Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 31, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Commerce · Source
15%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom tenth of the Delaware Senate
Attendance 85%; the average within the Delaware Senate is 95.8%. Ranks 20th of 21, where 1st has the highest attendance. 1,031 roll calls in the DE 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Brown could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Delaware Senate. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
6 measures against the Delaware Senate. 50% of Brown’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Delaware, in the bottom tenth of State Senate Democrats. Brown voted against the majority of Delaware Senate Democrats 8 times; party unity 95.5%, in the bottom quarter of the Delaware Senate (average 97.0%).
The measures on which Brown sits furthest from the middle of the Delaware Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
85%
Delaware Senate average 95.8% · ranks 20th of 21 · 1,031 roll calls
From Delaware, 2026
50%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 660th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Party unity
95.5%
Delaware Senate average 97.0% · ranks 18th of 21 · 8 votes against the majority of Delaware Senate Democrats
Itemized, 2026
$11.1K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 599th of 746
CSIP ideology
−0.45
More conservative than 78% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.06
Out of committee
77%
Delaware Senate average 82% · ranks 16th of 21
Peer group: Delaware Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Brown, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Brown is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Brown says
Brown criticizes policies less than 91% of State Senate Democrats. Policy criticism in 0% of 33 statements, against 10% for the average State Senate Democrat; 304th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Brown’s 33 statements in the DE 2025–26 session (33 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the DE 2025–26 session
0%80%
Brown
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion12 statements
36%
43%
207th of 329
Credit claiming3 statements
9%
16%
213th of 329
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
248th of 329
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
10%
304th of 329
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
294th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Brown | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 36% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 9% | 16% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
33
statements classified
33 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 33 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Brown; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Brown does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Brown used no extreme labels in 33 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
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 DE 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 DE 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 9 of them have no statements.
In Brown’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.
Jul 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food · 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 33 statements
Newest first, the DE 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: 33 posts on X.
Policy
Agriculture and Food is what Brown talks about most: 42% of policy statements, 9.0 times the peer share. Peers give it 4.7%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
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 Brown talks about. The bills Brown sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Brown talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the DE 2025–26 session
0%46%
Brown
Peers
Agriculture and Food5 statements
42%
5%
Commerce2 statements
17%
4%
Health2 statements
17%
17%
Housing and Community Development2 statements
17%
7%
Crime and Law Enforcement1 statements
8%
8%
Show the data
| Row | Brown | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 42% | 5% |
| Commerce | 17% | 4% |
| Health | 17% | 17% |
| Housing and Community Development | 17% | 7% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 8% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Brown’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 46%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 42% | 5% | 1% | 3% |
| Commerce | 17% | 4% | 20% | 4% |
| Health | 17% | 17% | 5% | 15% |
| Housing and Community Development | 17% | 7% | 5% | 5% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 8% | 8% | 10% | 9% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Brown legislates on exactly the areas Brown 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 Brown sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Brown sits at −0.45 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 78% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.50 to −0.39, which understates the uncertainty; from 140 donors and 394 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”.
−0.45
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.50 to −0.39. From 140 donors and 394 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Brown, 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 Brown’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 Brown sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Delaware Senate21 · median −0.7
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Brown |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 78% |
| Delaware Senate | 21 | −0.7 | 67% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 34% |
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 Brown 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 Brown.
Money
Brown reported $11.1K in the 2026 cycle, 20% of the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 50% of itemized individual money came from Delaware.
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.
$11.1K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 27 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)75 squares$8,325
- PACs and other committees25 squares$2,800
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $8,325 | 74.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $2,800 | 25.2% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $3,895 |
| 2022 cycle | $34.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $18.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $11.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 50% came from Delaware.
- Delaware$4,175
- New Jersey$3,600
- Pennsylvania$300
- New York$250
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 |
|---|---|
| Delaware | $4,175 |
| New Jersey | $3,600 |
| Pennsylvania | $300 |
| New York | $250 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
27
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
50%
from Delaware
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 Delaware. 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.
- J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO. PAC (FORMERLY BANK ONE CORPORATION PAC)$600
- BETHANY HALL-LONG FOR GOVERNOR$300
- DELAWARE HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (DHAPAC)$300
- DELAWARE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$300
- FRIENDS FOR PETE SCHWARTZKOPF$300
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Brown voted with the majority of Delaware Senate Democrats on 95.5% of party-line votes and missed 15% of 1,031 roll calls. Delaware Senate on average: 97.0% party unity, 95.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Brown voted against the majority of Delaware Senate Democrats 8 times.
1,031 roll calls Brown could vote on in the DE 2025–26 session, compared with Delaware 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 Brown voted with the majority of Delaware Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
8
votes against the majority of Delaware Senate Democrats
Party unity 95.5%, Delaware Senate average 97.0%, ranks 18th of 21. 1,031 roll calls in the DE 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Brown, the thin grey bar the Delaware Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Brown
Peers
Rank
Attendance
85%
95.8%
20th of 21
Party unity
95.5%
97.0%
18th of 21
Show the data
| Row | Brown | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 85% | 95.8% |
| Party unity | 95.5% | 97.0% |
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 DE 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2026 | HB 452 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE DELAWARE INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION AND BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR CHILD-SERVING ENTITIES. Passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 11–0 · R 2–3Democrats 11 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 2 yea, 3 nay | became law |
| Jul 1, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 4–0Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 1, 2026 | HB 145 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 11 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO REVERSE LOCATION AND REVERSE KEYWORD SEARCHES AND COURT ORDERS. Passage | Did not vote | — | pass | D 11–0 · R 0–4Democrats 11 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 4 nay | became law |
| Jul 1, 2026 | SB 332 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO SPECIAL VANITY LICENSE PLATES. Passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 5–0Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 5 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jul 1, 2026 | HB 355 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 10 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO SEXUAL ASSAULT, HARASSMENT, AND DISCRIMINATION. Passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 5–0Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 5 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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 Brown most often
- Stephanie HansenD872 shared votes99%
- Tizzy LockmanD872 shared votes99%
- Jack WalshD839 shared votes99%
- Marie PinkneyD867 shared votes99%
- Bryan TownsendD866 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Brown least often
- Dave LawsonR746 shared votes92%
- Bryant RichardsonR854 shared votes92%
- Gerald HockerR842 shared votes92%
- Dave WilsonR857 shared votes92%
- Brian PettyjohnR858 shared votes93%
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
DE 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Brown sponsored 64 bills in the DE 2025–26 session; 24 became law. Cosponsored 80 others. 77% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Delaware Senate average 82%; 16th of 21).
The bills Brown sponsored and cosponsored in the DE 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 DE 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 64 | 62 | 49 | 46 | 24 |
| Cosponsored | 80 | 80 | 80 | 78 | 54 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Brown sponsored, ochre blocks bills Brown cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
77%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Delaware Senate average 82%. Ranks 16th of 21.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Brown, by number of shared bills in the DE 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Stephanie Hansen43
- Jack Walsh32
- Trey Paradee32
- Kyra Hoffner32
- Bryan Townsend32
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 Brown’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SJR 22 | THE OFFICIAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE ESTIMATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027. | Cosponsor | Jun 30, 2026 | Became law | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Signed by Governor Jul 6, 2026 |
| HB 211 | AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 29 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO THE INNOVATING DELAWARE ACT. | Sponsor | Jun 30, 2026 | Introduced | Commerce(model) | Out of Committee Jun 30, 2026 |
| SB 354 | AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 18 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES | Sponsor | Jun 30, 2026 | In committee | Finance and Financial Sector(model) | Introduced and Assigned to Executive Committee in Senate Jun 30, 2026 |
| SB 337 | AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR CERTAIN GRANTS-IN-AID FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2027; SPECIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURES, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH FUNDS; AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 APPROPRIATIONS ACT; AND AMENDING CERTAIN STATUTORY PROVISIONS. | Cosponsor | Jun 25, 2026 | Became law | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Signed by Governor Jul 15, 2026 |
| SCR 219 | RECOGNIZING JUNE 19, 2026, AS "JUNETEENTH NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE DAY" IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE. | Sponsor | Jun 18, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Passed In House by Voice Vote Jun 18, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Brown’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Brown’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 Brown posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
senatedems.delaware.gov/members/senate-district-2/https://legis.delaware.gov/AssemblyMember/151/BrownLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 1
pages crawled
1changes 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 Brown posted
No images from Brown’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
227 turns, Jan 12, 2021 to Jun 30, 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 Brown is most unusual among Delaware Senate, 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
- 8c5ff346-9896-489e-be96-db9d46d846da
- Open States
- ocd-person/8c5ff346-9896-489e-be96-db9d46d846da
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