Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 18, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Government Operations and Politics · Source
76%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top 5% of the Texas House
76% of 46 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Texas House is 49%. Ranks 5th of 145, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Bernal sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Texas House. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. Bernal missed 15% of 3,700 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Texas House (average 93.1%). 1.7% of Bernal’s statements claim credit, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats (average 14%).
The measures on which Bernal 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
76%
Texas House average 49% · ranks 5th of 145
Attendance
85%
Texas House average 93.1% · ranks 129th of 143 · 3,700 roll calls
Credit claiming
1.7%
State House Democrats average 14% · ranks 654th of 764
Policy discussion
18%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 649th of 764
From Texas, 2026
68%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1696th of 1,983 State House Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.51
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Bernal, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Bernal is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Bernal says
Bernal claims credit less than 85% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 1.7% of 587 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 654th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Bernal’s 587 statements in the TX 2025–26 session (587 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 TX 2025–26 session
0%80%
Bernal
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion107 statements
18%
39%
649th of 764
Policy criticism45 statements
8%
10%
388th of 764
Personal attacks31 statements
5%
3%
132nd of 764
Credit claiming10 statements
2%
14%
654th of 764
Bipartisanship7 statements
1%
3%
483rd of 764
Show the data
| Row | Bernal | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 18% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 5% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 2% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
587
statements classified
587 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 587 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Bernal; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Bernal does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Bernal used extreme labels in 1.2% of statements, above the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at MAGA bros; peers 1.0%.
- “MAGA”4
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGA bros2
- Democrats1
- MAGA1
- mayor1
- Republican Texas1
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 TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 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) |
| Mar ’25 | 18 | 5.6% | 5.6% | 22.2% | 5.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 23 | 4.3% | 21.7% | 34.8% | 4.3% | 4.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’25 | 19 | 10.5% | 10.5% | 10.5% | 5.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 117 | 1.7% | 11.1% | 13.7% | 0.9% | 0.9% | 0.9% |
| Sep ’25 | 23 | 4.3% | 8.7% | 21.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 11.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.9% |
| Nov ’25 | 33 | 6.1% | 9.1% | 15.2% | 0.0% | 3.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 18 | 11.1% | 5.6% | 44.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 72 | 4.2% | 9.7% | 15.3% | 2.8% | 1.4% | 4.2% |
| Mar ’26 | 45 | 6.7% | 15.6% | 13.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 13 | 7.7% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 28 | 7.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’26 | 24 | 4.2% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 52 | 15.4% | 3.9% | 40.4% | 1.9% | 5.8% | 1.9% |
| Oct ’26 | 39 | 2.6% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 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 TX 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%. 5 months are hatched here.
In Bernal’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.
Sep 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Emergency Management · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA bros; target: MAGA bros · 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 attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Taxation · target: YouSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TrumpSource
All 587 statements
Newest first, the TX 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: 587 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Bernal talks about most: 24% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.51 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 317th 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 Bernal talks about. The bills Bernal sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Bernal talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TX 2025–26 session
0%40%
Bernal
Peers
Education26 statements
24%
15%
Government Operations and Politics26 statements
24%
15%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues16 statements
15%
10%
Health16 statements
15%
15%
Immigration14 statements
13%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Bernal | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 24% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 24% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 10% |
| Health | 15% | 15% |
| Immigration | 13% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Bernal’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 40%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 24% | 15% | 36% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 24% | 15% | 8% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 10% | 3% | 4% |
| Health | 15% | 15% | 5% | 15% |
| Immigration | 13% | 4% | 0% | 1% |
0.51
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 317th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Bernal legislates on exactly the areas Bernal 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 Bernal sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Bernal sits at −0.51 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 67% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.54 to −0.48, which understates the uncertainty; from 850 donors and 834 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”.
−0.51
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.54 to −0.48. From 850 donors and 834 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Bernal, 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 Bernal’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 Bernal sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Texas House148 · median +0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Bernal |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 67% |
| Texas House | 148 | +0.3 | 14% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 30% |
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 Bernal 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 Bernal.
Money
Bernal reported $33.3K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 68% of itemized individual money came from Texas.
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.
$33.3K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 186 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)10 squares$3,303
- PACs and other committees90 squares$30.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $3,303 | 9.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $30.0K | 90.1% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $66.0K |
| 2022 cycle | $84.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $76.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $33.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 68% came from Texas.
- Texas$2,240
- California$192
- Colorado$174
- Washington$109
- Florida$96
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 |
|---|---|
| Texas | $2,240 |
| California | $192 |
| Colorado | $174 |
| Washington | $109 |
| Florida | $96 |
| New York | $60 |
| Illinois | $49 |
| Wisconsin | $44 |
| Massachusetts | $43 |
| New Jersey | $41 |
| North Carolina | $30 |
| New Mexico | $30 |
| Oregon | $21 |
| Alabama | $19 |
| Connecticut | $17 |
| Michigan | $17 |
| Idaho | $15 |
| Virginia | $13 |
| Delaware | $13 |
| Ohio | $11 |
| District of Columbia | $8 |
| Nevada | $8 |
| New Hampshire | $7 |
| Maine | $6 |
| Arizona | $6 |
| Maryland | $5 |
| Pennsylvania | $5 |
| Vermont | $4 |
| Tennessee | $3 |
| Georgia | $3 |
| Minnesota | $3 |
| Kentucky | $3 |
| South Carolina | $3 |
| Indiana | $2 |
| Missouri | $2 |
| Kansas | $2 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
186
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
68%
from Texas
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 Texas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$886 108 donors
- ATTORNEY$538 5 donors
- CONSULTANT$507 4 donors
- RETIRED$22 5 donors
- TEACHER$14 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- TEXAS TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION PAC$7,500
- CHARLES BUTT PUBLIC EDUCATION PAC$5,000
- RAMON ROMERO CAMPAIGN$3,000
- ACT FOR TEXAS CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION$2,500
- TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY TAX PROFESSIONALS PAC$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Bernal voted with the majority of Texas House Democrats on 93.7% of party-line votes and missed 15% of 3,700 roll calls. Texas House on average: 85% party unity, 93.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Bernal voted against the majority of Texas House Democrats 79 times.
3,700 roll calls Bernal could vote on in the TX 2025–26 session, compared with Texas 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 Bernal voted with the majority of Texas House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
79
votes against the majority of Texas House Democrats
Party unity 93.7%, Texas House average 85%, ranks 46th of 143. 3,700 roll calls in the TX 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Bernal, the thin grey bar the Texas House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Bernal
Peers
Rank
Attendance
85%
93.1%
129th of 143
Party unity
93.7%
85%
46th of 143
Show the data
| Row | Bernal | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 85% | 93.1% |
| Party unity | 93.7% | 85% |
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 TX 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2025 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 44–1 · R 46–37Democrats 44 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 46 yea, 37 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 45–0 · R 76–8Democrats 45 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 76 yea, 8 nay | became law · much discussed | |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Nay | With majority | pass | D 1–40 · R 78–7Democrats 1 yea, 40 nay; Republicans 78 yea, 7 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | SB 5 Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and preparedness and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. adopt the conference committee report on SB 5. | Yea | With majority | pass | D 43–0 · R 86–0Democrats 43 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 86 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Sep 3, 2025 | HB 8 Relating to public school accountability and transparency, including the implementation of an instructionally supportive assessment program and the adoption and administration of assessment instruments in public schools, indicators of achievement, public school performance ratings, and interventions passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 45–1 · R 41–41Democrats 45 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 41 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed |
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 Bernal most often
- Hubert VoD2,778 shared votes98%
- Ana HernandezD2,745 shared votes97%
- Donna HowardD3,131 shared votes97%
- Sheryl ColeD2,997 shared votes97%
- James TalaricoD2,616 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Bernal least often
- Brian HarrisonR3,044 shared votes49%
- Briscoe CainR2,924 shared votes49%
- David LoweR3,050 shared votes49%
- Mike OlcottR2,942 shared votes50%
- Steve TothR3,021 shared votes52%
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
TX 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Bernal sponsored 46 bills in the TX 2025–26 session; 5 became law. Cosponsored 19 others. 76% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Texas House average 49%; 5th of 145).
The bills Bernal sponsored and cosponsored in the TX 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 TX 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 46 | 46 | 35 | 8 | 5 |
| Cosponsored | 19 | 19 | 9 | 5 | 5 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Bernal sponsored, ochre blocks bills Bernal cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
76%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Texas House average 49%. Ranks 5th of 145.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Bernal, by number of shared bills in the TX 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Trey Martinez Fischer7
- Barbara Gervin-Hawkins4
- John Lujan4
- Helen Kerwin3
- Mihaela Pleșa3
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 Bernal’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 86 | In memory of the 13 victims of catastrophic flooding that occurred in San Antonio on June 11 and 12, 2025. | Sponsor | Aug 27, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled Sep 2, 2025 |
| HB 5 | Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. | Cosponsor | Aug 16, 2025 | In committee | Emergency Management(model) | Laid on the table subject to call Aug 21, 2025 |
| HB 1 | Relating to youth camp emergency plans and preparedness; authorizing penalties. | Cosponsor | Aug 15, 2025 | Became law | Emergency Management(model) | Effective immediately Sep 5, 2025 |
| SB 5 | Relating to making supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and preparedness and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding those appropriations. | Cosponsor | Aug 15, 2025 | Became law | Emergency Management(model) | Effective immediately Sep 18, 2025 |
| HR 1358 | Congratulating Mixtli in San Antonio on receiving the AAA Five Diamond Restaurant Award. | Sponsor | May 25, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Reported enrolled Jun 1, 2025 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Bernal’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Bernal’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 Bernal posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
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 Bernal posted
No images from Bernal’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 Bernal 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
- 7847295c-78f3-4f8c-adb6-3536fca2782e
- Open States
- ocd-person/7847295c-78f3-4f8c-adb6-3536fca2782e
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