Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 8, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Law · Source
0%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of the Missouri House
0% of 22 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Missouri House is 32%. Ranks 140th of 150, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Woods sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Missouri House. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
5 measures against State House Democrats. The policy areas Woods talks about and legislates on agree at 0.47 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats. Woods sits at −0.53 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 64% of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Woods 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.
Out of committee
0%
Missouri House average 32% · ranks 140th of 150
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.47
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 380th of 503
CSIP ideology
−0.53
More conservative than 64% of State House Democrats · ± 0.09
From Missouri, 2026
95%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 831st of 1,983 State House Democrats
Itemized, 2026
$37.3K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1089th of 2,082
Statements
190
190 posts on X
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Woods, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Woods is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Woods says
Woods stresses bipartisanship less than 88% of State House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0% of 190 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Democrat; 676th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Woods’s 190 statements in the MO 2025–26 session (190 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 MO 2025–26 session
0%80%
Woods
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion92 statements
48%
39%
242nd of 764
Policy criticism58 statements
31%
10%
38th of 764
Personal attacks18 statements
9%
3%
57th of 764
Credit claiming6 statements
3%
14%
617th of 764
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
676th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Woods | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 48% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 31% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 9% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 3% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
190
statements classified
190 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 190 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Woods; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Woods does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Woods used extreme labels in 2.1% of statements, 2.2 times the peer average. 4 statements, most often aimed at GOP; peers 1.0%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- GOP2
- gerrymander1
- Republicans1
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 MO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 10 | 20.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 10 | 20.0% | 60.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 13 | 23.1% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 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) |
| May ’25 | 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) |
| Jun ’25 | 14 | 7.1% | 35.7% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 13 | 7.7% | 61.5% | 69.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 6 | — (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 | 16 | 6.3% | 56.3% | 56.3% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 6.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 11 | 9.1% | 36.4% | 45.5% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 9.1% |
| Nov ’25 | 9 | — (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 | 14 | 14.3% | 21.4% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’26 | 5 | — (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 | 6 | — (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 | 5 | — (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 | 11 | 0.0% | 18.2% | 54.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| 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 MO 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%. 13 months are hatched here.
In Woods’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Law; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 20, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at GOP · 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 · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · LawSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: RepublicansSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: PresidentSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: the presidentSource
All 190 statements
Newest first, the MO 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: 190 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Woods talks about most: 42% of policy statements, 2.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.47 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 380th of 503).
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 Woods talks about. The bills Woods sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Woods talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MO 2025–26 session
0%47%
Woods
Peers
Government Operations and Politics39 statements
42%
15%
Economics and Public Finance14 statements
15%
11%
Taxation14 statements
15%
4%
Labor and Employment11 statements
12%
6%
Health10 statements
11%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Woods | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 42% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 11% |
| Taxation | 15% | 4% |
| Labor and Employment | 12% | 6% |
| Health | 11% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Woods’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 47%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 42% | 15% | 22% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 11% | 0% | 2% |
| Taxation | 15% | 4% | 18% | 7% |
| Labor and Employment | 12% | 6% | 11% | 6% |
| Health | 11% | 15% | 0% | 15% |
0.47
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 380th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Woods legislates on exactly the areas Woods 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 Woods sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Woods sits at −0.53 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 64% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.62 to −0.44, which understates the uncertainty; from 283 donors and no 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”.
−0.53
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.62 to −0.44. From 283 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Woods, 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 Woods’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 Woods sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Missouri House149 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Woods |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 64% |
| Missouri House | 149 | +0.4 | 21% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 29% |
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 Woods 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 Woods.
Money
Woods reported $37.3K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 95% of itemized individual money came from Missouri.
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.
$37.3K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 42 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)9 squares$3,500
- PACs and other committees91 squares$33.8K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $3,500 | 9.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $33.8K | 90.6% |
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 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $20.7K |
| 2022 cycle | $17.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $37.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $37.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 95% came from Missouri.
- Missouri$3,325
- California$100
- Nevada$75
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 |
|---|---|
| Missouri | $3,325 |
| California | $100 |
| Nevada | $75 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | 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 |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | 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 |
42
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
95%
from Missouri
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 Missouri. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$500 7 donors
- NOT EMPLOYED$470 9 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MISSOURI REALTORS PAC$2,500
- LOCAL UNION #124 VOLUNTARY POLITCAL FUND$2,000
- MEDA PAC$2,000
- MID-AMERICA CARPENTERS REGIONAL COUNCIL PAC$2,000
- MISSOURI GAMING PAC$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- ORACLE$150 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the MO 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Woods sponsored 22 bills in the MO 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 10 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Missouri House average 32%; 140th of 150).
The bills Woods sponsored and cosponsored in the MO 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 MO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 22 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 10 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Woods sponsored, ochre blocks bills Woods cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
0%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Missouri House average 32%. Ranks 140th of 150.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Woods, by number of shared bills in the MO 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Emily Weber3
- Mark Boyko3
- Keri Ingle3
- Renee Reuter2
- Bill Irwin2
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 Woods’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 115 | Proposes a constitutional amendment authorizing a disabled veteran homestead exemption | Cosponsor | Apr 20, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Taxation(model) | Second read and referred: Select Committee on Property Taxes and the State Tax Commission(S) Apr 21, 2026 |
| HB 3512 | Creates provisions relating to automatic renewal or continuous service offers for consumers and cancellation mechanisms | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Commerce(model) | Referred: Emerging Issues(H) May 15, 2026 |
| HB 3419 | Creates new provisions relating to employee compensation, reinstating certain minimum wage adjustments, implementing earned paid sick leave, and bereavement leave | Cosponsor | Feb 25, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | Referred: Emerging Issues(H) May 15, 2026 |
| HB 3402 | Allows collector to waive fees and penalties if tax payer made a good faith effort to pay | Sponsor | Feb 24, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Referred: Emerging Issues(H) May 15, 2026 |
| HB 3403 | Creates a new state holiday for election day and requires colleges and universities to close unless used as a polling place | Sponsor | Feb 24, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Referred: Emerging Issues(H) May 15, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Woods’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Woods’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 Woods posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 3
pages crawled
1changes 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 Woods posted
No images from Woods’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 Woods 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
- 76bc7488-cc9e-4b47-91da-4557fb577ff5
- Open States
- ocd-person/76bc7488-cc9e-4b47-91da-4557fb577ff5
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