Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
1.9×
the State House Republican rate of policy discussion
62% of 392 statements discuss policy (243 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 32%. Ranks 43rd of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of White’s posts on X and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 31% of White’s statements claim credit, 2.5 times the State House Republican average of 13%. The policy areas White talks about and legislates on agree at 0.38 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom tenth of State House Republicans.
The measures on which White sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy discussion
62%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 43rd of 791
Credit claiming
31%
State House Republicans average 13% · ranks 58th of 791
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.38
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 467th of 504
Itemized, 2026
$148.2K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 338th of 2,521
Personal attacks
0%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 642nd of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.32
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is White, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which White is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What White says
White attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 392 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of White’s 392 statements in the TN 2025–26 session (392 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the TN 2025–26 session
0%80%
White
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion243 statements
62%
32%
43rd of 791
Credit claiming122 statements
31%
13%
58th of 791
Policy criticism6 statements
2%
9%
619th of 791
Bipartisanship5 statements
1%
2%
359th of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | White | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 62% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 31% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 2% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
392
statements classified
392 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 392 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is White; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means White does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
White used no extreme labels in 392 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 27.3% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 76.5% | 5.9% | 35.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 70.0% | 5.0% | 45.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 55.6% | 0.0% | 27.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 66.7% | 0.0% | 44.4% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 23 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 65.2% | 0.0% | 26.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 46.2% | 3.9% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 37.5% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 61.9% | 0.0% | 19.1% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 11.1% | 44.4% | 0.0% | 27.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 44.4% | 5.6% | 27.8% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 4.8% | 61.9% | 0.0% | 19.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 76.9% | 7.7% | 61.5% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 37.5% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 83.3% | 0.0% | 45.8% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 85.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 82.6% | 0.0% | 43.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 92.3% | 0.0% | 46.2% | 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 TN 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%. One month is hatched here.
In White’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 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Housing and Community Development · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 13, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Education; Government Operations and Politics · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 392 statements
Newest first, the TN 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: 392 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what White talks about most: 28% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.38 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 467th of 504).
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 White talks about. The bills White sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What White talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TN 2025–26 session
0%88%
White
Peers
Education69 statements
28%
15%
Crime and Law Enforcement41 statements
17%
11%
Armed Forces and National Security33 statements
14%
5%
Health27 statements
11%
10%
Economics and Public Finance23 statements
9%
12%
Show the data
| Row | White | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 28% | 15% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 17% | 11% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 14% | 5% |
| Health | 11% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 9% | 12% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of White’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House 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 88%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 28% | 15% | 80% | 9% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 17% | 11% | 3% | 11% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 14% | 5% | 0% | 2% |
| Health | 11% | 10% | 0% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 9% | 12% | 3% | 2% |
0.38
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 467th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means White legislates on exactly the areas White 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 White sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
White sits at +0.32 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 56% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.28 to +0.35, which understates the uncertainty; from 250 donors and 871 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”.
+0.32
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.28 to +0.35. From 250 donors and 871 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is White, 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 White’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 White sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Tennessee House97 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of White |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 44% |
| Tennessee House | 97 | +0.4 | 36% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 69% |
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 White 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 White.
Money
White reported $148.2K in the 2026 cycle, 4.4 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 94% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.
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.
$148.2K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 78 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)41 squares$61.7K
- PACs and other committees58 squares$85.5K
- Party committees1 squares$1,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $61.7K | 41.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $85.5K | 57.7% |
| Party committees | $1,000 | 0.7% |
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $275.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $124.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $223.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $148.2K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 94% came from Tennessee.
- Tennessee$57.9K
- New York$3,800
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 |
|---|---|
| Tennessee | $57.9K |
| New York | $3,800 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | 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 |
78
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
94%
from Tennessee
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 Tennessee. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- PRESIDENT$9,700 6 donors
- RETIRED$6,655 16 donors
- ATTORNEY$6,150 8 donors
- HOMEMAKER$5,750 3 donors
- REAL ESTATE$4,000 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC$6,000
- LAMBERTH PAC$5,000
- FEDEX CORPORATION PAC$3,850
- BICO ASSOCIATES SPECIAL ACCOUNT$3,600
- MIDDLE TENNESSEE BUSINESS LEADERS FOR COMMON SENSE$3,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BELZ ENTERPRISES$1,750 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
White voted with the majority of Tennessee House Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed none of 67 roll calls. Tennessee House on average: 96.3% party unity, 99.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, White voted against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans 1 time.
67 roll calls White could vote on in the TN 2025–26 session, compared with Tennessee 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 White voted with the majority of Tennessee House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1
votes against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans
Party unity 100%, Tennessee House average 96.3%, ranks 3rd of 97. 67 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is White, the thin grey bar the Tennessee House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
White
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.1%
9th of 97
Party unity
100%
96.3%
3rd of 97
Show the data
| Row | White | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.1% |
| Party unity | 100% | 96.3% |
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 TN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2025 | HB 6004 Education - As enacted, enacts the "Education Freedom Scholarship Act." - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 49; Title 8 and Title 49. FLOOR VOTE: Third Consideration 1/30/2025 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 1–6 · R 19–7Democrats 1 yea, 6 nay; Republicans 19 yea, 7 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed |
| Jan 30, 2025 | HB 6004 Education - As enacted, enacts the "Education Freedom Scholarship Act." - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 49; Title 8 and Title 49. FLOOR VOTE: REGULAR CALENDAR LAY ON THE TABLE MOTION TO ADOPT AMENDMENT # 11 BY CAMPER PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 1/30/2025 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–24 · R 69–2Democrats 0 yea, 24 nay; Republicans 69 yea, 2 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Jan 30, 2025 | HB 6004 Education - As enacted, enacts the "Education Freedom Scholarship Act." - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 49; Title 8 and Title 49. FLOOR VOTE: REGULAR CALENDAR LAY ON THE TABLE MOTION TO ADOPT AMENDMENT # 17 BY JOHNSON PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 1/30/2025 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–24 · R 73–0Democrats 0 yea, 24 nay; Republicans 73 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed |
| Jan 30, 2025 | SB 6005 Appropriations - As enacted, makes appropriations sufficient for the payment of any lawful expenses of the first extraordinary session of the 114th General Assembly; makes other appropriations related to such extraordinary session. - FLOOR VOTE: REGULAR CALENDAR PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 1/30/2025 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 8–14 · R 73–0Democrats 8 yea, 14 nay; Republicans 73 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jan 30, 2025 | HB 6004 Education - As enacted, enacts the "Education Freedom Scholarship Act." - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 49; Title 8 and Title 49. FLOOR VOTE: REGULAR CALENDAR LAY ON THE TABLE MOTION TO ADOPT AMENDMENT # 7 BY DIXIE PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 1/30/2025 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–24 · R 74–0Democrats 0 yea, 24 nay; Republicans 74 yea, 0 nay | became law · 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 White most often
- Aron MaberryR55 shared votes100%
- Bud HulseyR55 shared votes100%
- Kip CapleyR55 shared votes100%
- Pat MarshR55 shared votes100%
- Tom LeatherwoodR55 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as White least often
- Joe TownsD54 shared votes9.3%
- Jason PowellD54 shared votes11%
- Yusuf HakeemD54 shared votes11%
- Ronnie GlynnD52 shared votes12%
- Justin JonesD55 shared votes13%
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
TN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
White sponsored 39 bills in the TN 2025–26 session; 7 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 72% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Tennessee House average 71%; 55th of 97).
The bills White sponsored and cosponsored in the TN 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 TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 39 | 38 | 11 | 7 | 7 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills White sponsored, ochre blocks bills White cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
72%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Tennessee House average 71%. Ranks 55th of 97.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with White, by number of shared bills in the TN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 White’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 200 | Memorials, Interns - Jasmine McCutcheon - | Sponsor | Apr 17, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted, Ayes 87, Nays 0, PNV 1 Apr 21, 2026 |
| HJR 1135 | Memorials, Recognition - The Coca-Cola Company and its support of America250 - | Sponsor | Mar 17, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Apr 14, 2026 |
| HR 163 | Memorials, Recognition - Animation Day, April 11, 2026 - | Sponsor | Feb 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Sponsor(s) Added. Feb 26, 2026 |
| HB 2426 | Education - As enacted, creates an early educator workforce development resource task force. - Amends TCA Title 4 and Title 49. | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Comp. became Pub. Ch. 1133 May 27, 2026 |
| HB 2420 | Local Education Agencies - As enacted, requires an LEA to close a virtual school not meeting certain requirements for continued operation; requires the department of education to maintain and publish on the department's website a list of providers that operated or managed a virtual school that was c | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Comp. became Pub. Ch. 905 May 18, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. White’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls White’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 White posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/legislatorinfo/member.aspx?district=H83Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages 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 White posted
No images from White’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 White is most unusual among State House 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
- 8765a8d9-17ac-4a88-90e3-ef1f7d1b4e61
- Open States
- ocd-person/8765a8d9-17ac-4a88-90e3-ef1f7d1b4e61
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