Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Education; Commerce · Source
142
votes against the majority of Washington House Democrats
Party unity 79%, in the bottom tenth of the Washington House (average 94.5%). 1,204 roll calls in the WA 2025–26 session.
Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Leavitt voted with the majority of Washington House Democrats; it is ranked within the Washington House. The count covers every roll call where Leavitt voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 6.5% of Leavitt’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.3 times the State House Democrat average of 2.9%. Leavitt sits at −0.38 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 84% of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Leavitt sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
79%
Washington House average 94.5% · ranks 93rd of 98 · 142 votes against the majority of Washington House Democrats
Bipartisanship
6.5%
State House Democrats average 2.9% · ranks 91st of 764
CSIP ideology
−0.38
More conservative than 84% of State House Democrats · ± 0.02
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.66
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 83rd of 503
Out of committee
42%
Washington House average 27% · ranks 18th of 96
Attendance
97.6%
Washington House average 97.4% · ranks 78th of 98 · 1,204 roll calls
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Leavitt, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Leavitt is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Leavitt says
Leavitt attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.8% of 1,225 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 335th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Leavitt’s 1,225 statements in the WA 2025–26 session (1,225 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the WA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Leavitt
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion410 statements
33%
39%
474th of 764
Credit claiming193 statements
16%
14%
306th of 764
Policy criticism85 statements
7%
10%
417th of 764
Bipartisanship79 statements
6%
3%
91st of 764
Personal attacks10 statements
1%
3%
335th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Leavitt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 33% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 16% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 6% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
1,225
statements classified
1,225 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,225 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Leavitt; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Leavitt does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Leavitt used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 17% of the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at Antifa; peers 1.0%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Antifa1
- left1
- right1
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 WA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 42 | 2.4% | 7.1% | 28.6% | 7.1% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 38 | 0.0% | 18.4% | 36.8% | 7.9% | 26.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 51 | 0.0% | 3.9% | 25.5% | 7.8% | 15.7% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 61 | 0.0% | 3.3% | 32.8% | 13.1% | 29.5% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 66 | 1.5% | 3.0% | 28.8% | 9.1% | 24.2% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 94 | 2.1% | 7.4% | 35.1% | 8.5% | 12.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 55 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 34.5% | 10.9% | 10.9% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 82 | 0.0% | 11.0% | 31.7% | 7.3% | 23.2% | 1.2% |
| Sep ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 2.8% | 25.0% | 5.6% | 13.9% | 2.8% |
| Oct ’25 | 76 | 0.0% | 10.5% | 32.9% | 2.6% | 10.5% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 44 | 2.3% | 4.5% | 40.9% | 9.1% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 65 | 0.0% | 4.6% | 35.4% | 4.6% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 58 | 0.0% | 5.2% | 43.1% | 3.5% | 13.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 34 | 8.8% | 5.9% | 17.6% | 2.9% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 64 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 23.4% | 10.9% | 32.8% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 63 | 0.0% | 20.6% | 41.3% | 7.9% | 15.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 57 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 19.3% | 8.8% | 3.5% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 42 | 2.4% | 9.5% | 28.6% | 7.1% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 40 | 0.0% | 5.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 44 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 47.7% | 0.0% | 6.8% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 56 | 1.8% | 0.0% | 44.6% | 1.8% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 57 | 0.0% | 8.8% | 45.6% | 0.0% | 7.0% | 0.0% |
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 WA 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.
In Leavitt’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Chris Mulick · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 11, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at right, left · 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.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Chris MulickSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Randy StevensSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: nwprogressiveSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Victoria HuntSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: presidentSource
All 1,225 statements
Newest first, the WA 2025–26 session
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: 1,225 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Leavitt talks about most: 21% of policy statements, 2.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 83rd of 503).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Leavitt talks about. The bills Leavitt sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Leavitt talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the WA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Leavitt
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement85 statements
21%
8%
Education70 statements
17%
15%
Transportation and Public Works63 statements
15%
5%
Armed Forces and National Security50 statements
12%
3%
Government Operations and Politics39 statements
10%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Leavitt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 21% | 8% |
| Education | 17% | 15% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 15% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 12% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 10% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Leavitt’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
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 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 21% | 8% | 21% | 9% |
| Education | 17% | 15% | 14% | 10% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 15% | 5% | 3% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 12% | 3% | 1% | 1% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 10% | 15% | 4% | 8% |
0.66
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 83rd of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Leavitt legislates on exactly the areas Leavitt 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 Leavitt sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Leavitt sits at −0.38 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 84% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.40 to −0.36, which understates the uncertainty; from 439 donors and 896 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”.
−0.38
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.40 to −0.36. From 439 donors and 896 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Leavitt, 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 Leavitt’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 Leavitt sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Washington House98 · median −0.6
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Leavitt |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 84% |
| Washington House | 98 | −0.6 | 55% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 38% |
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 Leavitt 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 Leavitt.
Money
Leavitt reported $112.8K in the 2026 cycle, 2.8 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 99% of itemized individual money came from Washington.
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.
$112.8K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 78 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)28 squares$31.7K
- PACs and other committees71 squares$80.3K
- Party committees1 squares$909
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $31.7K | 28.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $80.3K | 71.1% |
| Party committees | $909 | 0.8% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $158.4K |
| 2022 cycle | $143.8K |
| 2024 cycle | $125.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $112.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 99% came from Washington.
- Washington$31.4K
- Colorado$300
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 |
|---|---|
| Washington | $31.4K |
| Colorado | $300 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | 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 |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | 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 |
78
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
99%
from Washington
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 Washington. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$4,856 7 donors
- ATTORNEY - LAWYER$3,900 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- CITIZENS FOR BETTER GOVERNMENT BY IAFF LOCAL 726$2,400
- CREDIT UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTION FUND$2,400
- PAC 48 OF WASHINGTON$2,400
- PROLIANCE SURGEONS PAC$2,400
- PUGET SOUND PILOTS PAC$2,400
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Leavitt voted with the majority of Washington House Democrats on 79% of party-line votes and missed 2.3% of 1,204 roll calls. Washington House on average: 94.5% party unity, 97.4% attendance. Across all roll calls, Leavitt voted against the majority of Washington House Democrats 142 times.
1,204 roll calls Leavitt could vote on in the WA 2025–26 session, compared with Washington House. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Leavitt voted with the majority of Washington House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
142
votes against the majority of Washington House Democrats
Party unity 79%, Washington House average 94.5%, ranks 93rd of 98. 1,204 roll calls in the WA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Leavitt, the thin grey bar the Washington House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Leavitt
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.6%
97.4%
78th of 98
Party unity
79%
94.5%
93rd of 98
Show the data
| Row | Leavitt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.6% | 97.4% |
| Party unity | 79% | 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
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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 Leavitt most often
- Victoria HuntD673 shared votes93%
- Steve TharingerD726 shared votes90%
- Dan BronoskeD1,173 shared votes90%
- Steve BergquistD1,176 shared votes88%
- Lauren DavisD1,176 shared votes88%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Leavitt least often
- Jeremie DufaultR1,138 shared votes49%
- Jim WalshR1,169 shared votes51%
- Joel McEntireR967 shared votes56%
- Gloria MendozaR959 shared votes56%
- Chris CorryR1,117 shared votes57%
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
WA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Leavitt sponsored 31 bills in the WA 2025–26 session; 6 became law. Cosponsored 240 others. 42% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Washington House average 27%; 18th of 96).
The bills Leavitt sponsored and cosponsored in the WA 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 WA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 31 | 31 | 13 | 6 | 6 |
| Cosponsored | 240 | 239 | 98 | 57 | 57 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Leavitt sponsored, ochre blocks bills Leavitt cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
42%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Washington House average 27%. Ranks 18th of 96.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Leavitt, by number of shared bills in the WA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Lisa Parshley89
- Julia Reed88
- Cindy Ryu69
- Janice Zahn66
- Greg Nance66
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 Leavitt’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 4715 | Honoring Representative Tharinger. | Cosponsor | Mar 12, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted. Mar 12, 2026 |
| HR 4713 | Honoring John Michael Sattgast. | Cosponsor | Mar 12, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted. Mar 12, 2026 |
| HR 4714 | Honoring Representative Graham. | Cosponsor | Mar 12, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted. Mar 12, 2026 |
| HR 4702 | Commemorating the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America. | Cosponsor | Mar 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted. Mar 2, 2026 |
| HR 4711 | Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. | Cosponsor | Mar 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted. Mar 2, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Leavitt’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Leavitt’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 Leavitt posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 60
pages crawled
81changes 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 Leavitt posted
No images from Leavitt’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
35 turns, Feb 1, 2023 to Mar 10, 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 Leavitt is most unusual among State House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- a203698b-5fe6-4a54-b939-5341937c57ec
- Open States
- ocd-person/a203698b-5fe6-4a54-b939-5341937c57ec
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