54% of 545 statements discuss policy (296 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 32%. Ranks 82nd of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Gillespie’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.
6 measures against State House Republicans. 26% of Gillespie’s statements claim credit, 2.1 times the State House Republican average of 13%. Gillespie reported $177.8K in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of State House Republicans (median $33.7K).
The measures on which Gillespie 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
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 82nd of 791
Credit claiming
State House Republicans average 13% · ranks 92nd of 791
Itemized, 2026
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 280th of 2,521
Party unity
Tennessee House average 96.3% · ranks 78th of 97 · 31 votes against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans
Out of committee
Tennessee House average 71% · ranks 73rd of 97
CSIP ideology
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 Gillespie, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gillespie is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Gillespie criticizes policies less than 61% of State House Republicans. Policy criticism in 4.2% of 545 statements, against 9.3% for the average State House Republican; 487th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Gillespie’s 545 statements in the TN 2025–26 session (545 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the TN 2025–26 session
| Row | Gillespie | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 54% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 26% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
statements classified
545 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 545 |
The thick bar is Gillespie; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Gillespie does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Gillespie used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, below the peer average. 4 statements, most often aimed at crime; peers 1.4%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Share of statements per month, the TN 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 19 | 5.3% | 5.3% | 42.1% | 0.0% | 26.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 37.5% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 44.4% | 0.0% | 25.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 53.8% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 4.8% | 52.4% | 0.0% | 23.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 9.7% | 54.8% | 3.2% | 25.8% | 3.2% |
| Sep ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 7.4% | 37.0% | 7.4% | 14.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 54 | 9.3% | 13.0% | 57.4% | 9.3% | 22.2% | 1.8% |
| Nov ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 3.6% | 50.0% | 3.6% | 21.4% | 3.6% |
| Dec ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 50.0% | 5.6% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 76.9% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 23 | 8.7% | 0.0% | 34.8% | 4.3% | 8.7% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 28 | 3.6% | 0.0% | 32.1% | 0.0% | 17.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 52.0% | 0.0% | 24.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 16 | 6.3% | 0.0% | 68.8% | 6.3% | 56.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 29 | 3.5% | 0.0% | 37.9% | 0.0% | 31.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 31 | 0.0% | 9.7% | 80.7% | 0.0% | 35.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 87.5% | 0.0% | 41.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 80.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 3.3% |
| Oct ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 81.3% | 6.3% | 43.8% | 0.0% |
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%.
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 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; extreme label “far left” aimed at Far Left · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Tami SawyerSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Steve MulroySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Rep JeffriesSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Wanda HalbertSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: VoteGloriaJSource
Newest first, the TN 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 545 posts on X.
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Gillespie talks about most: 43% of policy statements, 3.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.47 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 368th 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 Gillespie talks about. The bills Gillespie sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the TN 2025–26 session
| Row | Gillespie | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 43% | 11% |
| Education | 13% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 12% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 10% | 5% |
| Health | 8% | 10% |
The thick bar is the share of Gillespie’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.
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 50%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 43% | 11% | 45% | 11% |
| Education | 13% | 15% | 0% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 10% | 5% | 5% | 2% |
| Health | 8% | 10% | 5% | 10% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 368th of 504.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Gillespie legislates on exactly the areas Gillespie 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 Gillespie sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Gillespie sits at +0.30 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 60% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.26 to +0.33, which understates the uncertainty; from 283 donors and 747 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.26 to +0.33. From 283 donors and 747 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gillespie, 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 Gillespie’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Gillespie |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 40% |
| Tennessee House | 97 | +0.4 | 32% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 67% |
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 Gillespie 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 Gillespie.
Gillespie reported $177.8K in the 2026 cycle, 5.3 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 97% 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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 73 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $103.8K | 58.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $73.5K | 41.4% |
| Party committees | $500 | 0.3% |
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $188.8K |
| 2022 cycle | $196.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $279.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $177.8K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 97% came from Tennessee.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Tennessee | $100.4K |
| Colorado | $3,400 |
| 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 |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Tennessee
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Tennessee. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Gillespie voted with the majority of Tennessee House Republicans on 95.3% of party-line votes and missed 0.1% of 3,839 roll calls. Tennessee House on average: 96.3% party unity, 99.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Gillespie voted against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans 31 times.
3,839 roll calls Gillespie 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 Gillespie 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.
votes against the majority of Tennessee House Republicans
Party unity 95.3%, Tennessee House average 96.3%, ranks 78th of 97. 3,839 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Gillespie, the thin grey bar the Tennessee House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Gillespie | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.9% | 99.1% |
| Party unity | 95.3% | 96.3% |
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the TN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 2026 | HB 2111 Correctional Programs - As enacted, creates the state families of incarcerated individuals advisory board within the department of correction for the purposes of assisting the families of incarcerated individuals. - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 41. FLOOR VOTE: MESSAGE CALENDAR 2 CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT # 4 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 19–0 · R 75–0Democrats 19 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1240 Memorials, Interns - Aaron Sullivan - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 3 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 18–0 · R 71–0Democrats 18 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 71 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SB 1849 Local Government, General - As enacted, enacts the "Essential Governmental Employee Housing Act of 2026"; makes related changes. - Amends TCA Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 8; Title 9; Title 12 and Title 67. FLOOR VOTE: PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 72–1Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 72 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | HJR 1657 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Dahee Yoon, Salutatorian, Cookeville High School - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 2 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 18–0 · R 71–0Democrats 18 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 71 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | HB 1707 Immigration - As enacted, requires, until February 1, 2029, each court to cooperate with the U.S. department of homeland security and federal immigration authorities acting in the enforcement of federal immigration law; authorizes, until February 1, 2029, a judge who obstructs lawful operations by s FLOOR VOTE: MOTION TO ADOPT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 1–16 · R 71–1Democrats 1 yea, 16 nay; Republicans 71 yea, 1 nay | became law |
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gillespie most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gillespie least often
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
TN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Gillespie sponsored 21 bills in the TN 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 62% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Tennessee House average 71%; 73rd of 97).
The bills Gillespie 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.
Counts for the TN 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 21 | 20 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills Gillespie sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gillespie cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Tennessee House average 71%. Ranks 73rd of 97.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gillespie, by number of shared bills in the TN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 Gillespie’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 2563 | Public Defenders - As introduced, changes from 10 days to 10 business days the number of days' written notice the president of the district public defenders conference must give before calling an at-will meeting of the conference. - Amends TCA Title 8, Chapter 14 and Title 9, Chapter 4. | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Rec. for pass. if am., ref. to Finance, Ways, and Means Committee Apr 1, 2026 |
| HB 2497 | Civil Emergencies - As introduced, requires state agencies charged with responsibilities in connection with healthcare facilities to study emergency mitigation at the direction of the governor as part of the state and local comprehensive emergency management plans. - Amends TCA Title 4; Title 5; Tit | Sponsor | Feb 3, 2026 | Introduced | Emergency Management(model) | P2C, caption bill, held on desk - pending amdt. Feb 5, 2026 |
| HB 2225 | Consumer Protection - As introduced, authorizes the attorney general to establish a do not call registry; places certain restrictions upon telephone solicitations and robocallers; authorizes the attorney general to enforce restrictions and sets monetary amounts for penalties imposed by a court that | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | In committee | Commerce(model) | Taken off notice for cal in s/c Banking and Consumer Affairs Subcommittee of Commerce Committee Mar 11, 2026 |
| HB 2318 | General Assembly - As enacted, revises and clarifies procedures of the joint committee on ways and means, including authorizing the committee to issue notice that a hearing will not be held or to hold a hearing to review the application or acceptance of federal aid in an amount that is less than $25 | Sponsor | Feb 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Comp. became Pub. Ch. 801 May 1, 2026 |
| HB 1483 | Tort Liability and Reform - As introduced, creates a cause of action through which a victim can recover from a person, other than a professional bondsman or person with a bailable interest, who posts bail for a defendant and the defendant is subsequently convicted for a criminal offense that occurre | Sponsor | Jan 8, 2026 | In committee | Law(model) | Withdrawn. Feb 2, 2026 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Gillespie’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Gillespie’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 Gillespie posts with a vision model.
Official site
wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/legislatorinfo/member.aspx?district=H97Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
No images from Gillespie’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline is the measure on which Gillespie 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
