Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Transportation and Public Works; Labor and Employment · Source
0.75
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), the highest of 503 State House Democrats
Agreement 0.75 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State House Democrats is 0.54. Ranks 1st of 503, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Walker’s statements matches the mix in the bills Walker sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State House Democrats.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 3.2% of the 93 bills Walker sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of the New York House. Walker sits at −0.99 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 90% of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Walker sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.75
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 1st of 503
Out of committee
3.2%
New York House average 20% · ranks 141st of 148
CSIP ideology
−0.99
More liberal than 90% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05
From New York, 2026
68%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1693rd of 1,983 State House Democrats
Itemized, 2026
$10.0K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1609th of 2,082
Bipartisanship
0.5%
State House Democrats average 2.9% · ranks 567th of 764
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Walker, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Walker is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Walker says
Walker attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.2% of 563 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 396th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Walker’s 563 statements in the NY 2025–26 session (563 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the NY 2025–26 session
0%80%
Walker
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion182 statements
32%
39%
497th of 764
Credit claiming57 statements
10%
14%
427th of 764
Policy criticism37 statements
7%
10%
428th of 764
Bipartisanship3 statements
1%
3%
567th of 764
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
3%
396th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Walker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 32% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 10% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
563
statements classified
563 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 563 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Walker; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Walker does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Walker used no extreme labels in 563 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
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 NY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 43 | 2.3% | 16.3% | 39.5% | 0.0% | 14.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 32 | 0.0% | 15.6% | 43.8% | 0.0% | 15.6% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 38 | 0.0% | 13.2% | 44.7% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 37 | 0.0% | 13.5% | 48.6% | 2.7% | 18.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 5.0% | 22.5% | 2.5% | 7.5% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 6.5% | 19.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 3.6% | 21.4% | 3.6% | 10.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% | 10.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 4.0% | 24.0% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 28.6% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 37.9% | 0.0% | 3.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 8.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 32.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 4.5% | 27.3% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 11.1% | 44.4% | 0.0% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 0.0% | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 33 | 0.0% | 3.0% | 21.2% | 0.0% | 6.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 37.5% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 76.9% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 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 NY 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%.
In Walker’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 5, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 31, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Donald Trump · 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: Donald TrumpSource
All 563 statements
Newest first, the NY 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: 563 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Walker talks about most: 27% of policy statements, 3.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.75 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 1st of 503).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Walker talks about. The bills Walker sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Walker talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NY 2025–26 session
0%35%
Walker
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement48 statements
27%
8%
Health30 statements
17%
15%
Government Operations and Politics26 statements
14%
15%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues25 statements
14%
10%
Education19 statements
11%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Walker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 27% | 8% |
| Health | 17% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 14% | 10% |
| Education | 11% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Walker’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 27% | 8% | 17% | 9% |
| Health | 17% | 15% | 8% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 15% | 18% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 14% | 10% | 8% | 4% |
| Education | 11% | 15% | 6% | 10% |
0.75
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 1st of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Walker legislates on exactly the areas Walker 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 Walker sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Walker sits at −0.99 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 90% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.04 to −0.94, which understates the uncertainty; from 242 donors and 1,144 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”.
−0.99
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.04 to −0.94. From 242 donors and 1,144 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Walker, 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 Walker’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 Walker sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
New York House150 · median −0.5
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Walker |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 10% |
| New York House | 150 | −0.5 | 11% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 4% |
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 Walker 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 Walker.
Money
Walker reported $10.0K in the 2026 cycle, 25% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 68% of itemized individual money came from New York.
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.
$10.0K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 20 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)100 squares$10.0K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $10.0K | 100.0% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $4,255 |
| 2022 cycle | $63.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $65.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $10.0K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 68% came from New York.
- New York$6,810
- New Jersey$3,000
- Pennsylvania$200
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 |
|---|---|
| New York | $6,810 |
| New Jersey | $3,000 |
| Pennsylvania | $200 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
20
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
68%
from New York
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 New York. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Walker voted with the majority of New York House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 7.6% of 2,019 roll calls. New York House on average: 92.9% party unity, 93.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Walker voted against the majority of New York House Democrats 51 times.
2,019 roll calls Walker could vote on in the NY 2025–26 session, compared with New York 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 Walker voted with the majority of New York House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
51
votes against the majority of New York House Democrats
Party unity 99.3%, New York House average 92.9%, ranks 59th of 149. 2,019 roll calls in the NY 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Walker, the thin grey bar the New York House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Walker
Peers
Rank
Attendance
92.3%
93.9%
114th of 149
Party unity
99.3%
92.9%
59th of 149
Show the data
| Row | Walker | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 92.3% | 93.9% |
| Party unity | 99.3% | 92.9% |
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 NY 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 86–0 · R 43–0Democrats 86 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 5, 2026 | S 10001 Provides for a license to sell liquor at retail for consumption on certain premises Assembly Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 85–2 · R 43–0Democrats 85 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 5, 2026 | S 10655 Relates to the compensation, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment of certain state officers and employees; repealer Assembly Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 86–0 · R 43–0Democrats 86 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 64–23 · R 30–13Democrats 64 yea, 23 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 66–21 · R 30–13Democrats 66 yea, 21 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Walker most often
- Jo Anne SimonD1,859 shared votes99%
- Yudelka TapiaD1,810 shared votes99%
- Emily GallagherD1,721 shared votes99%
- Alicia HyndmanD1,781 shared votes99%
- Jessica González-RojasD1,736 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Walker least often
- Dave DiPietroR1,830 shared votes69%
- Chris FriendR1,685 shared votes71%
- Sam PirozzoloR1,841 shared votes76%
- Ari BrownR1,774 shared votes77%
- Lester ChangR1,860 shared votes77%
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
NY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Walker sponsored 93 bills in the NY 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 184 others. 3.2% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New York House average 20%; 141st of 148).
The bills Walker sponsored and cosponsored in the NY 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 NY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 93 | 93 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 184 | 184 | 17 | 9 | 4 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Walker sponsored, ochre blocks bills Walker cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
3.2%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
New York House average 20%. Ranks 141st of 148.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Walker, by number of shared bills in the NY 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Jo Anne Simon57
- Karines Reyes37
- Al Taylor37
- Harvey Epstein35
- Maritza Davila33
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 Walker’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| A 11645 | Enacts the "just energy transition act" | Cosponsor | Jul 29, 2026 | In committee | Energy(model) | REFERRED TO ENERGY Jul 29, 2026 |
| A 11257 | Relates to the scope of quasi-judicial immunity of referees in mortgage foreclosure actions | Sponsor | May 4, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | REFERRED TO JUDICIARY May 4, 2026 |
| A 11196 | Requires a police officer accompanying federal immigration officers to wear and use a body camera and secure the recordings | Sponsor | May 1, 2026 | In committee | Immigration(model) | REFERRED TO GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS May 1, 2026 |
| A 10947 | Requires a commissioner of a board of elections to meet certain qualifications before their appointment | Sponsor | Apr 14, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | REFERRED TO ELECTION LAW Apr 14, 2026 |
| A 10886 | Relates to security expenses for candidates for and holders of elective office | Sponsor | Apr 8, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | REPORTED REFERRED TO CODES May 6, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Walker’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Walker’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 Walker posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 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 Walker posted
No images from Walker’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
947 turns, Jan 22, 2020 to Jun 4, 2026
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 Walker is most unusual among State House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 88a4af90-81b8-4d72-a57c-518a20a0881b
- Open States
- ocd-person/88a4af90-81b8-4d72-a57c-518a20a0881b
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