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; target: sad man · Source
90
statements classified
90 posts on X in the SC 2025–26 session. No measure in the SC 2025–26 session stands far from the peer average.
Every post, press release, newsletter and floor speech the lab collected and ran through its classifier.
At a glance
6 measures against the South Carolina House. 81% of Cobb-Hunter’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from South Carolina, in the bottom half of State House Democrats. Cobb-Hunter sits at −0.77 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 71% of State House Democrats. Cobb-Hunter missed 11% of 1,346 roll calls, attendance in the bottom half of the South Carolina House (average 88%).
The measures on which Cobb-Hunter sits furthest from the middle of the South Carolina House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
98.1%
South Carolina House average 93.8% · ranks 16th of 124 · 11 votes against the majority of South Carolina House Democrats
From South Carolina, 2026
81%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1487th of 1,983 State House Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.77
More liberal than 71% of State House Democrats · ± 0.06
Attendance
89%
South Carolina House average 88% · ranks 74th of 124 · 1,346 roll calls
Out of committee
96%
South Carolina House average 96% · ranks 75th of 124
Itemized, 2026
$37.7K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1083rd of 2,082
Peer group: South Carolina House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Cobb-Hunter, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Cobb-Hunter is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Cobb-Hunter says
Cobb-Hunter criticizes policies less than 93% of State House Democrats. Policy criticism in 0% of 90 statements, against 10% for the average State House Democrat; 717th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Cobb-Hunter’s 90 statements in the SC 2025–26 session (90 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the SC 2025–26 session
0%80%
Cobb-Hunter
Peers
Rank
Personal attacks1 statements
1%
3%
317th of 764
Policy discussion1 statements
1%
39%
746th of 764
Credit claiming1 statements
1%
14%
674th of 764
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
10%
717th of 764
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
676th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Cobb-Hunter | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
| Policy discussion | 1% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 1% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
90
statements classified
90 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 90 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Cobb-Hunter; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Cobb-Hunter does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Cobb-Hunter used no extreme labels in 90 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
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 SC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’25 | 4 | — (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 | 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) |
| Jun ’25 | 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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’25 | 6 | — (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 | 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) |
| Nov ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’26 | 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 ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
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 SC 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%. 19 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.
In Cobb-Hunter’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.
Apr 6, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 9, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: sad manSource
All 90 statements
Newest first, the SC 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: 90 posts on X.
Policy
Science, Technology, Communications is what Cobb-Hunter talks about most: 100% of policy statements, 39.4 times the peer share. Peers give it 2.5%. 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 Cobb-Hunter talks about. The bills Cobb-Hunter sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Cobb-Hunter talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the SC 2025–26 session
0%100%
Cobb-Hunter
Peers
Science, Technology, Communications1 statements
100%
3%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
5%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
3%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues0 statements
0%
10%
Commerce0 statements
0%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Cobb-Hunter | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Science, Technology, Communications | 100% | 3% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 10% |
| Commerce | 0% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Cobb-Hunter’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 100%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Science, Technology, Communications | 100% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% | 5% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 10% | 7% | 4% |
| Commerce | 0% | 3% | 5% | 4% |
| Education | 0% | 15% | 8% | 10% |
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 Cobb-Hunter legislates on exactly the areas Cobb-Hunter 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 Cobb-Hunter sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Cobb-Hunter sits at −0.77 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 71% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.84 to −0.71, which understates the uncertainty; from 173 donors and 989 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”.
−0.77
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.84 to −0.71. From 173 donors and 989 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Cobb-Hunter, 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 Cobb-Hunter’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 Cobb-Hunter sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
South Carolina House124 · median +0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Cobb-Hunter |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 29% |
| South Carolina House | 124 | +0.3 | 8% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 13% |
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 Cobb-Hunter 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 Cobb-Hunter.
Money
Cobb-Hunter reported $37.7K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 81% of itemized individual money came from South Carolina.
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.
$37.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 48 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)75 squares$28.3K
- PACs and other committees25 squares$9,499
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $28.3K | 74.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $9,499 | 25.2% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $47.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $196.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $20.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $37.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 81% came from South Carolina.
- South Carolina$23.0K
- New Jersey$2,000
- Tennessee$1,000
- North Carolina$1,000
- Florida$750
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 |
|---|---|
| South Carolina | $23.0K |
| New Jersey | $2,000 |
| Tennessee | $1,000 |
| North Carolina | $1,000 |
| Florida | $750 |
| New York | $500 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
48
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
81%
from South Carolina
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 South Carolina. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BUSINESSMAN$4,250 6 donors
- ATTORNEY$3,000 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- FRIENDS OF FARM BUREAU$1,000
- FRIENDS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA$1,000
- PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTES SCPAC$1,000
- SC TRUCKPAC$1,000
- SOUTH CAROLINA BANKERS PAC$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Cobb-Hunter voted with the majority of South Carolina House Democrats on 98.1% of party-line votes and missed 11% of 1,346 roll calls. South Carolina House on average: 93.8% party unity, 88% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cobb-Hunter voted against the majority of South Carolina House Democrats 11 times.
1,346 roll calls Cobb-Hunter could vote on in the SC 2025–26 session, compared with South Carolina 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 Cobb-Hunter voted with the majority of South Carolina House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
11
votes against the majority of South Carolina House Democrats
Party unity 98.1%, South Carolina House average 93.8%, ranks 16th of 124. 1,346 roll calls in the SC 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Cobb-Hunter, the thin grey bar the South Carolina House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Cobb-Hunter
Peers
Rank
Attendance
89%
88%
74th of 124
Party unity
98.1%
93.8%
16th of 124
Show the data
| Row | Cobb-Hunter | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 89% | 88% |
| Party unity | 98.1% | 93.8% |
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 SC 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 32–0 · R 64–15Democrats 32 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 64 yea, 15 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–32 · R 15–64Democrats 0 yea, 32 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 64 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 32–0 · R 63–17Democrats 32 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 63 yea, 17 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–3 · R 51–18Democrats 27 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 51 yea, 18 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 32–0 · R 63–15Democrats 32 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 63 yea, 15 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Cobb-Hunter most often
- Chandra DillardD1,103 shared votes99%
- Bill ClyburnD1,065 shared votes99%
- Robert WilliamsD1,140 shared votes99%
- Lonnie HoseyD1,094 shared votes99%
- Carl AndersonD1,089 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cobb-Hunter least often
- Rob HarrisR1,079 shared votes60%
- April CromerR1,146 shared votes61%
- Thomas BeachR1,122 shared votes61%
- Jordan PaceR1,052 shared votes61%
- Lee GilreathR1,089 shared votes61%
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
SC 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Cobb-Hunter sponsored 1,034 bills in the SC 2025–26 session; 5 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 96% of sponsored bills got out of committee (South Carolina House average 96%; 75th of 124).
The bills Cobb-Hunter sponsored and cosponsored in the SC 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 SC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 1,034 | 1,034 | 996 | 84 | 5 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Cobb-Hunter sponsored, ochre blocks bills Cobb-Hunter cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
96%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
South Carolina House average 96%. Ranks 75th of 124.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Cobb-Hunter, by number of shared bills in the SC 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Wendell Gilliard12
- Courtney Waters11
- Wendell Jones10
- Michael Rivers9
- Tiffany Spann-Wilder9
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 Cobb-Hunter’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H 5810 | UNESCO Middle Passage Marker | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Aug 25, 2026 |
| H 5806 | Pastor Sammie D. Simmons Day in SC | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Aug 25, 2026 |
| H 5800 | Friendship United Methodist Church 160th Anniversary | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Aug 25, 2026 |
| H 5807 | Alica James obituary and memorial service | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Aug 25, 2026 |
| H 5795 | Katherine Liles, sympathy | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Aug 25, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Cobb-Hunter’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Cobb-Hunter’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 Cobb-Hunter posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 1
pages crawled
1changes 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 Cobb-Hunter posted
No images from Cobb-Hunter’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 Cobb-Hunter is most unusual among South Carolina House, 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. That is the case for Cobb-Hunter in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- b494d1f6-d98e-4a8c-895c-6cb73ec892b8
- Open States
- ocd-person/b494d1f6-d98e-4a8c-895c-6cb73ec892b8
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