40% of 757 statements contain a personal attack (306 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 2.9%. Ranks 1st of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Cabello’s posts on X and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against State House Republicans. 35% of Cabello’s statements criticize a policy, 3.7 times the State House Republican average of 9.3%. 60% of Cabello’s statements discuss policy, 1.9 times the State House Republican average of 32%.
The measures on which Cabello sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Personal attacks
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 1st of 791
Policy criticism
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 24th of 791
Policy discussion
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 48th of 791
Credit claiming
State House Republicans average 13% · ranks 700th of 791
Out of committee
Illinois House average 44% · ranks 101st of 116
CSIP ideology
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Cabello, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Cabello is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Cabello attacks opponents personally more than any other State House Republican. Personal attacks in 40% of 757 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 1st of 791.
An AI model reads each of Cabello’s 757 statements in the IL 2025–26 session (757 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the IL 2025–26 session
| Row | Cabello | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 60% | 32% |
| Personal attacks | 40% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 35% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 1% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
statements classified
757 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 757 |
The thick bar is Cabello; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Cabello does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Cabello used extreme labels in 1.3% of statements, close to the peer average. 10 statements, most often aimed at JB Pritzker; peers 1.4%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the IL 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’25 | 7 | — (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 | 7 | — (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 | 8 | — (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 | 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 ’25 | 23 | 34.8% | 43.5% | 47.8% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 69 | 47.8% | 52.2% | 55.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 109 | 54.1% | 38.5% | 40.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Nov ’25 | 32 | 53.1% | 37.5% | 37.5% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 42 | 66.7% | 14.3% | 71.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 67 | 58.2% | 4.5% | 74.6% | 1.5% | 3.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 62 | 22.6% | 50.0% | 53.2% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 50 | 30.0% | 48.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 49 | 36.7% | 44.9% | 67.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 37 | 46.0% | 43.2% | 64.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.7% |
| Jun ’26 | 41 | 51.2% | 87.8% | 90.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 32 | 31.3% | 21.9% | 65.6% | 0.0% | 3.1% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 45 | 15.6% | 11.1% | 86.7% | 0.0% | 4.4% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 46 | 19.6% | 10.9% | 71.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 24 | 8.3% | 20.8% | 79.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.2% |
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 IL 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%. 7 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.
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.
Aug 29, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Taxation; target: JB Pritzker · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “woke” aimed at narrative · Source
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 · Taxation · target: JB PritzkerSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Taxation · Agriculture and Food · target: PritzkerSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Taxation · Economics and Public Finance · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Immigration · target: PritzkerSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Taxation · Energy · target: PritzkerSource
Newest first, the IL 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 757 posts on X.
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Cabello talks about most: 43% of policy statements, 3.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.55 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 224th of 504).
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 Cabello talks about. The bills Cabello sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the IL 2025–26 session
| Row | Cabello | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 43% | 11% |
| Taxation | 43% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 39% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 18% |
| Immigration | 13% | 5% |
The thick bar is the share of Cabello’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House 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.
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 48%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 43% | 11% | 26% | 11% |
| Taxation | 43% | 8% | 6% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 39% | 12% | 4% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 18% | 13% | 12% |
| Immigration | 13% | 5% | 3% | 1% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 224th of 504.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Cabello legislates on exactly the areas Cabello 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 Cabello sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Cabello sits at +0.25 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 67% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.23 to +0.27, which understates the uncertainty; from 78 donors and 1,107 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.23 to +0.27. From 78 donors and 1,107 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Cabello, 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 Cabello’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Cabello |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 33% |
| Illinois House | 118 | −0.5 | 84% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 63% |
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 Cabello 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 Cabello.
Cabello reported $91.1K in the 2026 cycle, 2.7 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Illinois.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 12 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $7,350 | 8.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $83.7K | 91.9% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $370.0K |
| 2022 cycle | $253.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $105.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $91.1K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Illinois.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Illinois | $7,350 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Illinois
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Illinois. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Cabello voted with the majority of Illinois House Republicans on 98.0% of party-line votes and missed 4.2% of 1,468 roll calls. Illinois House on average: 96.7% party unity, 92.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cabello voted against the majority of Illinois House Republicans 51 times.
1,468 roll calls Cabello could vote on in the IL 2025–26 session, compared with Illinois 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 Cabello voted with the majority of Illinois House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Illinois House Republicans
Party unity 98.0%, Illinois House average 96.7%, ranks 84th of 116. 1,468 roll calls in the IL 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Cabello, the thin grey bar the Illinois House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Cabello | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.7% | 92.6% |
| Party unity | 98.0% | 96.7% |
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.
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cabello most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cabello least often
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.
IL 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Cabello sponsored 48 bills in the IL 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 109 others. 23% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Illinois House average 44%; 101st of 116).
The bills Cabello sponsored and cosponsored in the IL 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.
Counts for the IL 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 48 | 44 | 9 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 109 | 109 | 49 | 29 | 27 |
Ink blocks are bills Cabello sponsored, ochre blocks bills Cabello cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Illinois House average 44%. Ranks 101st of 116.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Cabello, by number of shared bills in the IL 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Cabello’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 1049 | MEMORIAL-MIKE DITKA | Sponsor | Oct 14, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Nicole La Ha Oct 15, 2026 |
| HB 5816 | FIRE PROT DIST-TRUSTEE REMOVAL | Sponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | Introduced | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Filed with the Clerk by Rep. John M. Cabello Sep 24, 2026 |
| HR 1025 | CONGRATS-CAPT. A. F. CIGANEK | Sponsor | Sep 2, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Filed with the Clerk by Rep. John M. Cabello Sep 2, 2026 |
| HB 5798 | DIGITAL ASSET TAX ACT-REPEAL | Sponsor | Jun 22, 2026 | Introduced | Taxation(model) | Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Steven Reick Oct 15, 2026 |
| HR 964 | COMMEND-CHRISTINA KUBERSKI | Cosponsor | May 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Resolution Adopted May 30, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Cabello’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Cabello’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 Cabello posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Cabello’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
112 turns, Jan 11, 2023 to May 26, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Cabello is most unusual among State House Republicans, 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
