Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 3, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Health; target: federal delegation · Source
54%
of itemized money from Montana donors, in the bottom tenth of State Senate Democrats
54% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2024 cycle came from donors with an address in Montana. Ranks 43rd of 47, where 1st is the highest share. 324 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Montana, ranked among State Senate Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
5 measures against State Senate Democrats. Neumann reported $61.9K in the 2024 cycle, in the top half of State Senate Democrats (median $16.2K). Neumann sits at −0.58 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 62% of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Neumann 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.
From Montana, 2024
54%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 43rd of 47 State Senate Democrats
Attendance
99.7%
Montana Senate average 98.9% · ranks 15th of 50 · 2,812 roll calls
Itemized, 2024
$61.9K
State Senate Democrats’ median $16.2K · ranks 15th of 55
Party unity
95.3%
Montana Senate average 85% · ranks 16th of 50 · 169 votes against the majority of Montana Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.58
More conservative than 62% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.04
Statements
54
54 posts on X
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Neumann, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Neumann is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Neumann says
Neumann stresses bipartisanship more than 98% of State Senate Democrats. Bipartisanship in 17% of 54 statements, against 3.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 6th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Neumann’s 54 statements in the MT 2025–26 session (54 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MT 2025–26 session
0%80%
Neumann
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion27 statements
50%
43%
137th of 329
Bipartisanship9 statements
17%
3%
6th of 329
Credit claiming9 statements
17%
16%
148th of 329
Policy criticism8 statements
15%
10%
92nd of 329
Personal attacks1 statements
2%
2%
106th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Neumann | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 50% | 43% |
| Bipartisanship | 17% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 17% | 16% |
| Policy criticism | 15% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 2% |
54
statements classified
54 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 54 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Neumann; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Neumann does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Neumann used no extreme labels in 54 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the MT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 63.6% | 18.2% | 27.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Nov ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the MT 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%. 21 months are hatched here; 10 of them have no statements.
In Neumann’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 30, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 28, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Crime and Law Enforcement; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · 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 · policy discussion · Health · target: federal delegationSource
All 54 statements
Newest first, the MT 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: 54 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Neumann talks about most: 56% of policy statements, 3.2 times the peer share. Peers give it 17%.
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 Neumann talks about. The bills Neumann sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Neumann talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MT 2025–26 session
0%61%
Neumann
Peers
Health15 statements
56%
17%
Crime and Law Enforcement4 statements
15%
8%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues3 statements
11%
8%
Government Operations and Politics3 statements
11%
14%
Housing and Community Development3 statements
11%
7%
Show the data
| Row | Neumann | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 56% | 17% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 15% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 8% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 14% |
| Housing and Community Development | 11% | 7% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Neumann’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State 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.
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 61%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
No sponsored or cosponsored bills with a policy area in this window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Neumann legislates on exactly the areas Neumann 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 Neumann sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Neumann sits at −0.58 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 62% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.61 to −0.54, which understates the uncertainty; from 762 donors and 299 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”.
−0.58
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.61 to −0.54. From 762 donors and 299 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Neumann, 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 Neumann’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 Neumann sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Montana Senate50 · median +0.2
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Neumann |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 62% |
| Montana Senate | 50 | +0.2 | 14% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 27% |
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 Neumann 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 Neumann.
Money
Neumann reported $61.9K in the 2024 cycle, 3.8 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $16.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 54% of itemized individual money came from Montana.
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.
$61.9K
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 324 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $16.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)98 squares$60.8K
- PACs and other committees1 squares$650
- Party committees1 squares$450
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $60.8K | 98.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $650 | 1.1% |
| Party committees | $450 | 0.7% |
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, 2024 to 2024. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $61.9K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 54% came from Montana.
- Montana$32.8K
- California$7,410
- New York$5,550
- Washington$2,250
- Massachusetts$2,225
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 |
|---|---|
| Montana | $32.8K |
| California | $7,410 |
| New York | $5,550 |
| Washington | $2,250 |
| Massachusetts | $2,225 |
| Arizona | $1,200 |
| Connecticut | $1,113 |
| Maryland | $950 |
| Rhode Island | $900 |
| Minnesota | $800 |
| Texas | $800 |
| Illinois | $750 |
| Tennessee | $700 |
| Michigan | $450 |
| Utah | $450 |
| Florida | $400 |
| Virginia | $300 |
| District of Columbia | $250 |
| Idaho | $200 |
| Iowa | $200 |
| Pennsylvania | $200 |
| Colorado | $163 |
| New Jersey | $150 |
| Missouri | $150 |
| Vermont | $100 |
| Oregon | $100 |
| North Carolina | $100 |
| Maine | $50 |
| Wyoming | $50 |
| Louisiana | $50 |
| Alaska | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
324
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
54%
from Montana
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 Montana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$19.1K 115 donors
- UNEMPLOYED$8,470 31 donors
- CEO$3,100 13 donors
- RETIRED$3,000 17 donors
- PHYSICIAN$1,800 8 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
- BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN$450
- MAX'S PAC$450
- LIFEPOINT HEALTH PAC$200
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
- MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY$500 4 donors
- STATE OF MONTANA$400 3 donors
- MSU$200 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Neumann voted with the majority of Montana Senate Democrats on 95.3% of party-line votes and missed 0.2% of 2,812 roll calls. Montana Senate on average: 85% party unity, 98.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Neumann voted against the majority of Montana Senate Democrats 169 times.
2,812 roll calls Neumann could vote on in the MT 2025–26 session, compared with Montana 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 Neumann voted with the majority of Montana Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
169
votes against the majority of Montana Senate Democrats
Party unity 95.3%, Montana Senate average 85%, ranks 16th of 50. 2,812 roll calls in the MT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Neumann, the thin grey bar the Montana Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Neumann
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.7%
98.9%
15th of 50
Party unity
95.3%
85%
16th of 50
Show the data
| Row | Neumann | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.7% | 98.9% |
| Party unity | 95.3% | 85% |
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 Neumann most often
- Chris PopeD2,804 shared votes94%
- Laura SmithD2,771 shared votes93%
- Pat FlowersD2,754 shared votes92%
- Susan WebberD2,669 shared votes92%
- Jacinda MorigeauD2,766 shared votes91%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Neumann least often
- Daniel EmrichR2,784 shared votes47%
- Carl GlimmR2,793 shared votes50%
- Jeremy TrebasR2,793 shared votes52%
- Mark NolandR2,799 shared votes54%
- Barry UsherR2,664 shared votes54%
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
MT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
No bills for the MT 2025–26 session.No sponsored or cosponsored bills are recorded for this official in this time window.
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Neumann’s campaign site had 3 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Neumann’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 Neumann posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 3
pages crawled
0changes 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 Neumann posted
No images from Neumann’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
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Neumann 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
- a7c31f94-f7bd-4d2c-b149-f26928cc934e
- Open States
- ocd-person/a7c31f94-f7bd-4d2c-b149-f26928cc934e
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