CSIP score −0.98 (approximate range −1.11 to −0.86, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 59 donors and 107 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Gulick sits among State Senate Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
4 measures against State Senate Democrats. 42% of the 120 bills Gulick sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Vermont Senate. 80% of Gulick’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Vermont, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Gulick sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 88% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.12
Out of committee
Vermont Senate average 55% · ranks 27th of 30
From Vermont, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 581st of 714 State Senate Democrats
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 563rd of 746
Statements
Roll calls
Compared with Vermont Senate
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Gulick, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gulick is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Gulick says
No statements for the VT 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Policy
No policy statements for the VT 2025–26 session.No classified statements (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) in this time window.
Ideology
Gulick sits at −0.98 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 88% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.11 to −0.86, which understates the uncertainty; from 59 donors and 107 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 −1.11 to −0.86. From 59 donors and 107 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gulick, 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 Gulick’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Where Gulick sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Gulick |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 12% |
| Vermont Senate | 30 | −0.4 | 0% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 5% |
How to read the strips
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 Gulick 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 Gulick.
Money
Gulick reported $15.1K in the 2026 cycle, 27% of the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 80% of itemized individual money came from Vermont.
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 27 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)88 squares$13.3K
- PACs and other committees12 squares$1,815
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $13.3K | 88.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $1,815 | 12.0% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
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.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $14.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $17.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $15.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 80% came from Vermont.
- Vermont$10.6K
- New York$1,940
- Oregon$500
- Massachusetts$250
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Vermont | $10.6K |
| New York | $1,940 |
| Oregon | $500 |
| Massachusetts | $250 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| 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 |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Vermont
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Vermont. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- VERMONT POLITICAL AWARENESS COMMITTEE$1,815
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Gulick voted with the majority of Vermont Senate Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 4.0% of 75 roll calls. Vermont Senate on average: 94.5% party unity, 98.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Gulick voted against the majority of Vermont Senate Democrats 7 times.
75 roll calls Gulick could vote on in the VT 2025–26 session, compared with Vermont Senate. 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 Gulick voted with the majority of Vermont Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Vermont Senate Democrats
Party unity 100%, Vermont Senate average 94.5%, ranks 6th of 30. 75 roll calls in the VT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Gulick, the thin grey bar the Vermont Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Show the data
| Row | Gulick | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.0% | 98.0% |
| Party unity | 100% | 94.5% |
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
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the VT 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 28, 2026 | S 193 An act relating to establishing a forensic facility for certain criminal justice-involved persons Roll Call, requested by Senator Hashim, Passed -- Needed 15 of 30 to Pass -- Yeas = 29, Nays = 1 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 16–1 · R 11–0Democrats 16 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 27, 2026 | S 325 An act relating to regional planning and Act 250 Tier jurisdiction Roll Call, requested by Senator Watson, Passed -- Needed 15 of 30 to Pass -- Yeas = 27, Nays = 3 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 15–2 · R 10–1Democrats 15 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 27, 2026 | H 772 An act relating to residential rental agreements, eviction procedures, and the creation of the positive rental payment credit reporting pilot program 3rd reading refused on roll call, requested by Senator Ram Hinsdale, Failed -- Needed 16 of 30 to Pass -- Yeas = 15, Nays = 16 | Yea | With majority | fail | D 14–3 · R 1–10Democrats 14 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 1 yea, 10 nay | close vote · party crossover |
| May 27, 2026 | S 325 An act relating to regional planning and Act 250 Tier jurisdiction Roll Call, requested by Senator Watson, Passed -- Needed 15 of 30 to Pass -- Yeas = 28, Nays = 2 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 15–2 · R 11–0Democrats 15 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 26, 2026 | H 955 An act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont’s education system 3rd reading ordered on roll call Passed -- Needed 15 of 29 to Pass -- Yeas = 27, Nays = 2 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–0 · R 8–2Democrats 17 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Gulick most often
- Alison ClarksonD68 shared votes94%
- Becca WhiteD70 shared votes93%
- Joe MajorD72 shared votes92%
- Nader HashimD70 shared votes91%
- Anne WatsonD72 shared votes90%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gulick least often
- Russ IngallsR72 shared votes24%
- Terry WilliamsR70 shared votes26%
- Bob NorrisR68 shared votes31%
- Steven HeffernanR69 shared votes36%
- Dave WeeksR72 shared votes39%
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
VT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Gulick sponsored 120 bills in the VT 2025–26 session; 22 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 42% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Vermont Senate average 55%; 27th of 30).
The bills Gulick sponsored and cosponsored in the VT 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.
Bills by stage
Counts for the VT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 120 | 117 | 50 | 24 | 22 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Gulick sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gulick 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
Vermont Senate average 55%. Ranks 27th of 30.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gulick, by number of shared bills in the VT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Becca White60
- Tanya Vyhovsky57
- Ruth Hardy40
- Ginny Lyons38
- Alison Clarkson37
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 Gulick’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SCR 13 | Senate concurrent resolution honoring Middlebury College Professor Jessica Holmes for her exemplary public service as a member and interim chair of the Green Mountain Care Board | Sponsor | May 14, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | As adopted by Senate and House May 19, 2026 |
| HCR 282 | House concurrent resolution honoring General Assembly Doorkeeper Dennis Miles for his superb dedication to serving the General Assembly and all Vermonters | Sponsor | Apr 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Ceremonial Reading May 7, 2026 |
| HCR 279 | House concurrent resolution honoring General Assembly Head Doorkeeper Michael G. Wiater and his wife, Sergeant at Arms Administrative Assistant Donna Wiater, for their dedicated State public service and extending future best wishes | Sponsor | Apr 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Ceremonial Reading May 7, 2026 |
| HCR 253 | House concurrent resolution congratulating the 2025 Green Mountain Council Class of Eagle Scouts | Sponsor | Apr 16, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Ceremonial Reading Apr 24, 2026 |
| SCR 10 | Senate concurrent resolution honoring University of Vermont Medical Center and University of Vermont pediatrician extraordinaire Dr. Lewis R. First | Sponsor | Apr 9, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | As adopted by Senate and House Apr 10, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Gulick’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Gulick’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 Gulick posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
- 21
pages crawled
18changes 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 Gulick posted
No images from Gulick’s posts have been described.
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.
State floor speeches
129 turns, Jan 30, 2026 to May 29, 2026
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 Gulick is most unusual among State 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- a1812863-f6a9-4ce2-8131-d701923dd507
- Open States
- ocd-person/a1812863-f6a9-4ce2-8131-d701923dd507
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 (state)Oct 21, 20267 days agoOpen States floor roll calls, 2019 on (none for AK and MO).
- Bills (state)Oct 28, 2026todayOpen States bills and sponsors, 2019 on; stages from roll calls.
- Campaign money (state)no dateState campaign-finance agencies, 2019 on; 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.
- State floor speechesOct 21, 20267 days agoState floor speech turns (published transcripts and captions), 2020 on; not LLM-classified.
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