Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Energy; Environmental Protection · Source
AA
15%
of statements claim credit, the lowest of 52 Senate Republicans
15% of 245 statements claim credit (36 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 36%. Ranks 52nd of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Armstrong’s Congressional Record speeches and posts on X and marks whether it claims credit for an accomplishment. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Republicans. 0% of Armstrong’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans (average 2.1%). 0% of Armstrong’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans (average 2.9%).
The measures on which Armstrong sits furthest from the middle of Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Credit claiming
15%
Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 52nd of 52
Personal attacks
0%
Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 52nd of 52
Extreme labels
0%
Senate Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 52nd of 52
Policy discussion
52%
Senate Republicans average 70% · ranks 50th of 52
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.42
Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 51st of 52
Attendance
100%
Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 2nd of 53 · 191 roll calls
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Armstrong, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Armstrong is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Armstrong says
Armstrong attacks opponents personally less than 97% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 245 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 52nd of 52.
An AI model reads each of Armstrong’s 245 statements in the 119th Congress (228 posts on X, 17 Congressional Record speeches) 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Armstrong
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion127 statements
52%
70%
50th of 52
Policy criticism44 statements
18%
17%
23rd of 52
Credit claiming36 statements
15%
36%
52nd of 52
Bipartisanship19 statements
8%
13%
39th of 52
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
52nd of 52
Show the data
| Row | Armstrong | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 52% | 70% |
| Policy criticism | 18% | 17% |
| Credit claiming | 15% | 36% |
| Bipartisanship | 8% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
245
statements classified
228 posts on X, 17 Congressional Record speeches.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 228 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 17 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Armstrong; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Armstrong does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Armstrong used no extreme labels in 245 statements. The peer average is 2.9%.
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 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’26 | 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) |
| May ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 91.7% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 57 | 0.0% | 10.5% | 36.8% | 12.3% | 10.5% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 80 | 0.0% | 17.5% | 36.3% | 2.5% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 33 | 0.0% | 33.3% | 48.5% | 3.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 52 | 0.0% | 21.1% | 82.7% | 15.4% | 17.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’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) |
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 119th Congress, 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%. 3 months are hatched here.
In Armstrong’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 30, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy; Commerce; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 5, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy; Environmental Protection; Transportation and Public Works · 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 245 statements
Newest first, the 119th Congress
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: 228 posts on X, 17 Congressional Record speeches.
Policy
Energy is what Armstrong talks about most: 66% of policy statements, 6.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.42 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 51st of 52).
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 Armstrong talks about. The bills Armstrong sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Armstrong talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%73%
Armstrong
Peers
Energy84 statements
66%
10%
Government Operations and Politics69 statements
54%
19%
Transportation and Public Works21 statements
17%
7%
Environmental Protection17 statements
13%
4%
Commerce16 statements
13%
10%
Show the data
| Row | Armstrong | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | 66% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 54% | 19% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 17% | 7% |
| Environmental Protection | 13% | 4% |
| Commerce | 13% | 10% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Armstrong’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate 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.
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 73%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy | 66% | 10% | 5% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 54% | 19% | 19% | 11% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 17% | 7% | 2% | 3% |
| Environmental Protection | 13% | 4% | 16% | 4% |
| Commerce | 13% | 10% | 2% | 3% |
0.42
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 51st of 52.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Armstrong legislates on exactly the areas Armstrong 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 Armstrong sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Not placed on the scale.
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”.
No CSIP score.No CSIP score: this official is not matched to a recipient in the current CSIP run (too few roll calls and donors to place them on the scale).
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.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Armstrong voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed none of 191 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Armstrong voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 3 times.
191 roll calls Armstrong could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Republicans. 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 Armstrong voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
3
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 100%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 4th of 53. 191 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Armstrong, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Armstrong
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
97.1%
2nd of 53
Party unity
100%
98.4%
4th of 53
Show the data
| Row | Armstrong | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 97.1% |
| Party unity | 100% | 98.4% |
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
10 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2026 | S. 4668 A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 24, 2026 | H.Con.Res. 89 A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. On the Concurrent Resolution | Nay | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Aug 8, 2026 | H.R. 6500 An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 7, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jul 30, 2026 | S.Res. 817 An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. On the Resolution | Yea | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
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 Armstrong most often
- Todd YoungR189 shared votes99%
- Tom CottonR190 shared votes99%
- Deb FischerR190 shared votes99%
- John BoozmanR189 shared votes99%
- Shelley CapitoR189 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Armstrong least often
- Elizabeth WarrenD191 shared votes3.7%
- Ed MarkeyD189 shared votes3.7%
- Bernie SandersI185 shared votes3.8%
- Lisa Blunt RochesterD188 shared votes5.9%
- Andy KimD189 shared votes6.3%
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
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Armstrong sponsored 2 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 38 others.
The bills Armstrong sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, 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 119th Congress
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 38 | 36 | 14 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Armstrong sponsored, ochre blocks bills Armstrong cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Armstrong, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- James Lankford8
- Katie Britt6
- John Cornyn6
- Pete Ricketts6
- Martin Heinrich5
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 Armstrong’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S.Res. 946 | A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day". | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Armed Forces and National Security | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5588 | Ecological Restoration Project Permitting Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Sep 29, 2026 |
| S. 5600 | Dennis John Benigno Traumatic Brain Injury Program Reauthorization Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Health | Held at the desk. Oct 5, 2026 |
| S.Res. 913 | A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026 |
| S.Res. 897 | A resolution honoring the life, service, and legacy of the Honorable Jon Llewellyn Kyl, former Senator for the State of Arizona. | Cosponsor | Sep 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4958; text: CR S4951-4952) Sep 23, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 124 times in 90 days. Armstrong’s official site had 42 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Armstrong posted on Sep 30, 2026.
The lab crawls Armstrong’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 Armstrong posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 42
pages crawled
124changes 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 Armstrong posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A political graphic featuring a faint image of a government building in the background, a senator’s name and state, and a long quotation about permitting reform, energy, and infrastructure.View post 
A formal letter on National Association of Manufacturers letterhead, dated September 22, 2026. It is addressed to several U.S. senators and urges them to advance permitting reform legislation. The page contains text only, with the association’s blue logo at the top.View post 
A page from a formal letter advocating for modernized permitting and manufacturing legislation. It contains several paragraphs, a closing, and five handwritten signatures with printed names and titles. There is text throughout.View post 
A political statement graphic with a faded image of a government building in the background, a senator’s name and state prominently displayed, and a long quotation beneath. The image contains text.View post 
A graphic about energy and mineral infrastructure legislation, with a high-voltage transmission tower and power lines in the background. It includes a senator’s name and seal near the bottom.View post
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.
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 Armstrong is most unusual among Senate 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- A000383
- Bioguide
- A000383
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 (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
- Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
- Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; 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.
- ImagesOct 28, 2026todayImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.
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