4.6% of 746 statements use an extreme label (34 statements); the average for State Senate Democrats is 0.8%. Ranks 15th of 329, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at right wing.
An AI model reads each of Peters’s posts on X and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. 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. Peters missed 16% of 1,502 roll calls, attendance in the bottom tenth of the Illinois Senate (average 95.4%). 60% of Peters’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Illinois, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Peters 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.
Extreme labels
State Senate Democrats average 0.8% · ranks 15th of 329
Attendance
Illinois Senate average 95.4% · ranks 55th of 59 · 1,502 roll calls
From Illinois, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 643rd of 714 State Senate Democrats
Personal attacks
State Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 37th of 329
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 83% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.04
Talk-to-bills agreement
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 46th of 228
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Peters, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Peters is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Peters stresses bipartisanship less than 74% of State Senate Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0.7% of 746 statements, against 3.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 245th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Peters’s 746 statements in the IL 2025–26 session (746 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 IL 2025–26 session
| Row | Peters | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 45% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 15% | 16% |
| Policy criticism | 12% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 7% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
statements classified
746 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 746 |
The thick bar is Peters; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Peters does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Peters used extreme labels in 4.6% of statements, 5.5 times the peer average. 34 statements, most often aimed at right wing; 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 IL 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 22 | 13.6% | 4.5% | 22.7% | 0.0% | 13.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 15 | 6.7% | 6.7% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 6.7% |
| Mar ’25 | 34 | 20.6% | 8.8% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 8.8% | 8.8% |
| Apr ’25 | 35 | 5.7% | 8.6% | 48.6% | 2.9% | 28.6% | 2.9% |
| May ’25 | 32 | 6.3% | 9.4% | 43.8% | 3.1% | 15.6% | 3.1% |
| Jun ’25 | 39 | 2.6% | 12.8% | 48.7% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 41 | 0.0% | 41.5% | 65.8% | 0.0% | 12.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 54 | 7.4% | 16.7% | 51.8% | 0.0% | 22.2% | 3.7% |
| Sep ’25 | 45 | 11.1% | 15.6% | 55.6% | 2.2% | 24.4% | 4.4% |
| Oct ’25 | 46 | 0.0% | 21.7% | 58.7% | 0.0% | 17.4% | 6.5% |
| Nov ’25 | 35 | 5.7% | 14.3% | 51.4% | 0.0% | 25.7% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 42 | 9.5% | 7.1% | 69.0% | 0.0% | 23.8% | 2.4% |
| Jan ’26 | 37 | 5.4% | 2.7% | 54.0% | 0.0% | 8.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 62 | 4.8% | 8.1% | 14.5% | 1.6% | 8.1% | 22.6% |
| Mar ’26 | 49 | 8.2% | 14.3% | 26.5% | 0.0% | 10.2% | 6.1% |
| Apr ’26 | 32 | 9.4% | 0.0% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 9.4% | 3.1% |
| May ’26 | 17 | 5.9% | 5.9% | 29.4% | 0.0% | 29.4% | 5.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 31 | 6.5% | 6.5% | 12.9% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 18 | 5.6% | 5.6% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 21 | 4.8% | 4.8% | 85.7% | 0.0% | 4.8% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 4.5% | 36.4% | 0.0% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 17 | 5.9% | 0.0% | 11.8% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 5.9% |
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 IL 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%.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Foreign Trade and International Finance; target: Donald Trump · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Commerce · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 14, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Darren Bailey; target: Darren Bailey · 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 · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Darren Bailey · target: Darren BaileySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: loserSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: These folksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Donald TrumpSource
Newest first, the IL 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: 746 posts on X.
Health is what Peters talks about most: 23% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 46th 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 Peters talks about. The bills Peters sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the IL 2025–26 session
| Row | Peters | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 23% | 17% |
| Labor and Employment | 20% | 6% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 17% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 14% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 13% | 10% |
The thick bar is the share of Peters’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 23% | 17% | 15% | 15% |
| Labor and Employment | 20% | 6% | 9% | 6% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 17% | 8% | 23% | 9% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 14% | 8% | 4% | 5% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 13% | 10% | 2% | 3% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 46th of 228.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Peters legislates on exactly the areas Peters 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 Peters sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Peters sits at −0.93 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 83% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.97 to −0.88, which understates the uncertainty; from 782 donors and 1,063 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 −0.97 to −0.88. From 782 donors and 1,063 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Peters, 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 Peters’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 Peters |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 16% |
| Illinois Senate | 59 | −0.5 | 2% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 7% |
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 Peters 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 Peters.
Peters reported $69.0K in the 2026 cycle, above the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 60% of itemized individual money came from Illinois.
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 10 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) | $7,511 | 10.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $61.5K | 89.1% |
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 | $481.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $139.1K |
| 2024 cycle | $319.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $69.0K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 60% came from Illinois.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Illinois | $4,511 |
| California | $3,000 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Illinois
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 Illinois. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Peters voted with the majority of Illinois Senate Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 16% of 1,502 roll calls. Illinois Senate on average: 95.3% party unity, 95.4% attendance. Across all roll calls, Peters never voted against the majority of Illinois Senate Democrats.
1,502 roll calls Peters could vote on in the IL 2025–26 session, compared with Illinois 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 Peters voted with the majority of Illinois Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Illinois Senate Democrats
Party unity 100%, Illinois Senate average 95.3%, ranks 13th of 59. 1,502 roll calls in the IL 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Peters, the thin grey bar the Illinois Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Peters | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 84% | 95.4% |
| Party unity | 100% | 95.3% |
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.
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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 Peters most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Peters 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.
IL 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Peters sponsored 68 bills in the IL 2025–26 session; 16 became law. Cosponsored 188 others. 44% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Illinois Senate average 42%; 30th of 59).
The bills Peters sponsored and cosponsored in the IL 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 IL 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 68 | 68 | 27 | 20 | 16 |
| Cosponsored | 188 | 188 | 85 | 69 | 61 |
Ink blocks are bills Peters sponsored, ochre blocks bills Peters 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
Illinois Senate average 42%. Ranks 30th of 59.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Peters, by number of shared bills in the IL 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 Peters’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HJR 66 | OAC-REP. FLYNN CURRIE PORTRAIT | Cosponsor | May 7, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Pursuant to Senate Rule 3-9(b) / Referred to Assignments Jul 2, 2026 |
| SR 756 | MEMORIAL-REP. B. FLYNN CURRIE | Cosponsor | May 5, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Resolution Adopted May 7, 2026 |
| SR 750 | COMMENDS-DR. JO ANN ROBERTS | Sponsor | Apr 30, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Assignments Apr 30, 2026 |
| SR 724 | CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH | Cosponsor | Apr 15, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Added as Co-Sponsor Sen. Robert Peters Apr 17, 2026 |
| SB 4162 | HOME FOR GOOD ACT | Cosponsor | Feb 25, 2026 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | Added as Co-Sponsor Sen. Karina Villa May 7, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Peters’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Peters’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 Peters 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 Peters’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.
387 turns, Mar 3, 2020 to May 29, 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 Peters 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
