Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Energy · Source
2.6×
the State Senate Republican rate of policy criticism
24% of 1,099 statements criticize a policy (267 statements); the average for State Senate Republicans is 9.5%. Ranks 32nd of 354, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Sturtevant’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 Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 3.1% of Sturtevant’s statements claim credit, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans (average 15%). 5.1% of Sturtevant’s statements contain a personal attack, 2.3 times the State Senate Republican average of 2.3%.
The measures on which Sturtevant sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy criticism
24%
State Senate Republicans average 9.5% · ranks 32nd of 354
Credit claiming
3.1%
State Senate Republicans average 15% · ranks 298th of 354
Personal attacks
5.1%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 61st of 354
Party unity
92.4%
Virginia Senate average 95.7% · ranks 32nd of 40 · 149 votes against the majority of Virginia Senate Republicans
Attendance
99.8%
Virginia Senate average 97.8% · ranks 9th of 40 · 6,566 roll calls
CSIP ideology
+0.51
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Sturtevant, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Sturtevant is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Sturtevant says
Sturtevant claims credit less than 83% of State Senate Republicans. Credit claiming in 3.1% of 1,099 statements, against 15% for the average State Senate Republican; 298th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Sturtevant’s 1,099 statements in the VA 2025–26 session (1,099 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the VA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Sturtevant
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion441 statements
40%
37%
160th of 354
Policy criticism267 statements
24%
9%
32nd of 354
Personal attacks56 statements
5%
2%
61st of 354
Credit claiming34 statements
3%
15%
298th of 354
Bipartisanship24 statements
2%
2%
136th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Sturtevant | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 40% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 24% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 5% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 3% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
1,099
statements classified
1,099 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,099 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Sturtevant; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Sturtevant does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Sturtevant used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, above the peer average. 17 statements, most often aimed at Spanberger; peers 1.3%.
- “extreme”4
- “woke”3
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Spanberger3
- Virginia Dems2
- bill1
- Democrats1
- Jay Jones1
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 VA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 51 | 0.0% | 21.6% | 43.1% | 3.9% | 17.6% | 2.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 45 | 4.4% | 37.8% | 55.6% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 72 | 5.6% | 19.4% | 26.4% | 2.8% | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 8.0% | 24.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 15 | 6.7% | 26.7% | 26.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% |
| Jun ’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) |
| 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 | 30 | 3.3% | 16.7% | 26.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% |
| Sep ’25 | 97 | 3.1% | 6.2% | 8.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.1% |
| Oct ’25 | 322 | 9.6% | 10.3% | 15.2% | 0.0% | 0.9% | 1.6% |
| Nov ’25 | 69 | 2.9% | 33.3% | 43.5% | 4.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 26 | 3.9% | 19.2% | 69.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 63 | 1.6% | 15.9% | 74.6% | 9.5% | 9.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 31 | 6.5% | 51.6% | 71.0% | 9.7% | 9.7% | 9.7% |
| Mar ’26 | 50 | 4.0% | 52.0% | 62.0% | 4.0% | 2.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 31.3% | 43.8% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 22 | 4.5% | 63.6% | 63.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 57.9% | 84.2% | 10.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 48.0% | 84.0% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 80.0% | 95.0% | 5.0% | 5.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 48 | 6.3% | 39.6% | 85.4% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 40 | 0.0% | 40.0% | 80.0% | 7.5% | 2.5% | 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 VA 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%. 2 months are hatched here.
In Sturtevant’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.
Oct 14, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 19, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Virginia Dems · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: HuckabeesSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Environmental Protection · Finance and Financial Sector · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Nichols, McGeeSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Environmental Protection · Crime and Law EnforcementSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: GovernorSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Norfolk Commonwealth AttorneySource
All 1,099 statements
Newest first, the VA 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: 1,099 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Sturtevant talks about most: 23% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.52 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 119th of 226).
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 Sturtevant talks about. The bills Sturtevant sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Sturtevant talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the VA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Sturtevant
Peers
Government Operations and Politics102 statements
23%
17%
Crime and Law Enforcement72 statements
16%
12%
Economics and Public Finance70 statements
16%
12%
Energy70 statements
16%
6%
Immigration55 statements
12%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Sturtevant | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 17% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 16% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% |
| Energy | 16% | 6% |
| Immigration | 12% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Sturtevant’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 17% | 10% | 12% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 16% | 12% | 5% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% | 0% | 3% |
| Energy | 16% | 6% | 3% | 3% |
| Immigration | 12% | 4% | 3% | 1% |
0.52
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 119th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Sturtevant legislates on exactly the areas Sturtevant 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 Sturtevant sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Sturtevant sits at +0.51 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 73% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.47 to +0.55, which understates the uncertainty; from 548 donors and 597 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 +0.47 to +0.55. From 548 donors and 597 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Sturtevant, 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 Sturtevant’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 Sturtevant sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Virginia Senate40 · median −0.6
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Sturtevant |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 72% |
| Virginia Senate | 40 | −0.6 | 85% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 84% |
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 Sturtevant 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 Sturtevant.
Money
Sturtevant reported $151.5K in the 2026 cycle, 3.3 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 96% of itemized individual money came from Virginia.
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.
$151.5K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 62 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)18 squares$26.8K
- PACs and other committees82 squares$124.7K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $26.8K | 17.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $124.7K | 82.3% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $2.0M |
| 2022 cycle | $169.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $781.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $151.5K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 96% came from Virginia.
- Virginia$25.8K
- Florida$1,000
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 |
|---|---|
| Virginia | $25.8K |
| Florida | $1,000 |
| 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 |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West 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 |
62
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
96%
from Virginia
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 Virginia. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$9,379 27 donors
- EXECUTIVE$4,364 4 donors
- ATTORNEY$1,273 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- DOMINION ENERGY INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE - VIRGINIA$100.0K
- VIRGINIA AUTOMOBILE & TRUCK DEALERS PAC$5,000
- VIRGINIA TRIAL LAWYERS PAC$4,000
- HCA FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT$2,500
- VA OPERATORS FOR SKILL$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Sturtevant voted with the majority of Virginia Senate Republicans on 92.4% of party-line votes and missed 0.1% of 6,566 roll calls. Virginia Senate on average: 95.7% party unity, 97.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Sturtevant voted against the majority of Virginia Senate Republicans 149 times.
6,566 roll calls Sturtevant could vote on in the VA 2025–26 session, compared with Virginia 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 Sturtevant voted with the majority of Virginia Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
149
votes against the majority of Virginia Senate Republicans
Party unity 92.4%, Virginia Senate average 95.7%, ranks 32nd of 40. 6,566 roll calls in the VA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Sturtevant, the thin grey bar the Virginia Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Sturtevant
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.8%
97.8%
9th of 40
Party unity
92.4%
95.7%
32nd of 40
Show the data
| Row | Sturtevant | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.8% | 97.8% |
| Party unity | 92.4% | 95.7% |
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
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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 Sturtevant most often
- Mark ObenshainR6,256 shared votes97%
- Luther CifersR6,507 shared votes97%
- Timmy FrenchR6,070 shared votes97%
- Ryan McDougleR6,545 shared votes97%
- Mark PeakeR6,547 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Sturtevant least often
- Elizabeth Bennett-ParkerD2,215 shared votes80%
- Mike JonesD3,507 shared votes81%
- Danica RoemD6,398 shared votes84%
- Jennifer BoyskoD6,138 shared votes84%
- Louise LucasD6,479 shared votes84%
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
VA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Sturtevant sponsored 55 bills in the VA 2025–26 session; 7 became law. Cosponsored 148 others. 93% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Virginia Senate average 90%; 13th of 40).
The bills Sturtevant sponsored and cosponsored in the VA 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 VA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 55 | 55 | 28 | 14 | 7 |
| Cosponsored | 148 | 146 | 113 | 45 | 10 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Sturtevant sponsored, ochre blocks bills Sturtevant cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
93%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Virginia Senate average 90%. Ranks 13th of 40.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Sturtevant, by number of shared bills in the VA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Mark Peake32
- Luther Cifers32
- Tammy Mulchi32
- Danny Diggs30
- Bill DeSteph30
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 Sturtevant’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 4002 | Sales and use tax, food for human consumption and essential personal hygiene products, emergency. | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Committee on Finance and Appropriations Oct 21, 2026 |
| SJ 4001 | RGGI., grocery and gas tax; encouraging the Governor to take measures to alleviate financial strain. | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Committee on Finance and Appropriations Oct 21, 2026 |
| SB 4001 | Virginia Clean Energy & Community Flood Preparedness Act; repeal; electric utility customer credit. | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Oct 21, 2026 |
| SB 4003 | Suspension of statewide fuel taxes; emergency. | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Committee on Finance and Appropriations Oct 21, 2026 |
| SR 2055 | Celebrating the life of Knight. | Sponsor | Jun 18, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Bill text as passed Senate (SR2055ER) Jun 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Sturtevant’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Sturtevant’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 Sturtevant posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes 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 Sturtevant posted
No images from Sturtevant’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 Sturtevant is most unusual among State Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 815f7b31-d344-481a-9922-ad77d16b808a
- Open States
- ocd-person/815f7b31-d344-481a-9922-ad77d16b808a
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