Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 30, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Economics and Public Finance; Energy; Taxation; Education · Source
92%
of State House Republicans score to the left of Paul on the CSIP scale
CSIP score +0.71 (approximate range +0.64 to +0.77, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 185 donors and 593 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Paul sits among State House Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 23% of Paul’s statements criticize a policy, 2.5 times the State House Republican average of 9.3%. 80% of Paul’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Maine, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Paul 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.
Party unity
99.4%
Maine House average 95.9% · ranks 5th of 149 · 35 votes against the majority of Maine House Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.71
More conservative than 92% of State House Republicans · ± 0.06
Policy criticism
23%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 80th of 791
From Maine, 2026
80%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1919th of 2,335 State House Republicans
Extreme labels
2.5%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 158th of 791
Policy discussion
47%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 165th of 791
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Paul, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Paul is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Paul says
Paul criticizes policies more than 89% of State House Republicans. Policy criticism in 23% of 899 statements, against 9.3% for the average State House Republican; 80th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Paul’s 899 statements in the ME 2025–26 session (899 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 ME 2025–26 session
0%80%
Paul
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion426 statements
47%
32%
165th of 791
Policy criticism206 statements
23%
9%
80th of 791
Credit claiming61 statements
7%
13%
490th of 791
Personal attacks19 statements
2%
3%
290th of 791
Bipartisanship8 statements
1%
2%
422nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Paul | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 47% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 23% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 7% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
899
statements classified
899 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 899 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Paul; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Paul does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Paul used extreme labels in 2.5% of statements, above the peer average. 22 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 1.4%.
- “radical”7
- “far left”3
- “extreme”2
- “communist”1
- “fascist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats4
- radical left2
- church1
- Democrat Party1
- environmental groups1
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 ME 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 67 | 9.0% | 14.9% | 26.9% | 0.0% | 10.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 66 | 0.0% | 22.7% | 42.4% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 46 | 0.0% | 17.4% | 50.0% | 2.2% | 19.6% | 2.2% |
| Apr ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 22.2% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 42 | 0.0% | 21.4% | 45.2% | 2.4% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 30.0% | 50.0% | 2.5% | 7.5% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 18.2% | 40.9% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 4.5% |
| Aug ’25 | 35 | 2.9% | 20.0% | 48.6% | 2.9% | 8.6% | 2.9% |
| Sep ’25 | 33 | 3.0% | 33.3% | 45.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 9.1% |
| Oct ’25 | 46 | 2.2% | 32.6% | 43.5% | 2.2% | 6.5% | 6.5% |
| Nov ’25 | 45 | 2.2% | 31.1% | 40.0% | 2.2% | 2.2% | 4.4% |
| Dec ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 15.0% | 55.0% | 0.0% | 2.5% | 2.5% |
| Jan ’26 | 59 | 3.4% | 18.6% | 64.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.7% |
| Feb ’26 | 41 | 2.4% | 48.8% | 68.3% | 0.0% | 12.2% | 4.9% |
| Mar ’26 | 34 | 2.9% | 41.2% | 52.9% | 2.9% | 2.9% | 2.9% |
| Apr ’26 | 36 | 5.6% | 25.0% | 58.3% | 0.0% | 2.8% | 2.8% |
| May ’26 | 34 | 5.9% | 20.6% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 5.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 56 | 1.8% | 32.1% | 41.1% | 0.0% | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Jul ’26 | 47 | 0.0% | 12.8% | 40.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.1% |
| Aug ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 6.7% | 56.7% | 3.3% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 39 | 0.0% | 10.3% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 2.6% |
| Oct ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 13.0% | 60.9% | 0.0% | 13.0% | 0.0% |
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 ME 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%.
In Paul’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.
Oct 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health; Taxation · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “radical” aimed at Maine Democrats · 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: government schoolingSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: climate griftersSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · target: Maine DemocratsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: Maine DemocratsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
All 899 statements
Newest first, the ME 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: 899 posts on X.
Policy
Energy is what Paul talks about most: 51% of policy statements, 12.5 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.57 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 187th 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 Paul talks about. The bills Paul sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Paul talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the ME 2025–26 session
0%56%
Paul
Peers
Energy214 statements
51%
4%
Economics and Public Finance48 statements
11%
12%
Government Operations and Politics39 statements
9%
18%
Education35 statements
8%
15%
Environmental Protection33 statements
8%
2%
Show the data
| Row | Paul | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | 51% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 9% | 18% |
| Education | 8% | 15% |
| Environmental Protection | 8% | 2% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Paul’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 56%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy | 51% | 4% | 19% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 9% | 18% | 5% | 12% |
| Education | 8% | 15% | 9% | 9% |
| Environmental Protection | 8% | 2% | 11% | 3% |
0.57
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 187th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Paul legislates on exactly the areas Paul 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 Paul sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Paul sits at +0.71 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 92% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.64 to +0.77, which understates the uncertainty; from 185 donors and 593 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”.
+0.71
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.64 to +0.77. From 185 donors and 593 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Paul, 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 Paul’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 Paul sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Maine House152 · median −0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Paul |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 92% |
| Maine House | 152 | −0.3 | 97% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 96% |
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 Paul 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 Paul.
Money
Paul reported $23.6K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 80% of itemized individual money came from Maine.
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.
$23.6K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 85 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)87 squares$20.5K
- PACs and other committees13 squares$3,100
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $20.5K | 86.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $3,100 | 13.1% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $16.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $35.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $23.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 80% came from Maine.
- Maine$16.5K
- Florida$625
- West Virginia$600
- Tennessee$600
- Texas$600
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 |
|---|---|
| Maine | $16.5K |
| Florida | $625 |
| West Virginia | $600 |
| Tennessee | $600 |
| Texas | $600 |
| Massachusetts | $550 |
| South Carolina | $500 |
| Virginia | $250 |
| Connecticut | $100 |
| Colorado | $100 |
| Maryland | $100 |
| Rhode Island | $11 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| 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 |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North 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 |
85
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
80%
from Maine
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 Maine. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$5,486 32 donors
- OWNER$959 5 donors
- OTHER$750 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- STILL FED UP WITH TAXES$1,000
- DIRIGO FREEDOM LEADERSHIP PAC$500
- DIRIGO PAC$500
- GROW MAINE PAC$500
- AVANGRID MAINE PAC$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Paul voted with the majority of Maine House Republicans on 99.4% of party-line votes and missed 3.0% of 804 roll calls. Maine House on average: 95.9% party unity, 94.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Paul voted against the majority of Maine House Republicans 35 times.
804 roll calls Paul could vote on in the ME 2025–26 session, compared with Maine 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 Paul voted with the majority of Maine House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
35
votes against the majority of Maine House Republicans
Party unity 99.4%, Maine House average 95.9%, ranks 5th of 149. 804 roll calls in the ME 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Paul, the thin grey bar the Maine House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Paul
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.0%
94.9%
84th of 149
Party unity
99.4%
95.9%
5th of 149
Show the data
| Row | Paul | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.0% | 94.9% |
| Party unity | 99.4% | 95.9% |
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 ME 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2026 | Did not vote | — | fail | D 64–6 · R 7–59 · I 1–0Democrats 64 yea, 6 nay; Republicans 7 yea, 59 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote · party crossover | |
| Apr 29, 2026 | Did not vote | — | fail | D 11–57 · R 54–12 · I 0–1Democrats 11 yea, 57 nay; Republicans 54 yea, 12 nay; Independents 0 yea, 1 nay | close vote · party crossover | |
| Apr 14, 2026 | LD 555 An Act To Create A Separate Department Of Child And Family Services Acc Maj Ought Not to Pass Rep | Nay | With majority | pass | D 71–4 · R 2–67 · I 2–1Democrats 71 yea, 4 nay; Republicans 2 yea, 67 nay; Independents 2 yea, 1 nay | close vote |
| Apr 14, 2026 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 74–1 · R 13–54 · I 3–0Democrats 74 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 54 nay; Independents 3 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Apr 14, 2026 | LD 127 An Act To Strengthen Legislative Oversight Of Government Agencies And Programs By Reaffirming The Legislature'S Access To Confidential Records suspension of house rule 515 | Yea | With majority | fail | D 6–69 · R 67–0 · I 1–2Democrats 6 yea, 69 nay; Republicans 67 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
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 Paul most often
- Barbara BagshawR777 shared votes98%
- Irene GiffordR741 shared votes97%
- Chad PerkinsR762 shared votes97%
- Kim HagganR777 shared votes97%
- Mike LanceR734 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Paul least often
- Lori GramlichD775 shared votes7.0%
- Laurie OsherD735 shared votes7.1%
- Charles SkoldD702 shared votes7.3%
- Marc MalonD756 shared votes7.7%
- Mana AbdiD737 shared votes7.9%
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
ME 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Paul sponsored 19 bills in the ME 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 44 others. 68% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Maine House average 64%; 47th of 96).
The bills Paul sponsored and cosponsored in the ME 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 ME 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 19 | 19 | 13 | 13 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 44 | 44 | 33 | 23 | 7 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Paul sponsored, ochre blocks bills Paul cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
68%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Maine House average 64%. Ranks 47th of 96.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Paul, by number of shared bills in the ME 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Matt Harrington25
- Katrina Smith20
- David Haggan18
- Alicia Collins17
- Tracy Quint16
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 Paul’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| LD 1223 | An Act To Lower Electric Rates For Maine Ratepayers By Requiring The Payment Of Certain Costs From The General Fund | Cosponsor | Apr 13, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Energy(model) | Died in Possession of the Senate when the Legislature adjourned Sine Die and was PLACED IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILES. (DEAD) Apr 29, 2026 |
| LD 883 | An Act To Reduce The Tax Burden On Maine Citizens | Cosponsor | Apr 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Taxation(model) | Died in Possession of the Senate when the Legislature adjourned Sine Die and was PLACED IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILES. (DEAD) Apr 29, 2026 |
| HP 1485 | Joint Resolution To Honor The Life, Faith, Leadership And Legacy Of Charles "Charlie" James Kirk | Sponsor | Feb 12, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Placed in Legislative Files (DEAD) Mar 18, 2026 |
| LD 556 | An Act To Preserve Heating And Energy Choice By Prohibiting A Municipality From Prohibiting A Particular Energy System Or Energy Distributor | Cosponsor | Jun 17, 2025 | Became law | Energy(model) | Signed by Governor Jul 1, 2025 |
| LD 1877 | An Act To Increase Penalties For Human Trafficking Offenses | Sponsor | Jun 16, 2025 | Became law | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Signed by Governor Jun 20, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Paul’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Paul’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 Paul posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 6
pages crawled
7changes 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 Paul posted
No images from Paul’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
40 turns, Mar 30, 2023 to Feb 12, 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 Paul 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
- 76ab2f9a-14e8-4eb5-ae0e-1a26e4a3a04c
- Open States
- ocd-person/76ab2f9a-14e8-4eb5-ae0e-1a26e4a3a04c
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