Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 3, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Taxation; Science, Technology, Communications; Commerce · Source
3.4×
the State House Democrat rate of policy criticism
36% of 562 statements criticize a policy (202 statements); the average for State House Democrats is 10%. Ranks 18th of 764, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Clancy’s posts on X and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. Clancy sits at −1.19 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 96% of State House Democrats. 6.5% of the 433 bills Clancy sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of the Wisconsin House.
The measures on which Clancy 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.
Policy criticism
36%
State House Democrats average 10% · ranks 18th of 764
CSIP ideology
−1.19
More liberal than 96% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05
Out of committee
6.5%
Wisconsin House average 45% · ranks 93rd of 99
Extreme labels
4.3%
State House Democrats average 1.0% · ranks 47th of 764
Policy discussion
65%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 65th of 764
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.67
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 54th of 503
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Clancy, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Clancy is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Clancy says
Clancy criticizes policies more than 97% of State House Democrats. Policy criticism in 36% of 562 statements, against 10% for the average State House Democrat; 18th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Clancy’s 562 statements in the WI 2025–26 session (562 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 WI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Clancy
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion364 statements
65%
39%
65th of 764
Policy criticism202 statements
36%
10%
18th of 764
Credit claiming46 statements
8%
14%
486th of 764
Bipartisanship17 statements
3%
3%
259th of 764
Personal attacks11 statements
2%
3%
257th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Clancy | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 65% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 36% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 8% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
562
statements classified
562 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 562 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Clancy; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Clancy does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Clancy used extreme labels in 4.3% of statements, 4.4 times the peer average. 24 statements, most often aimed at fascism; peers 1.0%.
- “fascist”13
- “MAGA”1
- “far right”1
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- fascism2
- Donald Trump1
- fascist regime1
- fascists1
- government1
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 WI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 66 | 0.0% | 40.9% | 60.6% | 1.5% | 13.6% | 4.5% |
| Feb ’25 | 30 | 3.3% | 50.0% | 76.7% | 6.7% | 6.7% | 10.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 33.3% | 44.4% | 5.6% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 69 | 0.0% | 31.9% | 63.8% | 2.9% | 10.1% | 7.2% |
| May ’25 | 60 | 1.7% | 41.7% | 63.3% | 3.3% | 1.7% | 5.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 57 | 8.8% | 45.6% | 68.4% | 1.8% | 5.3% | 1.8% |
| Jul ’25 | 28 | 7.1% | 46.4% | 75.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% | 3.6% |
| Aug ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 34.6% | 61.5% | 3.9% | 3.9% | 3.9% |
| Sep ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 34.6% | 57.7% | 0.0% | 19.2% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 21 | 4.8% | 33.3% | 42.9% | 9.5% | 4.8% | 4.8% |
| Nov ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 21.4% |
| Dec ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 33.3% | 88.9% | 0.0% | 27.8% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 11.1% | 83.3% | 0.0% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 50.0% | 56.3% | 0.0% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 22.2% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 5.6% |
| May ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 80.0% | 15.0% | 15.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 30.8% | 53.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 31.8% | 90.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 WI 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%. 4 months are hatched here.
In Clancy’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 13, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; extreme label “fascist” aimed at 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 · policy discussion · International Affairs · target: youSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: MPDSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: EversSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: EversSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Donald TrumpSource
All 562 statements
Newest first, the WI 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: 562 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Clancy talks about most: 26% of policy statements, 3.3 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 54th 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 Clancy talks about. The bills Clancy sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Clancy talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the WI 2025–26 session
0%35%
Clancy
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement96 statements
26%
8%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues54 statements
15%
10%
Education39 statements
11%
15%
Immigration38 statements
10%
4%
Economics and Public Finance37 statements
10%
11%
Show the data
| Row | Clancy | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 26% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 10% |
| Education | 11% | 15% |
| Immigration | 10% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 10% | 11% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Clancy’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 | 26% | 8% | 12% | 9% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 10% | 6% | 4% |
| Education | 11% | 15% | 11% | 10% |
| Immigration | 10% | 4% | 1% | 1% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 10% | 11% | 2% | 2% |
0.67
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 54th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Clancy legislates on exactly the areas Clancy 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 Clancy sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Clancy sits at −1.19 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 96% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.23 to −1.14, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,287 donors and 308 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”.
−1.19
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.23 to −1.14. From 1,287 donors and 308 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Clancy, 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 Clancy’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 Clancy sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Wisconsin House99 · median +0.5
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Clancy |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 4% |
| Wisconsin House | 99 | +0.5 | 2% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 2% |
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 Clancy 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 Clancy.
Money
Clancy reported $65.6K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 80% of itemized individual money came from Wisconsin.
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.
$65.6K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 702 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)86 squares$56.3K
- PACs and other committees14 squares$9,220
- Party committees$105
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $56.3K | 85.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $9,220 | 14.1% |
| Party committees | $105 | 0.2% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $14.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $87.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $65.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 80% came from Wisconsin.
- Wisconsin$44.8K
- California$3,861
- Washington$1,199
- Massachusetts$1,194
- New York$914
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 |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin | $44.8K |
| California | $3,861 |
| Washington | $1,199 |
| Massachusetts | $1,194 |
| New York | $914 |
| Indiana | $700 |
| Texas | $488 |
| Illinois | $411 |
| Oregon | $349 |
| Florida | $328 |
| Colorado | $181 |
| Minnesota | $178 |
| Georgia | $152 |
| North Carolina | $151 |
| Ohio | $144 |
| Michigan | $139 |
| Maryland | $124 |
| Connecticut | $113 |
| Pennsylvania | $102 |
| West Virginia | $100 |
| Kentucky | $93 |
| Rhode Island | $70 |
| Arkansas | $54 |
| Tennessee | $52 |
| Louisiana | $48 |
| Missouri | $36 |
| Montana | $27 |
| South Carolina | $27 |
| Oklahoma | $27 |
| Hawaii | $27 |
| Virginia | $26 |
| Arizona | $24 |
| Iowa | $20 |
| Alaska | $15 |
| Maine | $13 |
| Nevada | $13 |
| Utah | $10 |
| New Jersey | $5 |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
702
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
80%
from Wisconsin
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 Wisconsin. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$11.7K 149 donors
- RETIRED$3,867 24 donors
- SOFTWARE ENGINEER$2,506 14 donors
- ATTORNEY$1,911 8 donors
- LAWYER$1,727 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN FED OF TEACHERS, #212, COPE$1,000
- FRIENDS OF JESSICA SEAWRIGHT$1,000
- SEIU WISCONSIN STATE COUNCIL PAC$1,000
- WEAC PAC$1,000
- FRIENDS OF JUAN MARTINEZ$924
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Clancy voted with the majority of Wisconsin House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 3.3% of 244 roll calls. Wisconsin House on average: 97.6% party unity, 97.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Clancy voted against the majority of Wisconsin House Democrats 37 times.
244 roll calls Clancy could vote on in the WI 2025–26 session, compared with Wisconsin 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 Clancy voted with the majority of Wisconsin House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
37
votes against the majority of Wisconsin House Democrats
Party unity 99.3%, Wisconsin House average 97.6%, ranks 59th of 98. 244 roll calls in the WI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Clancy, the thin grey bar the Wisconsin House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Clancy
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.7%
97.7%
80th of 98
Party unity
99.3%
97.6%
59th of 98
Show the data
| Row | Clancy | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.7% | 97.7% |
| Party unity | 99.3% | 97.6% |
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 WI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2026 | AB 1 Relating to: an income tax subtraction for qualified tips and for qualified overtime compensation; state aid for school districts; surplus refund payments; increasing funding for special education and school age parents programs; state aid to technical colleges and the technical college district rev PASSAGE | Nay | With majority | pass | D 10–32 · R 50–0Democrats 10 yea, 32 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay | party crossover · much discussed |
| Feb 19, 2026 | SB 181 Relating to: a levy limit exemption for regional emergency medical systems and eligibility for the expenditure restraint incentive program. (FE) CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 40–0 · R 51–1Democrats 40 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 51 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Feb 19, 2026 | AB 659 Relating to: tuition and fee remission or grants for certain veterans and their dependents enrolled in the University of Wisconsin System, a technical college, or a private nonprofit institution of higher education; and the University of Wisconsin System nonresident tuition exemption for certain vet PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 40–2 · R 53–0Democrats 40 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 53 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Feb 19, 2026 | AB 997 Relating to: funding for the Department of Financial Institutions for contributions to Trump accounts and making an appropriation. (FE) PASSAGE | Nay | With majority | pass | D 9–34 · R 52–1Democrats 9 yea, 34 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Feb 19, 2026 | SB 439 Relating to: levy increase limit for the village of Oregon and the towns of Oregon and Rutland. (FE) CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 42–0 · R 53–0Democrats 42 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 53 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 Clancy most often
- Christian PhelpsD235 shared votes100%
- Darrin MadisonD236 shared votes99%
- Francesca HongD234 shared votes98%
- Angelito TenorioD232 shared votes94%
- Angelina CruzD226 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Clancy least often
- Brent JacobsonR231 shared votes22%
- Jim PiwowarczykR234 shared votes22%
- Calvin CallahanR233 shared votes22%
- Jessie RodriguezR232 shared votes22%
- Elijah BehnkeR236 shared votes22%
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
WI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Clancy sponsored 433 bills in the WI 2025–26 session; 3 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 6.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Wisconsin House average 45%; 93rd of 99).
The bills Clancy sponsored and cosponsored in the WI 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 WI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 433 | 433 | 20 | 3 | 3 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Clancy sponsored, ochre blocks bills Clancy cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
6.5%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Wisconsin House average 45%. Ranks 93rd of 99.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Clancy, by number of shared bills in the WI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Christine Sinicki200
- Darrin Madison192
- Vinnie Miresse181
- Shelia Stubbs173
- Alex Joers162
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 Clancy’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| AB 1164 | Relating to: permitting certain qualified individuals to make a request for medication for the purpose of ending their lives and providing a penalty. (FE) | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| AB 1232 | Relating to: a University of Wisconsin System nonresident tuition exemption. (FE) | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Fiscal estimate received Apr 17, 2026 |
| AB 1189 | Relating to: limitation on retroactive claim denials under health insurance policies. | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| AB 1209 | Relating to: modifying the income and franchise tax rate structure for individuals and corporations, creating a school aid fund, supplemental school aid, school district revenue limits, and making an appropriation. (FE) | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Fiscal estimate received Apr 16, 2026 |
| AB 1184 | Relating to: grants for school district construction of or upgrades to accessible playgrounds and making an appropriation. (FE) | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Fiscal estimate received Apr 1, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Clancy’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Clancy’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 Clancy posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 7
pages crawled
4changes 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 Clancy posted
No images from Clancy’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 Clancy 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
- 91423371-a92c-4006-ad7d-e21f2f7e666b
- Open States
- ocd-person/91423371-a92c-4006-ad7d-e21f2f7e666b
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