Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 18, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Transportation and Public Works · Source
2.5×
the State Senate Democrat rate of policy criticism
25% of 551 statements criticize a policy (140 statements); the average for State Senate Democrats is 10%. Ranks 26th of 329, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Sundareshan’s posts on X and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. 0% of the 59 bills Sundareshan sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of the Arizona Senate. 2.2% of Sundareshan’s statements use an extreme label, 2.6 times the State Senate Democrat average of 0.8%.
The measures on which Sundareshan 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.
Policy criticism
25%
State Senate Democrats average 10% · ranks 26th of 329
Out of committee
0%
Arizona Senate average 42% · ranks 27th of 29
Extreme labels
2.2%
State Senate Democrats average 0.8% · ranks 43rd of 329
Personal attacks
4.4%
State Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 61st of 329
Credit claiming
4.4%
State Senate Democrats average 16% · ranks 267th of 329
CSIP ideology
−0.65
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 Sundareshan, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Sundareshan is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Sundareshan says
Sundareshan claims credit less than 80% of State Senate Democrats. Credit claiming in 4.4% of 551 statements, against 16% for the average State Senate Democrat; 267th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Sundareshan’s 551 statements in the AZ 2025–26 session (551 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.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the AZ 2025–26 session
0%80%
Sundareshan
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion246 statements
45%
43%
165th of 329
Policy criticism140 statements
25%
10%
26th of 329
Personal attacks24 statements
4%
2%
61st of 329
Credit claiming24 statements
4%
16%
267th of 329
Bipartisanship13 statements
2%
3%
166th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Sundareshan | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 45% | 43% |
| Policy criticism | 25% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 4% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 4% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
551
statements classified
551 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 551 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Sundareshan; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Sundareshan does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Sundareshan used extreme labels in 2.2% of statements, 2.6 times the peer average. 12 statements, most often aimed at atrupar; peers 0.8%.
- “extreme”6
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- atrupar1
- bills1
- group1
- ICE1
- R1
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 AZ 2025–26 session
Show the data
| 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 | 28 | 10.7% | 57.1% | 75.0% | 3.6% | 7.1% | 3.6% |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’25 | 16 | 6.3% | 68.8% | 93.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 52.9% | 52.9% | 5.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 15 | 20.0% | 53.3% | 73.3% | 6.7% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 25.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 42 | 2.4% | 30.9% | 47.6% | 2.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 44 | 6.8% | 22.7% | 29.5% | 0.0% | 4.5% | 9.1% |
| Oct ’25 | 33 | 6.1% | 9.1% | 12.1% | 0.0% | 3.0% | 3.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 37 | 2.7% | 32.4% | 40.5% | 2.7% | 5.4% | 2.7% |
| Dec ’25 | 25 | 4.0% | 12.0% | 52.0% | 4.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 33 | 9.1% | 3.0% | 60.6% | 0.0% | 6.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 36 | 2.8% | 25.0% | 30.6% | 0.0% | 2.8% | 2.8% |
| Mar ’26 | 39 | 0.0% | 28.2% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 2.6% | 2.6% |
| Apr ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 30.0% | 35.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% | 5.0% |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’26 | 17 | 5.9% | 47.1% | 64.7% | 0.0% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 33 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 30.3% | 9.1% | 6.1% | 3.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 36 | 11.1% | 8.3% | 52.8% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 14.8% | 70.4% | 3.7% | 3.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 26.3% | 5.3% | 0.0% | 5.3% |
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 AZ 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%. 3 months are hatched here.
In Sundareshan’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 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Water Resources Development · 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 “extreme” aimed at bills · 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 · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Water Resources Development · target: RepublicansSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Water Resources Development · target: AnneSource
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: RapidResponse47Source
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Finance and Financial Sector · target: ReichlinMelnickSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TurleySource
All 551 statements
Newest first, the AZ 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: 551 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Sundareshan talks about most: 26% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.59 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 102nd 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 Sundareshan talks about. The bills Sundareshan sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Sundareshan talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the AZ 2025–26 session
0%35%
Sundareshan
Peers
Government Operations and Politics65 statements
26%
14%
Water Resources Development41 statements
17%
1%
Energy40 statements
16%
4%
Economics and Public Finance30 statements
12%
10%
Environmental Protection28 statements
11%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Sundareshan | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 26% | 14% |
| Water Resources Development | 17% | 1% |
| Energy | 16% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 12% | 10% |
| Environmental Protection | 11% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Sundareshan’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.
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 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 26% | 14% | 11% | 8% |
| Water Resources Development | 17% | 1% | 23% | 1% |
| Energy | 16% | 4% | 7% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 12% | 10% | 0% | 3% |
| Environmental Protection | 11% | 4% | 5% | 3% |
0.59
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 102nd of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Sundareshan legislates on exactly the areas Sundareshan 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 Sundareshan sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Sundareshan sits at −0.65 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 50% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.69 to −0.62, which understates the uncertainty; from 804 donors and 567 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”.
−0.65
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.69 to −0.62. From 804 donors and 567 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Sundareshan, 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 Sundareshan’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 Sundareshan sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Arizona Senate30 · median +0.2
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Sundareshan |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 50% |
| Arizona Senate | 30 | +0.2 | 20% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 22% |
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 Sundareshan 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 Sundareshan.
Money
Sundareshan reported $80.2K in the 2026 cycle, above the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from Arizona.
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.
$80.2K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 251 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)44 squares$35.4K
- PACs and other committees56 squares$44.8K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $35.4K | 44.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $44.8K | 55.9% |
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $82.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $68.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $80.2K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from Arizona.
- Arizona$32.8K
- California$1,271
- Minnesota$400
- District of Columbia$375
- Massachusetts$192
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 |
|---|---|
| Arizona | $32.8K |
| California | $1,271 |
| Minnesota | $400 |
| District of Columbia | $375 |
| Massachusetts | $192 |
| New Hampshire | $120 |
| Virginia | $100 |
| Colorado | $41 |
| Maryland | $41 |
| Hawaii | $10 |
| Ohio | $1 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | 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 |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
251
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
93%
from Arizona
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 Arizona. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$13.4K 130 donors
- RETIRED$4,078 27 donors
- ATTORNEY$2,517 16 donors
- LOBBYIST$1,375 10 donors
- CEO$958 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- JANE FONDA CLIMATE PAC$5,000
- ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ELEVANCE HEALTH PAC)$3,500
- MOMS FED UP$2,500
- WESTERN STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE$2,500
- UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION FUND FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- VERIDUS$975 5 donors
- UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA$773 7 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Sundareshan voted with the majority of Arizona Senate Democrats on 98.6% of party-line votes and missed 5.8% of 1,589 roll calls. Arizona Senate on average: 95.6% party unity, 94.2% attendance. Across all roll calls, Sundareshan voted against the majority of Arizona Senate Democrats 68 times.
1,589 roll calls Sundareshan could vote on in the AZ 2025–26 session, compared with Arizona 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 Sundareshan voted with the majority of Arizona Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
68
votes against the majority of Arizona Senate Democrats
Party unity 98.6%, Arizona Senate average 95.6%, ranks 10th of 30. 1,589 roll calls in the AZ 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Sundareshan, the thin grey bar the Arizona Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Sundareshan
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.1%
94.2%
22nd of 30
Party unity
98.6%
95.6%
10th of 30
Show the data
| Row | Sundareshan | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 94.1% | 94.2% |
| Party unity | 98.6% | 95.6% |
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 AZ 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 12–0 · R 16–0Democrats 12 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 13–0 · R 15–1Democrats 13 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Jun 12, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–13 · R 15–1Democrats 0 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 1 nay | close vote | |
| Jun 12, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–13 · R 15–1Democrats 0 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 1 nay | became law · close vote | |
| Jun 12, 2026 | Yea | With majority | fail | D 12–0 · R 0–16Democrats 12 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 16 nay | 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 Sundareshan most often
- Lauren KubyD1,494 shared votes93%
- Eva DiazD1,281 shared votes93%
- Rosanna GabaldónD1,231 shared votes93%
- Theresa HatathlieD1,237 shared votes93%
- Lela AlstonD1,447 shared votes92%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Sundareshan least often
- Jake HoffmanR1,419 shared votes33%
- Warren PetersenR1,463 shared votes35%
- Dave FarnsworthR1,494 shared votes36%
- Janae ShampR1,114 shared votes38%
- Mark FinchemR1,449 shared votes39%
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
AZ 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Sundareshan sponsored 59 bills in the AZ 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 136 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Arizona Senate average 42%; 27th of 29).
The bills Sundareshan sponsored and cosponsored in the AZ 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 AZ 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 59 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 136 | 12 | 12 | 2 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Sundareshan sponsored, ochre blocks bills Sundareshan 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
Arizona Senate average 42%. Ranks 27th of 29.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Sundareshan, by number of shared bills in the AZ 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Analise Ortiz105
- Lela Alston103
- Lauren Kuby93
- Catherine Miranda88
- Rosanna Gabaldón85
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 Sundareshan’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 2990 | rural groundwater management areas; establishment | Cosponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Water Resources Development(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| SCR 1019 | ratification; equal rights amendment | Cosponsor | Jun 12, 2026 | Introduced | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Senate First Reading Jun 12, 2026 |
| SCR 1055 | death resolution; Bill Van Dyke | Cosponsor | Jun 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HCR 2065 | Alfredo Gutierrez death resolution | Cosponsor | Apr 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Transmit to Senate Apr 30, 2026 |
| SB 1795 | worker's compensation; database; notice; commission | Cosponsor | Feb 9, 2026 | Introduced | Labor and Employment(model) | Senate Second Reading Feb 10, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Sundareshan’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Sundareshan’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 Sundareshan posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.azleg.gov/Senate/Senate-member/?legislature=56&session=128&legislator=2143Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Sundareshan posted
No images from Sundareshan’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
3 turns, Apr 4, 2023 to Mar 11, 2024
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 Sundareshan 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 7ff01dde-5112-436f-a267-dd7a7f91ec9b
- Open States
- ocd-person/7ff01dde-5112-436f-a267-dd7a7f91ec9b
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