33% of 1,223 statements use bipartisan language (398 statements); the average for Senate Democrats is 18%. Ranks 2nd of 45, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Peters’s press releases, Congressional Record speeches, posts on X and newsletters and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against Senate Democrats. 28% of the 85 bills Peters sponsored got out of committee, in the top 5% of Senate Democrats. 0.3% of Peters’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom 5% of Senate Democrats (average 2.4%).
The measures on which Peters sits furthest from the middle of Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Bipartisanship
Senate Democrats average 18% · ranks 2nd of 45
Out of committee
Senate Democrats average 14% · ranks 2nd of 45
Extreme labels
Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 44th of 45
Credit claiming
Senate Democrats average 26% · ranks 3rd of 45
Raised, 2026
Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M · ranks 40th of 45
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01
Peer group: Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Peters, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Peters is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Peters attacks opponents personally less than 84% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 3.9% of 1,223 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 39th of 45.
An AI model reads each of Peters’s 1,223 statements in the 119th Congress (750 posts on X, 361 press releases, 97 Congressional Record speeches, 15 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Peters | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 78% | 78% |
| Credit claiming | 39% | 26% |
| Policy criticism | 35% | 37% |
| Bipartisanship | 33% | 18% |
| Personal attacks | 4% | 11% |
statements classified
750 posts on X, 361 press releases, 97 Congressional Record speeches, 15 newsletters.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 750 |
| press releases | 361 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 97 |
| newsletters | 15 |
The thick bar is Peters; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Peters does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Peters used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 11% of the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at politicians; peers 2.4%.
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 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 72 | 2.8% | 26.4% | 79.2% | 38.9% | 47.2% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 83 | 16.9% | 42.2% | 74.7% | 24.1% | 32.5% | 1.2% |
| Mar ’25 | 69 | 7.2% | 37.7% | 73.9% | 24.6% | 30.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 57 | 3.5% | 33.3% | 82.5% | 35.1% | 40.4% | 1.8% |
| May ’25 | 64 | 4.7% | 40.6% | 76.6% | 34.4% | 45.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 67 | 3.0% | 38.8% | 80.6% | 28.4% | 38.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 54 | 1.8% | 42.6% | 87.0% | 31.5% | 51.8% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 46 | 2.2% | 26.1% | 63.0% | 26.1% | 39.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 60 | 3.3% | 33.3% | 73.3% | 30.0% | 36.7% | 1.7% |
| Oct ’25 | 72 | 0.0% | 47.2% | 84.7% | 37.5% | 43.1% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 60 | 6.7% | 40.0% | 76.7% | 53.3% | 48.3% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 55 | 0.0% | 40.0% | 80.0% | 45.5% | 50.9% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 59 | 6.8% | 49.1% | 86.4% | 40.7% | 37.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 49 | 2.0% | 36.7% | 69.4% | 22.4% | 24.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 48 | 0.0% | 43.8% | 77.1% | 27.1% | 27.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 50 | 4.0% | 32.0% | 72.0% | 28.0% | 28.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 41 | 0.0% | 14.6% | 75.6% | 36.6% | 48.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 56 | 3.6% | 32.1% | 78.6% | 26.8% | 35.7% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 39 | 2.6% | 17.9% | 74.4% | 23.1% | 25.6% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 48 | 2.1% | 14.6% | 79.2% | 37.5% | 52.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 49 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 79.6% | 26.5% | 38.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 25 | 4.0% | 12.0% | 96.0% | 36.0% | 44.0% | 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
Bipartisanship
Senators Peters, Slotkin Announce More Than $2.1 Million in Federal Support for Upper Peninsula and Northern Michigan Fire Departments WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Gary Peters (MI) and Elissa Slotkin (MI) announced that local fire departments across the Upper Peninsula and Northern Michigan are s…
Oct 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Emergency Management; Economics and Public Finance; Health · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Government Operations and Politics; target: Trump · Source
Extreme label
Madam President, I staunchly oppose Robert Law's nomination to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans at the Department of Homeland Security. If confirmed, Robert Law will be responsible for developing policies for all of DHS's critical national security missions, including border securi…
Sep 9, 2025 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; Immigration; Emergency Management; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Robert Law · 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
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource
Press releases
VIDEO: At Senate Appropriations Hearing, Peters Presses DHS Secretary Mullin for Updates on Key Michigan Projects WASHINGTON, D.C. – During a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI) pressed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin for updates on two key Michigan projects – the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge and the Northern Border Mission…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Transportation and Public Works · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Crime and Law Enforcement · Immigration · Armed Forces and National Security · Emergency Management · target: Donald TrumpSource
Press releases
Peters Statement on Postal Service Proposed Rule to Carry Out President Trump’s Unconstitutional Executive Order to Restrict Vote by Mail WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released the following statement on a proposed rule by the United States Postal Service (USPS) to implement President Donald Trump’s unconstitutio…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Law · target: Donald TrumpSource
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: 750 posts on X, 361 press releases, 97 Congressional Record speeches, 15 newsletters.
Armed Forces and National Security is what Peters talks about most: 30% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 21st of 45).
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 Peters talks about. The bills Peters sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Peters | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 30% | 21% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 25% | 24% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 22% |
| Health | 23% | 27% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 14% | 8% |
The thick bar is the share of Peters’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate 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 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 30% | 21% | 8% | 7% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 25% | 24% | 0% | 0% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 22% | 22% | 9% |
| Health | 23% | 27% | 11% | 14% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 14% | 8% | 9% | 3% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 21st of 45.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Peters legislates on exactly the areas Peters 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 Peters sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Peters sits at −0.93 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 83% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.95 to −0.92, which understates the uncertainty; from 40,937 donors and 4,321 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 −0.95 to −0.92. From 40,937 donors and 4,321 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Peters, 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 Peters’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 Peters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Democrats | 45 | −1.1 | 82% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 39% |
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 Peters 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 Peters.
Peters raised $303.1K in the 2026 cycle, 12% of the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 29% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less.
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 224 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $13.3K | 4.4% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $5,357 | 1.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $9,500 | 3.1% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $275.0K | 90.7% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $50.1M |
| 2022 cycle | $4.3M |
| 2024 cycle | $3.2M |
| 2026 cycle | $303.1K |
Itemized contributions by donor state.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Democrats’ median.
| Row | Peters | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 29% | 35% |
| 2024 cycle | 32% | 35% |
| 2022 cycle | 47% | 35% |
| 2020 cycle | 40% | 35% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Ohio | $71 |
| Hawaii | $55 |
| Arizona | $30 |
| New Mexico | $25 |
| Georgia | $25 |
| New Jersey | $12 |
| Oklahoma | $12 |
| Idaho | $5 |
| Arkansas | $4 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | 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 |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
No itemized individual money.
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.8% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 54% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 39% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.2% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 6.5% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Peters’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Peters’s own score is −0.93.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Peters voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 94.6% of party-line votes and missed 2.1% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Peters voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 47 times.
915 roll calls Peters could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Democrats. 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 Peters voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Party unity 94.6%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 30th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Peters, the thin grey bar the Senate Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Peters | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.9% | 97.0% |
| Party unity | 94.6% | 95.3% |
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 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 | Yea | 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 | Nay | 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 Peters most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Peters 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
Peters sponsored 85 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 288 others. 28% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 2nd of 45).
The bills Peters 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 | 85 | 83 | 22 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 288 | 285 | 66 | 4 | 4 |
Ink blocks are bills Peters sponsored, ochre blocks bills Peters 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 Democrats average 14%. Ranks 2nd of 45.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Peters, 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 Peters’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S. 5648 | TAG Act | Sponsor | 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.Res. 944 | A resolution designating September 2026 as "School Bus Safety Month". | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Transportation and Public Works | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5271-5272) Sep 30, 2026 |
| 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.Res. 919 | A resolution honoring the leadership of Lonnie G. Bunch III, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and recognizing his career as a public servant and the enduring value of the Smithsonian Institution to the people of the United States. | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. (text: CR S5174) Sep 29, 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 |
A site that changed 90 times in 90 days. Peters’s official site had 38 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Peters posted on Oct 23, 2026.
The lab crawls Peters’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 Peters posts with a vision model.
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.
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 Peters is most unusual among Senate 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
