Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 30, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Transportation and Public Works; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
40
votes against the majority of Connecticut Senate Republicans
Party unity 86%, the lowest of 36 in the Connecticut Senate (average 97.9%). 863 roll calls in the CT 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 Hwang voted with the majority of Connecticut Senate Republicans; it is ranked within the Connecticut Senate. The count covers every roll call where Hwang voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against the Connecticut Senate. 100% of Hwang’s itemized money in the 2024 cycle came from Connecticut, in the top quarter of State Senate Republicans. 73% of the 40 bills Hwang sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the Connecticut Senate.
The measures on which Hwang sits furthest from the middle of the Connecticut Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
86%
Connecticut Senate average 97.9% · ranks 36th of 36 · 40 votes against the majority of Connecticut Senate Republicans
From Connecticut, 2024
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 12th of 109 State Senate Republicans
Out of committee
73%
Connecticut Senate average 40% · ranks 5th of 35
CSIP ideology
+0.14
More liberal than 81% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
Itemized, 2024
$18.6K
State Senate Republicans’ median $28.3K · ranks 74th of 112
Attendance
97.6%
Connecticut Senate average 97.8% · ranks 23rd of 36 · 863 roll calls
Peer group: Connecticut Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hwang, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hwang is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hwang says
Hwang stresses bipartisanship less than 87% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0% of 14 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 311th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Hwang’s 14 statements in the CT 2025–26 session (14 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the CT 2025–26 session
0%80%
Hwang
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion7 statements
50%
37%
92nd of 354
Policy criticism3 statements
21%
9%
47th of 354
Credit claiming1 statements
7%
15%
246th of 354
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
272nd of 354
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
311th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Hwang | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 50% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 21% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 7% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
14
statements classified
14 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 14 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Hwang; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Hwang does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Hwang used no extreme labels in 14 statements. The peer average is 1.3%.
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 CT 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 CT 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 13 of them have no statements.
In Hwang’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.
Jan 8, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 6, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 14 statements
Newest first, the CT 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: 14 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Hwang talks about most: 43% of policy statements, 2.6 times the peer share. Peers give it 17%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
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 Hwang talks about. The bills Hwang sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Hwang talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the CT 2025–26 session
0%47%
Hwang
Peers
Government Operations and Politics3 statements
43%
17%
Crime and Law Enforcement2 statements
29%
12%
Housing and Community Development2 statements
29%
3%
Education1 statements
14%
14%
Health1 statements
14%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Hwang | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 43% | 17% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 29% | 12% |
| Housing and Community Development | 29% | 3% |
| Education | 14% | 14% |
| Health | 14% | 9% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Hwang’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Republicans. 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 47%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 43% | 17% | 3% | 12% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 29% | 12% | 5% | 10% |
| Housing and Community Development | 29% | 3% | 5% | 2% |
| Education | 14% | 14% | 10% | 10% |
| Health | 14% | 9% | 20% | 11% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Hwang legislates on exactly the areas Hwang 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 Hwang sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Hwang sits at +0.14 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 81% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.10 to +0.18, which understates the uncertainty; from 817 donors and 398 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”.
+0.14
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.10 to +0.18. From 817 donors and 398 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hwang, 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 Hwang’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 Hwang sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Connecticut Senate36 · median −0.7
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hwang |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 19% |
| Connecticut Senate | 36 | −0.7 | 69% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 54% |
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 Hwang 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 Hwang.
Money
Hwang reported $18.6K in the 2024 cycle, below the State Senate Republicans’ median of $28.3K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Connecticut.
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.
$18.6K
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 353 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $28.3K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)100 squares$18.6K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $18.6K | 100.0% |
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, 2020 to 2024. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $16.6K |
| 2022 cycle | $21.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $18.6K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Connecticut.
- Connecticut$18.6K
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 |
|---|---|
| Connecticut | $18.6K |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
353
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Connecticut
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 Connecticut. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
- RETIRED$3,487 73 donors
- ATTORNEY$1,580 13 donors
- REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER$960 3 donors
- HOMEMAKER$880 13 donors
- PRESIDENT$530 5 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
- STATE OF CT$325 3 donors
- STUDENT$150 7 donors
- TOWN OF FAIRFIELD$85 4 donors
- WAKE-CUP-COFFEE$70 3 donors
- TOWN OF NEWTOWN$40 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Hwang voted with the majority of Connecticut Senate Republicans on 86% of party-line votes and missed 2.3% of 863 roll calls. Connecticut Senate on average: 97.9% party unity, 97.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hwang voted against the majority of Connecticut Senate Republicans 40 times.
863 roll calls Hwang could vote on in the CT 2025–26 session, compared with Connecticut 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 Hwang voted with the majority of Connecticut Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
40
votes against the majority of Connecticut Senate Republicans
Party unity 86%, Connecticut Senate average 97.9%, ranks 36th of 36. 863 roll calls in the CT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Hwang, the thin grey bar the Connecticut Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Hwang
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.6%
97.8%
23rd of 36
Party unity
86%
97.9%
36th of 36
Show the data
| Row | Hwang | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.6% | 97.8% |
| Party unity | 86% | 97.9% |
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 CT 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2026 | HB 5385 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY UNDUE DELAY IN WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS BY POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS. Senate Roll Call Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–0 · R 11–0Democrats 25 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 6, 2026 | HB 5001 AN ACT CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING FOR ALL AND VARIOUS OTHER REFORMS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS. Senate Roll Call Vote | Nay | With majority | pass | D 25–0 · R 0–11Democrats 25 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 11 nay | became law · much discussed |
| May 6, 2026 | HB 5043 AN ACT CONCERNING CONVERTIBLE PISTOLS, UNFINISHED FRAMES OR UNFINISHED LOWER RECEIVERS, VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AND REFUNDABILITY OF PERMITS FOR SALE AT RETAIL OF FIREARMS AND FOR CARRYING OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS. Senate Roll Call Vote | Yea | With majority | fail | D 0–20 · R 11–0Democrats 0 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 6, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–0 · R 11–0Democrats 25 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| May 6, 2026 | HB 5001 AN ACT CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING FOR ALL AND VARIOUS OTHER REFORMS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS. Senate Roll Call Vote | Yea | With majority | fail | D 0–25 · R 11–0Democrats 0 yea, 25 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay | became law · much discussed |
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 Hwang most often
- Paul CicarellaR843 shared votes95%
- Jason PerilloR793 shared votes95%
- Eric BerthelR840 shared votes94%
- John KisselR835 shared votes94%
- Henri MartinR832 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Hwang least often
- Mae FlexerD801 shared votes72%
- Jan HochadelD807 shared votes73%
- Christine CohenD821 shared votes73%
- Julie KushnerD820 shared votes73%
- Doug McCroryD799 shared votes73%
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
CT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Hwang sponsored 40 bills in the CT 2025–26 session; 23 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 73% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Connecticut Senate average 40%; 5th of 35).
The bills Hwang sponsored and cosponsored in the CT 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 CT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 40 | 40 | 29 | 23 | 23 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Hwang sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hwang cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
73%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Connecticut Senate average 40%. Ranks 5th of 35.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hwang, by number of shared bills in the CT 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Tom Delnicki9
- Anne Hughes8
- John Kissel8
- Bill Pizzuto8
- Saud Anwar7
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 Hwang’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 401 | AN ACT CONCERNING A BRIDGE PROGRAM TO ALLOW ACCESS TO FOOD, HOUSING AND HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. | Sponsor | Apr 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Families(model) | HOUSE CALENDAR NUMBER 486 Apr 22, 2026 |
| SB 259 | AN ACT CONCERNING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. | Sponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | Became law | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | SIGNED BY GOVERNOR May 7, 2026 |
| SB 89 | AN ACT UPDATING PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION STANDARDS. | Sponsor | Mar 24, 2026 | Became law | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | SIGNED BY GOVERNOR May 7, 2026 |
| SB 307 | AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISIONS TO THE COMMERCE STATUTES AND PROHIBITING SCHOLARSHIP DISPLACEMENT FOR CERTAIN STUDENTS AT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. | Sponsor | Mar 24, 2026 | Became law | Commerce(model) | SIGNED BY GOVERNOR Jun 2, 2026 |
| HB 5515 | AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES' RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ACCESS TO OPIOID OVERDOSE REVERSAL MEDICATION AND VARIOUS REVISIONS TO MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION STATUTES. | Sponsor | Mar 24, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | SIGNED BY GOVERNOR May 27, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Hwang’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Hwang’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 Hwang posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
- 37
pages crawled
31changes 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
- XSenatorHwang
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/senatorhwang/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/senatorhwang/?hl=en
- YouTubewww.youtube.com/channel/UCgD44PnHctgsAklKZX3gaRw
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/TonyHwang/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEcW7pleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHee1hhjXQ2g5BiX1mAJoYVnIZNHsW_mw7iilbQaQO9zBc1vKag-OUV3pDA_aem_CksyeHgjs-UThcKzMouXaQ
Images Hwang posted
No images from Hwang’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
1,359 turns, Feb 5, 2020 to May 5, 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 Hwang is most unusual among Connecticut Senate, 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
- b1ab473b-e7ff-4c53-96af-ee796c89f4dd
- Open States
- ocd-person/b1ab473b-e7ff-4c53-96af-ee796c89f4dd
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