Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 3, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Taxation · Source
100%
of itemized money from Vermont donors, in the top quarter of State House Republicans
100% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2024 cycle came from donors with an address in Vermont. Ranks 51st of 214, where 1st is the highest share. 7 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 Vermont, ranked among State House Republicans. 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
4 measures against State House Republicans. Goslant sits at +0.24 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 70% of State House Republicans. 57% of the 107 bills Goslant sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom half of the Vermont House.
The measures on which Goslant sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From Vermont, 2024
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 51st of 214 State House Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.24
More liberal than 70% of State House Republicans · ± 0.04
Out of committee
57%
Vermont House average 62% · ranks 103rd of 150
Itemized, 2024
$4,110
State House Republicans’ median $10.7K · ranks 170th of 240
Statements
49
49 posts on X
Roll calls
74
Compared with Vermont House
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Goslant, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Goslant is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Goslant says
Goslant attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 49 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Goslant’s 49 statements in the VT 2025–26 session (49 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 VT 2025–26 session
0%80%
Goslant
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion5 statements
10%
32%
694th of 791
Policy criticism2 statements
4%
9%
493rd of 791
Bipartisanship2 statements
4%
2%
97th of 791
Credit claiming1 statements
2%
13%
666th of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Goslant | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 10% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 2% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
49
statements classified
49 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 49 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Goslant; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Goslant does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Goslant used no extreme labels in 49 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 VT 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 VT 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 Goslant’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.
Aug 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship; credit claiming · 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 49 statements
Newest first, the VT 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: 49 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Goslant talks about most: 40% of policy statements, 2.3 times the peer share. Peers give it 18%. 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 Goslant talks about. The bills Goslant sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Goslant talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the VT 2025–26 session
0%44%
Goslant
Peers
Government Operations and Politics2 statements
40%
18%
Taxation2 statements
40%
8%
Environmental Protection1 statements
20%
2%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
4%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Goslant | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 40% | 18% |
| Taxation | 40% | 8% |
| Environmental Protection | 20% | 2% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 4% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Goslant’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 44%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 40% | 18% | 0% | 12% |
| Taxation | 40% | 8% | 11% | 11% |
| Environmental Protection | 20% | 2% | 11% | 3% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 4% | 2% | 3% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 5% | 4% | 2% |
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 Goslant legislates on exactly the areas Goslant 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 Goslant sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Goslant sits at +0.24 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 70% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.19 to +0.28, which understates the uncertainty; from 17 donors and 346 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”.
+0.24
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.19 to +0.28. From 17 donors and 346 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Goslant, 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 Goslant’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 Goslant sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Vermont House147 · median −0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Goslant |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 30% |
| Vermont House | 147 | −0.4 | 79% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 61% |
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 Goslant 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 Goslant.
Money
Goslant reported $4,110 in the 2024 cycle, 39% of the State House Republicans’ median of $10.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Vermont.
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.
$4,110
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 7 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $10.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)79 squares$3,250
- PACs and other committees12 squares$500
- Party committees9 squares$360
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $3,250 | 79.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $500 | 12.2% |
| Party committees | $360 | 8.8% |
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, 2020 to 2024. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $4,200 |
| 2022 cycle | $3,925 |
| 2024 cycle | $4,110 |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Vermont.
- Vermont$3,250
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 |
|---|---|
| Vermont | $3,250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | 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 |
| 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 |
7
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Vermont
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 Vermont. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
- COMMON SENSE LEADERSHIP PAC$500
- PHIL SCOTT FOR VERMONT$250
- WASHINGTON COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE$110
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Goslant voted with the majority of Vermont House Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed 1.3% of 74 roll calls. Vermont House on average: 92.1% party unity, 92.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Goslant voted against the majority of Vermont House Republicans 1 time.
74 roll calls Goslant could vote on in the VT 2025–26 session, compared with Vermont 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 Goslant voted with the majority of Vermont House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1
votes against the majority of Vermont House Republicans
Party unity 100%, Vermont House average 92.1%, ranks 20th of 143. 74 roll calls in the VT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Goslant, the thin grey bar the Vermont House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Goslant
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.6%
92.3%
35th of 143
Party unity
100%
92.1%
20th of 143
Show the data
| Row | Goslant | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.6% | 92.3% |
| Party unity | 100% | 92.1% |
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 VT 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2026 | JRS 56 Joint resolution relating to final adjournment of the General Assembly in 2026 Which was agreed to on a Roll Call Passed -- Needed 65 of 130 to Pass -- Yeas = 114, Nays = 16 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 59–11 · R 46–2 · I 2–1Democrats 59 yea, 11 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 2 nay; Independents 2 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| May 29, 2026 | H 955 An act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont’s education system Which was agreed to on a Roll Call Passed -- Needed 68 of 135 to Pass -- Yeas = 125, Nays = 10 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 68–7 · R 46–2 · I 2–1Democrats 68 yea, 7 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 2 nay; Independents 2 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | H 949 An act relating to homestead property tax yields, the nonhomestead property tax rate, and technical changes to education finance Which was agreed to on a Roll Call Passed -- Needed 67 of 134 to Pass -- Yeas = 111, Nays = 23 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 58–16 · R 45–3 · I 1–2Democrats 58 yea, 16 nay; Republicans 45 yea, 3 nay; Independents 1 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 28, 2026 | S 64 An act relating to amendments to the scope of practice for optometrists Which was agreed to on a Roll Call Passed -- Needed 66 of 131 to Pass -- Yeas = 93, Nays = 38 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 39–33 · R 46–1 · I 2–1Democrats 39 yea, 33 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 1 nay; Independents 2 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 26, 2026 | S 71 An act relating to consumer data privacy and online surveillance Which was agreed to on a Roll Call Passed -- Needed 66 of 132 to Pass -- Yeas = 129, Nays = 3 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 67–2 · R 48–1 · I 3–0Democrats 67 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 48 yea, 1 nay; Independents 3 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 Goslant most often
- Larry LaborR71 shared votes96%
- Lynn DickinsonR65 shared votes95%
- Penny DemarR72 shared votes94%
- Woody PageR70 shared votes94%
- Alicia MalayR63 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Goslant least often
- Chloe TomlinsonD72 shared votes22%
- Troy HeadrickD72 shared votes24%
- Mary-Katherine StoneD65 shared votes25%
- Emily Carris-DuncanD63 shared votes25%
- Mary HowardD59 shared votes25%
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
VT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Goslant sponsored 107 bills in the VT 2025–26 session; 3 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 57% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Vermont House average 62%; 103rd of 150).
The bills Goslant sponsored and cosponsored in the VT 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 VT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 107 | 104 | 61 | 3 | 3 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Goslant sponsored, ochre blocks bills Goslant cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
57%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Vermont House average 62%. Ranks 103rd of 150.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Goslant, by number of shared bills in the VT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- V.L. Coffin21
- Mike Morgan16
- Sandy Pinsonault14
- Dave Bosch13
- Gina Galfetti13
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 Goslant’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HCR 307 | House concurrent resolution honoring Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie of Hartford for his inspirational civic leadership and extending future best wishes | Sponsor | May 21, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Ceremonial Reading May 26, 2026 |
| HCR 298 | House concurrent resolution recognizing the importance of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife’s fish culture program for the continued success of aquatic-resource sustainability and the availability of abundant recreational fishing opportunities in Vermont | Sponsor | May 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | Ceremonial Reading May 20, 2026 |
| HCR 297 | House concurrent resolution honoring Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department Director of Fisheries Eric Palmer and extending future best wishes | Sponsor | May 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted pursuant to Joint Rule 16b May 15, 2026 |
| HCR 303 | House concurrent resolution extending best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery to the indomitable Representative Anne de la Blanchetai Donahue of Northfield | Sponsor | May 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Ceremonial Reading May 19, 2026 |
| HCR 301 | House concurrent resolution recognizing May 2026 as National Foster Care Month in Vermont | Sponsor | May 14, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted pursuant to Joint Rule 16b May 15, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Goslant’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Goslant’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 Goslant posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes 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
- XGoslantKen
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/goslantforhouse/
- Instagramkengoslant
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/ken-goslant-092352115/
- Emailkgoslant@leg.state.vt.us
Images Goslant posted
No images from Goslant’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
4 turns, Jan 29, 2026 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 Goslant is most unusual among State House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 723a6dd0-9f92-4fdf-b506-f6947a3ccfe7
- Open States
- ocd-person/723a6dd0-9f92-4fdf-b506-f6947a3ccfe7
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