1,636 |
| Connecticut | $1,537 |
| Illinois | $1,532 |
| Wisconsin | $1,518 |
| New Mexico | $1,386 |
| Minnesota | $1,237 |
| District of Columbia | $1,098 |
| Pennsylvania | $950 |
| Georgia | $894 |
| Arizona | $870 |
| Ohio | $821 |
| New Jersey | $568 |
| Kentucky | $535 |
| Michigan | $495 |
| Maine | $450 |
| Utah | $405 |
| Vermont | $360 |
| Missouri | $359 |
| West Virginia | $324 |
| South Carolina | $310 |
| Indiana | $256 |
| Delaware | $235 |
| Alaska | $225 |
| New Hampshire | $170 |
| Nevada | $160 |
| Idaho | $150 |
| Hawaii | $117 |
| Arkansas | $116 |
| Alabama | $90 |
| Nebraska | $85 |
| Rhode Island | $60 |
| Iowa | $60 |
| South Dakota | $50 |
| Kansas | $48 |
| Montana | $45 |
| Oklahoma | $25 |
| Mississippi | $24 |
| North Dakota | $20 |
| Louisiana | $20 |
| Wyoming | No data |
1,361
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
23%
from Tennessee
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 Tennessee. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- UNEMPLOYED$38.7K 730 donors
- NOT EMPLOYED$4,109 71 donors
- RETIRED$2,510 61 donors
- ATTORNEY$2,037 32 donors
- MARKETING$1,545 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- LAWYERS INVOLVED FOR TENNESSEE$1,000
- TENNESSEE EDUC ASSN FUND FOR CHILDREN & PUBLIC EDU$1,000
- TENNESSEE TELPAC$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY$156 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Behn voted with the majority of Tennessee House Democrats on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 0.4% of 4,434 roll calls. Tennessee House on average: 96.3% party unity, 99.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Behn voted against the majority of Tennessee House Democrats 110 times.
4,434 roll calls Behn could vote on in the TN 2025–26 session, compared with Tennessee 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 Behn voted with the majority of Tennessee House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
110
votes against the majority of Tennessee House Democrats
Party unity 99.5%, Tennessee House average 96.3%, ranks 9th of 97. 4,434 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Behn, the thin grey bar the Tennessee House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Behn
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.5%
99.1%
63rd of 97
Party unity
99.5%
96.3%
9th of 97
Show the data
| Row | Behn | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.5% | 99.1% |
| Party unity | 99.5% | 96.3% |
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 TN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 2026 | HB 2111 Correctional Programs - As enacted, creates the state families of incarcerated individuals advisory board within the department of correction for the purposes of assisting the families of incarcerated individuals. - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 41. FLOOR VOTE: MESSAGE CALENDAR 2 CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT # 4 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 19–0 · R 75–0Democrats 19 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1209 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Max Christopher Collins, Salutatorian, Creek Wood High School - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 4 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–0 · R 70–0Democrats 17 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 70 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1240 Memorials, Interns - Aaron Sullivan - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 3 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 18–0 · R 71–0Democrats 18 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 71 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1208 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Christopher Heath Foster, Valedictorian, Creek Wood High School - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 4 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–0 · R 70–0Democrats 17 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 70 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1220 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Keely Nicole Melton, Valedictorian, McEwen High School - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 4 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–0 · R 70–0Democrats 17 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 70 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 Behn most often
- Justin JonesD3,730 shared votes99%
- Jack JohnsonR4,098 shared votes99%
- Jason PowellD3,909 shared votes98%
- Shaundelle BrooksD4,191 shared votes98%
- Gabby SalinasD3,600 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Behn least often
- Debra MoodyR3,797 shared votes80%
- Andrew FarmerR3,914 shared votes81%
- Kevin RaperR3,738 shared votes81%
- Susan LynnR3,674 shared votes81%
- Johnny GarrettR3,444 shared votes82%
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
TN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Behn sponsored 28 bills in the TN 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 46% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Tennessee House average 71%; 87th of 97).
The bills Behn sponsored and cosponsored in the TN 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 TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 28 | 27 | 11 | 2 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Behn sponsored, ochre blocks bills Behn cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
46%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Tennessee House average 71%. Ranks 87th of 97.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Behn, by number of shared bills in the TN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 Behn’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HJR 1660 | Memorials, Recognition - Workers killed in the AES explosion - | Sponsor | Apr 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Sponsor(s) Added. Apr 24, 2026 |
| HR 201 | Memorials, Personal Occasion - Bill McCabe, 80th birthday - | Sponsor | Apr 20, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Sponsor(s) Added. Apr 21, 2026 |
| HJR 1253 | Memorials, Recognition - Transgender Day of Visibility - | Sponsor | Mar 31, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Objected to on Consent Calendar. Apr 6, 2026 |
| HR 174 | Memorials, Personal Occasion - Stephanie Ann Wagner, 60th birthday - | Sponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Enrolled; ready for sig. of H. Speaker. Mar 31, 2026 |
| HB 2524 | Criminal Offenses - As introduced, creates the new criminal offenses of systematic unauthorized employment and aggravated systematic unauthorized employment; establishes the tort of unfair competition. - Amends TCA Title 29 and Title 39. | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | P2C, ref. to Commerce Committee - Judiciary Committee Feb 5, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Behn’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Behn’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 Behn posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/legislatorinfo/member.aspx?district=H51Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes 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
- Xaftynbehn
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/aftynbehn/
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/AftynBehn4TN/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/aftynbehn/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/aftynbehn4tn/
Images Behn posted
No images from Behn’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
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Behn 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
- 6dc4d8e8-aa2c-423b-8f5c-8ed4666a27db
- Open States
- ocd-person/6dc4d8e8-aa2c-423b-8f5c-8ed4666a27db
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