Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 7, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: this president · Source
98%
of State Senate Democrats score to the left of Leding on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.11 (approximate range −0.13 to −0.10, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 69 donors and 794 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 Leding sits among State Senate Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. 2.3% of Leding’s statements claim credit, in the bottom tenth of State Senate Democrats (average 16%). 19% of Leding’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Democrats (average 43%).
The measures on which Leding 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
−0.11
More conservative than 98% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.02
Credit claiming
2.3%
State Senate Democrats average 16% · ranks 297th of 329
Policy discussion
19%
State Senate Democrats average 43% · ranks 295th of 329
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.45
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 191st of 228
Out of committee
54%
Arkansas Senate average 60% · ranks 23rd of 31
Itemized, 2022
$13.2K
State Senate Democrats’ median $64.8K · ranks 10th of 13
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Leding, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Leding is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Leding says
Leding claims credit less than 89% of State Senate Democrats. Credit claiming in 2.3% of 569 statements, against 16% for the average State Senate Democrat; 297th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Leding’s 569 statements in the AR 2025–26 session (569 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 AR 2025–26 session
0%80%
Leding
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion107 statements
19%
43%
295th of 329
Policy criticism51 statements
9%
10%
151st of 329
Bipartisanship17 statements
3%
3%
145th of 329
Credit claiming13 statements
2%
16%
297th of 329
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
2%
151st of 329
Show the data
| Row | Leding | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 19% | 43% |
| Policy criticism | 9% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 2% | 16% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
569
statements classified
569 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 569 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Leding; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Leding does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Leding used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 22% of the peer average. 1 statement; peers 0.8%.
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 AR 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 88 | 0.0% | 13.6% | 25.0% | 5.7% | 1.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 107 | 0.9% | 14.0% | 25.2% | 1.9% | 1.9% | 0.9% |
| Mar ’25 | 112 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 18.8% | 1.8% | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 50 | 0.0% | 12.0% | 14.0% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 12.5% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 56 | 0.0% | 3.6% | 14.3% | 5.4% | 1.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 32 | 0.0% | 21.9% | 34.4% | 15.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 76 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.6% | 0.0% | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 5 | — (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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 AR 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%. 12 months are hatched here; 9 of them have no statements.
In Leding’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 7, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 20, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “extreme” · 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.
All 569 statements
Newest first, the AR 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: 569 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Leding talks about most: 30% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.45 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 191st of 228).
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 Leding talks about. The bills Leding sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Leding talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the AR 2025–26 session
0%35%
Leding
Peers
Government Operations and Politics32 statements
30%
14%
Health17 statements
16%
17%
Education16 statements
15%
15%
Agriculture and Food15 statements
14%
5%
Crime and Law Enforcement12 statements
11%
8%
Show the data
| Row | Leding | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 30% | 14% |
| Health | 16% | 17% |
| Education | 15% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 14% | 5% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Leding’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 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 30% | 14% | 8% | 8% |
| Health | 16% | 17% | 29% | 15% |
| Education | 15% | 15% | 5% | 9% |
| Agriculture and Food | 14% | 5% | 1% | 3% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 8% | 27% | 9% |
0.45
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 191st of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Leding legislates on exactly the areas Leding 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 Leding sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Leding sits at −0.11 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 98% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.13 to −0.10, which understates the uncertainty; from 69 donors and 794 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”.
−0.11
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.13 to −0.10. From 69 donors and 794 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Leding, 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 Leding’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 Leding sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Arkansas Senate33 · median +0.2
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Leding |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 98% |
| Arkansas Senate | 33 | +0.2 | 15% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 44% |
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 Leding 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 Leding.
Money
Leding reported $13.2K in the 2022 cycle, 20% of the State Senate Democrats’ median of $64.8K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from Arkansas.
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.
$13.2K
itemized in the 2022 cycle
From 69 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $64.8K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2022 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)62 squares$8,180
- PACs and other committees38 squares$5,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $8,180 | 62.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $5,000 | 37.9% |
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 2022. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2022.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $13.2K |
Top donor states, 2022
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from Arkansas.
- Arkansas$7,570
- Maryland$500
- Washington$50
- North Carolina$50
- California$10
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 |
|---|---|
| Arkansas | $7,570 |
| Maryland | $500 |
| Washington | $50 |
| North Carolina | $50 |
| California | $10 |
| 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 |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Tennessee | 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 |
69
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
93%
from Arkansas
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 Arkansas. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2022 cycle.
- RETIRED$2,005 12 donors
- NOT CURRENTLY EMPLOYED$1,205 22 donors
- GENERAL BUSINESS$410 5 donors
- TEACHER/EDUCATION$260 8 donors
- HEALTHCARE/MEDICAL$95 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2022 cycle.
- ARKANSAS DENTAL PAC$1,000
- ARKANSAS DENTAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- FARMVOICE PAC$1,000
- ARKANSAS COMMITTEE FOR CHILDREN & PUBLIC EDUCATION$500
- BLACK HILLS CORPORATION PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2022 cycle.
- UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS$100 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the AR 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Leding sponsored 24 bills in the AR 2025–26 session; 8 became law. Cosponsored 28 others. 54% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Arkansas Senate average 60%; 23rd of 31).
The bills Leding sponsored and cosponsored in the AR 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 AR 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 24 | 22 | 13 | 8 | 8 |
| Cosponsored | 28 | 20 | 15 | 13 | 12 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Leding sponsored, ochre blocks bills Leding cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
54%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Arkansas Senate average 60%. Ranks 23rd of 31.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Leding, by number of shared bills in the AR 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Ashley Hudson7
- Clarke Tucker7
- Lee Johnson6
- Brandon Achor6
- Fred Love5
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 Leding’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SMR 4 | IN RESPECTFUL MEMORY OF REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY JACK "STAN" BERRY AND IN RECOGNITION OF HIS MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND TO HIS LOCAL COMMUNITY. | Cosponsor | Apr 23, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Sine Die adjournment Apr 29, 2026 |
| HB 1103 | TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TAX CREDIT. | Cosponsor | Apr 21, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Taxation(model) | Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's Office. Apr 28, 2026 |
| SR 23 | TO HONOR JOHN PENDLETON REED FOR HIS EXEMPLARY AND DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE SENATE AND TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. | Cosponsor | Apr 14, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Sine Die adjournment Apr 29, 2026 |
| SMR 3 | IN RESPECTFUL MEMORY OF SENATOR UVALDE REX LINDSEY AND IN RECOGNITION OF HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND TO HIS LOCAL COMMUNITY. | Sponsor | Apr 14, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Sine Die adjournment Apr 29, 2026 |
| SMR 2 | IN RESPECTFUL MEMORY OF SENATOR LUTHER BOYD "LU" HARDIN AND IN RECOGNITION OF HIS MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND TO HIS LOCAL COMMUNITY. | Cosponsor | Apr 8, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Sine Die adjournment Apr 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Leding’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Leding’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 Leding posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 20
pages crawled
15changes 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
- XGregLeding
- Xg
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/gregleding
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/gregleding
- YouTubewww.youtube.com/@gregleding
Images Leding posted
No images from Leding’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
130 turns, Jan 19, 2021 to May 6, 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 Leding 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
- afd73d93-f65e-480d-ba40-3bc65f4fe95b
- Open States
- ocd-person/afd73d93-f65e-480d-ba40-3bc65f4fe95b
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