14% of 308 statements contain a personal attack (43 statements); the average for State Senate Democrats is 2.4%. Ranks 16th of 329, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Duff’s posts on X and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. 86% of the 58 bills Duff sponsored got out of committee, in the top 5% of the Connecticut Senate. The policy areas Duff talks about and legislates on agree at 0.41 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom tenth of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Duff sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Personal attacks
State Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 16th of 329
Out of committee
Connecticut Senate average 40% · ranks 2nd of 35
Talk-to-bills agreement
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 208th of 228
Attendance
Connecticut Senate average 97.8% · ranks 4th of 36 · 863 roll calls
Extreme labels
State Senate Democrats average 0.8% · ranks 33rd of 329
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Duff, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Duff is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Duff attacks opponents personally more than 95% of State Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 14% of 308 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 16th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Duff’s 308 statements in the CT 2025–26 session (308 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the CT 2025–26 session
| Row | Duff | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 36% | 43% |
| Personal attacks | 14% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 12% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 10% |
statements classified
308 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 308 |
The thick bar is Duff; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Duff does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Duff used extreme labels in 2.9% of statements, 3.5 times the peer average. 9 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 0.8%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the CT 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| May ’25 | 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) |
| Jun ’25 | 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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| 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 | 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 ’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 | 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) |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 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 | 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) |
| Apr ’26 | 20 | 30.0% | 5.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 5.0% |
| May ’26 | 12 | 25.0% | 8.3% | 33.3% | 16.7% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 43 | 23.3% | 4.7% | 9.3% | 7.0% | 4.7% | 4.7% |
| Jul ’26 | 26 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 42.3% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 44 | 6.8% | 2.3% | 43.2% | 2.3% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 51 | 7.8% | 2.0% | 52.9% | 0.0% | 19.6% | 2.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 78 | 16.7% | 1.3% | 38.5% | 1.3% | 6.4% | 3.9% |
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 CT 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%. 15 months are hatched here; 4 of them have no statements.
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 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Agriculture and Food; Energy · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Steve Witkoff · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Republicans · Source
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: Steve WitkoffSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “fascist” aimed at unknown · target: unknownSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: RFKSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Kimberl63981557Source
Newest first, the CT 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 308 posts on X.
Government Operations and Politics is what Duff talks about most: 24% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.41 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 208th of 228).
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 Duff talks about. The bills Duff sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the CT 2025–26 session
| Row | Duff | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 24% | 14% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 10% |
| Education | 11% | 15% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 11% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 10% | 8% |
The thick bar is the share of Duff’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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.
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 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 24% | 14% | 0% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 10% | 24% | 3% |
| Education | 11% | 15% | 12% | 9% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 11% | 5% | 6% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 10% | 8% | 0% | 5% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 208th of 228.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Duff legislates on exactly the areas Duff 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 Duff sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Duff sits at −0.48 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 75% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.53 to −0.44, which understates the uncertainty; from 937 donors and 405 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.53 to −0.44. From 937 donors and 405 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Duff, 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 Duff’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Duff |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 75% |
| Connecticut Senate | 36 | −0.7 | 64% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 32% |
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 Duff 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 Duff.
Duff reported $23.4K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from Connecticut.
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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 420 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $23.4K | 100.0% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $19.0K |
| 2022 cycle | $19.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $22.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $23.4K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from Connecticut.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Connecticut | $21.8K |
| Georgia | $340 |
| New York | $310 |
| Maryland | $150 |
| District of Columbia | $150 |
| Minnesota | $100 |
| Illinois | $100 |
| Rhode Island | $100 |
| Louisiana | $100 |
| New Hampshire | $50 |
| Colorado | $50 |
| Vermont | $25 |
| Nebraska | $25 |
| Indiana | $20 |
| Florida | $20 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | 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 |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Connecticut
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Connecticut. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Duff voted with the majority of Connecticut Senate Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 0.2% of 863 roll calls. Connecticut Senate on average: 97.9% party unity, 97.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Duff never voted against the majority of Connecticut Senate Democrats.
863 roll calls Duff could vote on in the CT 2025–26 session, compared with Connecticut Senate. 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 Duff voted with the majority of Connecticut Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Connecticut Senate Democrats
Party unity 100%, Connecticut Senate average 97.9%, ranks 7th of 36. 863 roll calls in the CT 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Duff, the thin grey bar the Connecticut Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Duff | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.7% | 97.8% |
| Party unity | 100% | 97.9% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the CT 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2026 | HB 5385 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY UNDUE DELAY IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS BY POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS. Senate Roll Call Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–0 · R 11–0Democrats 25 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 6, 2026 | HB 5001 AN ACT CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING FOR ALL AND VARIOUS OTHER REFORMS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS. Senate Roll Call Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–0 · R 0–11Democrats 25 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 11 nay | became law · much discussed |
| May 6, 2026 | HB 5043 AN ACT CONCERNING CONVERTIBLE PISTOLS, UNFINISHED FRAMES OR UNFINISHED LOWER RECEIVERS, VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AND REFUNDABILITY OF PERMITS FOR SALE AT RETAIL OF FIREARMS AND FOR CARRYING OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS. Senate Roll Call Vote | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–20 · R 11–0Democrats 0 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 6, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–0 · R 11–0Democrats 25 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| May 6, 2026 | HB 5001 AN ACT CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING FOR ALL AND VARIOUS OTHER REFORMS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS. Senate Roll Call Vote | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–25 · R 11–0Democrats 0 yea, 25 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Duff most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Duff least often
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.
CT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Duff sponsored 58 bills in the CT 2025–26 session; 8 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 86% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Connecticut Senate average 40%; 2nd of 35).
The bills Duff sponsored and cosponsored in the CT 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.
Counts for the CT 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 58 | 58 | 50 | 23 | 8 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills Duff sponsored, ochre blocks bills Duff cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Connecticut Senate average 40%. Ranks 2nd of 35.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Duff, by number of shared bills in the CT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Duff’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 1 | AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2027, MAKING DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026, AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE AND CONCERNING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REVENUE, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT | Sponsor | Apr 1, 2026 | Became law | Economics and Public Finance(model) | SIGNED BY GOVERNOR May 26, 2026 |
| SB 2 | AN ACT SUPPORTING LOCAL COMMERCE. | Sponsor | Apr 1, 2026 | In committee | Commerce(model) | FILE NO. 693 Apr 20, 2026 |
| SB 503 | AN ACT CONCERNING SENTENCING OF AND PAROLE ELIGIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHOSE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED WHEN SUCH INDIVIDUAL WAS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-SIX YEARS. | Sponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | BILL PASSED TEMPORARILY May 5, 2026 |
| HJ 66 | RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT MEZZO OF NAUGATUCK TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CONNECTICUT PORT AUTHORITY. | Sponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | IN CONCURRENCE Apr 21, 2026 |
| HJ 65 | RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL R. RICCI OF GUILFORD TO BE REAPPOINTED A MEMBER OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ARBITRATION PANEL. | Sponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | IN CONCURRENCE Apr 21, 2026 |
A site that changed 3 times in 90 days. Duff’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Duff’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 Duff posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Duff’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
6,829 turns, Feb 5, 2020 to Jun 15, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Duff is most unusual among State Senate 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
