Party unity 92.7%, in the bottom quarter of the Wisconsin House (average 97.6%). 239 roll calls in the WI 2025–26 session.
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 Rivera-Wagner voted with the majority of Wisconsin House Democrats; it is ranked within the Wisconsin House. The count covers every roll call where Rivera-Wagner voted opposite that majority.
6 measures against State House Democrats. Rivera-Wagner missed 8.0% of 239 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Wisconsin House (average 97.7%). 72% of Rivera-Wagner’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Wisconsin, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Rivera-Wagner 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.
Party unity
Wisconsin House average 97.6% · ranks 87th of 98 · 11 votes against the majority of Wisconsin House Democrats
Attendance
Wisconsin House average 97.7% · ranks 85th of 98 · 239 roll calls
From Wisconsin, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1651st of 1,983 State House Democrats
Out of committee
Wisconsin House average 45% · ranks 83rd of 99
Talk-to-bills agreement
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 369th of 503
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.05
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Rivera-Wagner, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Rivera-Wagner is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Rivera-Wagner attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.8% of 131 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 343rd of 764.
An AI model reads each of Rivera-Wagner’s 131 statements in the WI 2025–26 session (131 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the WI 2025–26 session
| Row | Rivera-Wagner | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 26% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 14% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 11% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 6% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
statements classified
131 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 131 |
The thick bar is Rivera-Wagner; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Rivera-Wagner does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Rivera-Wagner used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, below the peer average. 1 statement; peers 1.0%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 WI 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 15 | 6.7% | 6.7% | 13.3% | 0.0% | 13.3% | 6.7% |
| Feb ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 45.5% | 18.2% | 27.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 18.2% | 18.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 23.1% | 11.5% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 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) |
| Jun ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 16.7% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 4 | — (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 ’25 | 4 | — (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 ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 36.4% | 54.5% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 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) |
| Nov ’25 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 5 | — (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 | 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) |
| May ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’26 | 1 | — (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 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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%. 16 months are hatched here; 2 of them have no statements.
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.
Apr 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 29, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: DanRShafer · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 29, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Education; Health; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Transportation and Public Works; extreme label “extreme” · 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: DanRShaferSource
Newest first, the WI 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: 131 posts on X.
Government Operations and Politics is what Rivera-Wagner talks about most: 47% of policy statements, 3.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.48 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 369th 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 Rivera-Wagner talks about. The bills Rivera-Wagner sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the WI 2025–26 session
| Row | Rivera-Wagner | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 47% | 15% |
| Housing and Community Development | 18% | 6% |
| Education | 12% | 15% |
| Taxation | 12% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 9% | 11% |
The thick bar is the share of Rivera-Wagner’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.
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 52%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 47% | 15% | 10% | 8% |
| Housing and Community Development | 18% | 6% | 6% | 5% |
| Education | 12% | 15% | 13% | 10% |
| Taxation | 12% | 4% | 7% | 7% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 9% | 11% | 2% | 2% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 369th of 503.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Rivera-Wagner legislates on exactly the areas Rivera-Wagner 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 Rivera-Wagner sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Rivera-Wagner sits at −0.70 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 62% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.75 to −0.65, which understates the uncertainty; from 527 donors and 175 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 −0.75 to −0.65. From 527 donors and 175 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Rivera-Wagner, 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 Rivera-Wagner’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 Rivera-Wagner |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 38% |
| Wisconsin House | 99 | +0.5 | 17% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 17% |
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 Rivera-Wagner 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 Rivera-Wagner.
Rivera-Wagner reported $23.3K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 72% 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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 136 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $17.5K | 75.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $5,173 | 22.2% |
| Party committees | $605 | 2.6% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $51.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $23.3K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 72% came from Wisconsin.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin | $12.6K |
| Pennsylvania | $2,000 |
| Massachusetts | $1,795 |
| California | $459 |
| Minnesota | $250 |
| Michigan | $120 |
| Missouri | $100 |
| Iowa | $60 |
| Texas | $50 |
| New York | $36 |
| North Carolina | $15 |
| Idaho | $6 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | 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 |
| 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 |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Wisconsin
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 Wisconsin. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Rivera-Wagner voted with the majority of Wisconsin House Democrats on 92.7% of party-line votes and missed 8.0% of 239 roll calls. Wisconsin House on average: 97.6% party unity, 97.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Rivera-Wagner voted against the majority of Wisconsin House Democrats 11 times.
239 roll calls Rivera-Wagner 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 Rivera-Wagner 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.
votes against the majority of Wisconsin House Democrats
Party unity 92.7%, Wisconsin House average 97.6%, ranks 87th of 98. 239 roll calls in the WI 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Rivera-Wagner, the thin grey bar the Wisconsin House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Rivera-Wagner | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 92.0% | 97.7% |
| Party unity | 92.7% | 97.6% |
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 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 | Did not vote | — | 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 |
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 Rivera-Wagner most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Rivera-Wagner 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.
WI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Rivera-Wagner sponsored 246 bills in the WI 2025–26 session; 6 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Wisconsin House average 45%; 83rd of 99).
The bills Rivera-Wagner 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.
Counts for the WI 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 246 | 246 | 19 | 6 | 6 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills Rivera-Wagner sponsored, ochre blocks bills Rivera-Wagner 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
Wisconsin House average 45%. Ranks 83rd of 99.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Rivera-Wagner, by number of shared bills in the WI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Rivera-Wagner’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| 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 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 |
| AJR 149 | Relating to: honoring the life and public service of Rev. Jesse L. Jackson. | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| AB 1215 | Relating to: management and preservation of records and correspondence of members of the legislature. (FE) | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| AB 1231 | Relating to: the distribution of the Wisconsin Blue Book and highway maps. (FE) | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Fiscal estimate received Apr 6, 2026 |
A site that changed 28 times in 90 days. Rivera-Wagner’s campaign site had 25 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Rivera-Wagner’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 Rivera-Wagner posts with a vision model.
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 Rivera-Wagner’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 Rivera-Wagner 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
