Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 7, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics · Source
58
statements classified
58 posts on X in the IN 2025–26 session. No measure in the IN 2025–26 session stands far from the peer average.
Every post, press release, newsletter and floor speech the lab collected and ran through its classifier.
At a glance
5 measures against the Indiana House. Davis missed 7.8% of 908 roll calls, attendance in the bottom half of the Indiana House (average 91.6%). The policy areas Davis talks about and legislates on agree at 0.51 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom half of State House Republicans. Davis sits at +0.40 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 58% of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Davis sits furthest from the middle of the Indiana House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
92.1%
Indiana House average 91.6% · ranks 66th of 100 · 908 roll calls
Party unity
98.4%
Indiana House average 95.2% · ranks 35th of 100 · 21 votes against the majority of Indiana House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.51
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 302nd of 504
CSIP ideology
+0.40
More conservative than 58% of State House Republicans · ± 0.07
Out of committee
39%
Indiana House average 46% · ranks 58th of 99
Statements
58
58 posts on X
Peer group: Indiana House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Davis, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Davis is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Davis says
Davis attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 58 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Davis’s 58 statements in the IN 2025–26 session (58 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 IN 2025–26 session
0%80%
Davis
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion27 statements
47%
32%
179th of 791
Credit claiming18 statements
31%
13%
60th of 791
Policy criticism2 statements
3%
9%
529th of 791
Bipartisanship1 statements
2%
2%
298th of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Davis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 47% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 31% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 3% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
58
statements classified
58 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 58 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Davis; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Davis does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Davis used extreme labels in 1.7% of statements, above the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at America First; peers 1.4%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- America First1
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 IN 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 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 8 | — (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 | 4 | — (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 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 9.1% |
| Apr ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 57.1% | 7.1% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’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) |
| 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 | 1 | — (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 | 1 | — (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 | 3 | — (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 | 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) |
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 IN 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; 11 of them have no statements.
In Davis’s words
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.
Feb 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Commerce; Agriculture and Food; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Immigration; Families; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at America First · 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 58 statements
Newest first, the IN 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: 58 posts on X.
Policy
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues is what Davis talks about most: 37% of policy statements, 6.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.51 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 302nd of 504).
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 Davis talks about. The bills Davis sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Davis talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the IN 2025–26 session
0%41%
Davis
Peers
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues10 statements
37%
6%
Government Operations and Politics8 statements
30%
18%
Education5 statements
19%
15%
Families5 statements
19%
4%
Crime and Law Enforcement3 statements
11%
11%
Show the data
| Row | Davis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 37% | 6% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 30% | 18% |
| Education | 19% | 15% |
| Families | 19% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 11% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Davis’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 41%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 37% | 6% | 9% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 30% | 18% | 10% | 12% |
| Education | 19% | 15% | 29% | 9% |
| Families | 19% | 4% | 6% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 11% | 3% | 11% |
0.51
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 302nd of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Davis legislates on exactly the areas Davis 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 Davis sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Davis sits at +0.40 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 58% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.33 to +0.47, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 517 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”.
+0.40
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.33 to +0.47. From 0 donors and 517 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Davis, 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 Davis’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 Davis sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Indiana House100 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Davis |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 58% |
| Indiana House | 100 | +0.4 | 53% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 77% |
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 Davis 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 Davis.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Davis voted with the majority of Indiana House Republicans on 98.4% of party-line votes and missed 7.8% of 908 roll calls. Indiana House on average: 95.2% party unity, 91.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Davis voted against the majority of Indiana House Republicans 21 times.
908 roll calls Davis could vote on in the IN 2025–26 session, compared with Indiana 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 Davis voted with the majority of Indiana House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
21
votes against the majority of Indiana House Republicans
Party unity 98.4%, Indiana House average 95.2%, ranks 35th of 100. 908 roll calls in the IN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Davis, the thin grey bar the Indiana House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Davis
Peers
Rank
Attendance
92.1%
91.6%
66th of 100
Party unity
98.4%
95.2%
35th of 100
Show the data
| Row | Davis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 92.1% | 91.6% |
| Party unity | 98.4% | 95.2% |
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 IN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 0–29 · R 62–2 · I 0–1Democrats 0 yea, 29 nay; Republicans 62 yea, 2 nay; Independents 0 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 29–0 · R 65–0 · I 1–0Democrats 29 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 30–0 · R 65–0 · I 1–0Democrats 30 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 26–3 · R 65–0 · I 1–0Democrats 26 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Feb 27, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 30–0 · R 65–0 · I 1–0Democrats 30 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Davis most often
- Jeff ThompsonR774 shared votes98%
- Craig SnowR750 shared votes98%
- Brad BarrettR745 shared votes98%
- Bob BehningR722 shared votes98%
- Tim O'BrienR836 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Davis least often
- Reneé PackD362 shared votes53%
- Ryan DvorakD740 shared votes54%
- Ragen HatcherD659 shared votes55%
- Gregory PorterD782 shared votes57%
- John BartlettD807 shared votes57%
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
IN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Davis sponsored 18 bills in the IN 2025–26 session; 5 became law. Cosponsored 50 others. 39% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Indiana House average 46%; 58th of 99).
The bills Davis sponsored and cosponsored in the IN 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 IN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 18 | 18 | 7 | 6 | 5 |
| Cosponsored | 50 | 50 | 36 | 20 | 18 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Davis sponsored, ochre blocks bills Davis cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
39%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Indiana House average 46%. Ranks 58th of 99.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Davis, by number of shared bills in the IN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- J.D. Prescott12
- Linda Rogers11
- Jeff Raatz10
- Lonnie Randolph9
- Gary Byrne8
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 Davis’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 51 | Honoring Officer Brian Elliott | Cosponsor | Feb 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | First reading: adopted Feb 25, 2026 |
| HR 35 | Congratulating the Whiteland Community High School Girls Wrestling Team. | Sponsor | Feb 10, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | First reading: adopted Feb 10, 2026 |
| HR 36 | Recognizing March 17, 2026, as Profound Autism Day and April as National Autism Month. | Cosponsor | Feb 10, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | First reading: adopted Feb 10, 2026 |
| HR 28 | Recognizing the seriousness of the U.S. national debt and its threat to national security. | Cosponsor | Feb 5, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Representative Borders added as coauthor Feb 18, 2026 |
| SCR 8 | Recognizing the Indiana horse racing industry. | Cosponsor | Jan 22, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Representatives Pierce K, Criswell, Culp, May, McNamara, King, Dant Chesser, Wesco, Isa, Harris, Bartlett, Novak R, Lucas, Lawson, Morris, VanNatter, Jackson C, Moed, Davis, Mayfield, Miller D, Pryor, Zimmerman, Judy, Bartels, Aylesworth, Genda, GiaQuinta, Carbaugh added as cosponsors Feb 9, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Davis’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Davis’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 Davis posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
iga.in.gov/legislative/2024/legislators/legislator_michelle_davis_1Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 0
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
Images Davis posted
No images from Davis’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
27 turns, Mar 18, 2021 to Feb 5, 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 Davis is most unusual among Indiana 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. That is the case for Davis in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 7580d002-efd7-461a-80ee-06c82ab0db71
- Open States
- ocd-person/7580d002-efd7-461a-80ee-06c82ab0db71
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