1.2% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for Senate Republicans is 17%. Ranks 46th of 51, where 1st is the highest share. $1.2M raised in all.
Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among Senate Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
6 measures against Senate Republicans. 24% of Lankford’s statements criticize a policy, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans (average 17%). Lankford raised $1.2M in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans (median $3.2M).
The measures on which Lankford 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.
Small donations, 2026
Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 46th of 51
Attendance
Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 8th of 53 · 915 roll calls
Policy criticism
Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 10th of 52
Raised, 2026
Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 42nd of 51
Talk-to-bills agreement
Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 12th of 52
CSIP ideology
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Lankford, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Lankford is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Lankford attacks opponents personally less than 61% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.6% of 1,562 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 33rd of 52.
An AI model reads each of Lankford’s 1,562 statements in the 119th Congress (1,217 posts on X, 192 press releases, 140 Congressional Record speeches, 13 newsletters) 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Lankford | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 68% | 70% |
| Credit claiming | 33% | 36% |
| Policy criticism | 24% | 17% |
| Bipartisanship | 11% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
statements classified
1,217 posts on X, 192 press releases, 140 Congressional Record speeches, 13 newsletters.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,217 |
| press releases | 192 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 140 |
| newsletters | 13 |
The thick bar is Lankford; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Lankford does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Lankford used extreme labels in 2.1% of statements, below the peer average. 32 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.
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 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 114 | 0.9% | 29.8% | 70.2% | 13.2% | 30.7% | 3.5% |
| Feb ’25 | 83 | 0.0% | 38.6% | 75.9% | 12.0% | 49.4% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 105 | 0.0% | 20.9% | 61.0% | 4.8% | 32.4% | 2.9% |
| Apr ’25 | 84 | 1.2% | 15.5% | 53.6% | 9.5% | 29.8% | 3.6% |
| May ’25 | 110 | 0.9% | 15.4% | 58.2% | 9.1% | 28.2% | 1.8% |
| Jun ’25 | 86 | 1.2% | 22.1% | 63.9% | 4.7% | 24.4% | 1.2% |
| Jul ’25 | 60 | 0.0% | 13.3% | 68.3% | 6.7% | 43.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 62 | 0.0% | 17.7% | 67.7% | 9.7% | 43.5% | 1.6% |
| Sep ’25 | 97 | 0.0% | 27.8% | 57.7% | 17.5% | 23.7% | 1.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 84 | 0.0% | 41.7% | 76.2% | 4.8% | 29.8% | 4.8% |
| Nov ’25 | 41 | 0.0% | 34.2% | 63.4% | 7.3% | 34.2% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 48 | 2.1% | 22.9% | 70.8% | 10.4% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 67 | 1.5% | 11.9% | 82.1% | 9.0% | 34.3% | 1.5% |
| Feb ’26 | 62 | 0.0% | 38.7% | 69.3% | 9.7% | 27.4% | 3.2% |
| Mar ’26 | 99 | 2.0% | 30.3% | 69.7% | 20.2% | 27.3% | 4.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 52 | 0.0% | 13.5% | 71.2% | 9.6% | 28.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 45 | 0.0% | 15.6% | 57.8% | 11.1% | 35.6% | 2.2% |
| Jun ’26 | 72 | 0.0% | 29.2% | 73.6% | 8.3% | 41.7% | 4.2% |
| Jul ’26 | 78 | 1.3% | 12.8% | 73.1% | 10.3% | 34.6% | 1.3% |
| Aug ’26 | 45 | 0.0% | 17.8% | 82.2% | 15.6% | 37.8% | 2.2% |
| Sep ’26 | 45 | 0.0% | 26.7% | 82.2% | 24.4% | 37.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 8.7% | 65.2% | 8.7% | 17.4% | 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 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%.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
Lankford, Rosen Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Expand Child Care Options on Military Bases OKLAHOMA CITY, OK — US Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV) recently introduced a bipartisan bill to expand access to child care on military bases for servicemembers and their families. The Best…
Oct 19, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Families; Labor and Employment · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 30, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Health; target: Fauci · Source
Extreme label
Lankford Letter [Image] Dear Oklahoma friends and neighbors: In this edition of the Lankford Letter, you’ll see: • Work is getting done, but there is always more work to do • My continued support for the SAVE America Act • My line of questioning of Dr. Anthony Fauci • What happens when a Senator…
Aug 11, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Labor and Employment; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; International Affairs; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Education; Immigration; Transportation and Public Works; Families; Government Operations and Politics; Energy; extreme label “radical, communist” aimed at Democratic Socialists
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
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: FauciSource
Congressional Record
Mr. President, 250 years ago--actually, 250 years ago this summer--we wrote a letter to good King George III, and in that letter we now call the Declaration of Independence, we complained about foreign intervention into the activities of Americans, the colonists. We wanted the right to be able to actually control our own destiny. We wanted the ability to be able to speak for our own future, decide for our own familie…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · Law · ImmigrationSource
Congressional Record
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will be brief with some comments on this. I just wish all that was so that was just stated. The White House presented a set of ideas on paper on reform, put them into legislative text, and handed them to Democrats 2 weeks ago--2 weeks ago--and said: Here are the reforms we would agree with that you have asked for: badges, body-worn cameras, deescalation training, proces…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · Emergency Management · Immigration · Armed Forces and National SecuritySource
Press releases
Lankford in Fox News: “When We March for Life, We Must Fight for the Hyde Amendment” OKLAHOMA CITY, OK — US Senator James Lankford (R-OK) penned a column in Fox News today highlighting the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and why protecting it remains critical as Americans gather for the 53rd annual March for Life. You can read it below or find it in Fox News HERE. When We March for Life, We Must Fight for the…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Taxation · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Economics and Public Finance · target: DemocratsSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: @POTUSSource
Newest first, the 119th Congress
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,217 posts on X, 192 press releases, 140 Congressional Record speeches, 13 newsletters.
Government Operations and Politics is what Lankford talks about most: 28% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 12th 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 Lankford talks about. The bills Lankford sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Lankford | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 28% | 19% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 20% | 25% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 17% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 16% | 6% |
| Health | 14% | 15% |
The thick bar is the share of Lankford’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.
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 Senate Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 28% | 19% | 21% | 11% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 20% | 25% | 4% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 17% | 2% | 1% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 16% | 6% | 5% | 3% |
| Health | 14% | 15% | 11% | 11% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 12th of 52.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Lankford legislates on exactly the areas Lankford 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 Lankford sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Lankford sits at +1.05 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 68% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +1.03 to +1.06, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,244 donors and 4,356 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 +1.03 to +1.06. From 5,244 donors and 4,356 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Lankford, 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 Lankford’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 Lankford |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Republicans | 51 | +1.0 | 67% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 83% |
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 Lankford 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 Lankford.
Lankford raised $1.2M in the 2026 cycle, 36% of the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 1.2% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 32% of itemized individual money came from Oklahoma.
Campaign money from Federal Election Commission 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.
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 193 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $465.8K | 40.1% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $5,766 | 0.5% |
| PACs and other committees | $397.8K | 34.2% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $293.4K | 25.2% |
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. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $822.0K |
| 2022 cycle | $5.9M |
| 2024 cycle | $913.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $1.2M |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 32% came from Oklahoma.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.
| Row | Lankford | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 1% | 17% |
| 2024 cycle | 10% | 17% |
| 2022 cycle | 8% | 17% |
| 2020 cycle | 13% | 17% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Oklahoma | $170.3K |
| California | $59.5K |
| Florida | $53.0K |
| New York | $44.0K |
| Virginia | $31.3K |
| Maryland | $29.6K |
| Arizona | $29.3K |
| Texas | $22.0K |
| Illinois | $16.5K |
| Colorado | $15.5K |
| Kansas | $13.0K |
| District of Columbia | $10.0K |
| North Carolina | $8,000 |
| Ohio | $4,500 |
| Oregon | $3,500 |
| New Hampshire | $3,000 |
| Utah | $2,500 |
| Louisiana | $2,500 |
| Wisconsin | $2,000 |
| Indiana | $2,000 |
| Montana | $1,000 |
| Nevada | $1,000 |
| Alabama | $1,000 |
| Washington | $750 |
| South Carolina | $500 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Oklahoma
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 Oklahoma. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.2% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 0.6% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 5.7% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.9% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 9.5% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 11% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 40% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 32% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.1% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Lankford’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Lankford’s own score is +1.05.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Lankford voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 0.7% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Lankford voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 5 times.
915 roll calls Lankford 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 Lankford voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.7%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 18th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Lankford, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Lankford | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.3% | 97.1% |
| Party unity | 99.7% | 98.4% |
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 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 | Did not vote | — | 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 |
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 Lankford most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Lankford 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.
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Lankford sponsored 82 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 351 others. 24% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 19th of 51).
The bills Lankford 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.
Counts for the 119th Congress
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 82 | 80 | 17 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 351 | 341 | 76 | 2 | 1 |
Ink blocks are bills Lankford sponsored, ochre blocks bills Lankford 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
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 19th of 51.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Lankford, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; 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 Lankford’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S. 5683 | Best Practices for Military Family Child Care Homes Act | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | Introduced | Armed Forces and National Security | Under authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Oct 15, 2026 |
| S. 5648 | TAG Act | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5667 | Ending Birthright Citizenship in U.S. Territories Act | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Immigration | Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 934 | A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day". | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 940 | A resolution expressing support for the designation of September 2026 as "Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month" in order to educate communities across the United States about sickle cell disease and the need for research, early detection methods, effective treatments, and preventative care programs w | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Health | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5270) Sep 30, 2026 |
A site that changed 62 times in 90 days. Lankford’s official site had 25 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Lankford posted on Oct 24, 2026.
The lab crawls Lankford’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 Lankford 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.
The latest 24, with model-written 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.
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 Lankford 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
