Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Geraldo Rivera · Source
5.2×
the State Senate Republican rate of personal attacks
12% of 852 statements contain a personal attack (100 statements); the average for State Senate Republicans is 2.3%. Ranks 11th of 354, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Trebas’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 Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 0.9% of Trebas’s statements claim credit, in the bottom tenth of State Senate Republicans (average 15%). 3.4% of Trebas’s statements use an extreme label, 2.7 times the State Senate Republican average of 1.3%.
The measures on which Trebas sits furthest from the middle of State Senate 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
12%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 11th of 354
Credit claiming
0.9%
State Senate Republicans average 15% · ranks 324th of 354
Extreme labels
3.4%
State Senate Republicans average 1.3% · ranks 41st of 354
Policy discussion
20%
State Senate Republicans average 37% · ranks 286th of 354
From Montana, 2022
99%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 6th of 22 State Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.44
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Trebas, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Trebas is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Trebas says
Trebas claims credit less than 91% of State Senate Republicans. Credit claiming in 0.9% of 852 statements, against 15% for the average State Senate Republican; 324th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Trebas’s 852 statements in the MT 2025–26 session (852 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 MT 2025–26 session
0%80%
Trebas
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion169 statements
20%
37%
286th of 354
Personal attacks100 statements
12%
2%
11th of 354
Policy criticism100 statements
12%
9%
111th of 354
Bipartisanship9 statements
1%
2%
205th of 354
Credit claiming8 statements
1%
15%
324th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Trebas | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 20% | 37% |
| Personal attacks | 12% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 12% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 1% | 15% |
852
statements classified
852 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 852 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Trebas; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Trebas does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Trebas used extreme labels in 3.4% of statements, 2.7 times the peer average. 29 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 1.3%.
- “MAGA”3
- “communist”2
- “radical”2
- “fascist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGA3
- Democrats2
- left2
- MTFascismCaucus2
- Republicans2
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the MT 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 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) |
| Feb ’25 | 81 | 8.6% | 17.3% | 23.5% | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.2% |
| Mar ’25 | 23 | 21.7% | 13.0% | 26.1% | 8.7% | 4.3% | 4.3% |
| Apr ’25 | 110 | 10.0% | 17.3% | 20.9% | 3.6% | 0.9% | 4.5% |
| May ’25 | 62 | 6.5% | 25.8% | 25.8% | 1.6% | 3.2% | 6.5% |
| Jun ’25 | 14 | 21.4% | 42.9% | 42.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 15.4% | 26.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 45.5% | 45.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 109 | 19.3% | 9.2% | 9.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 4.6% |
| Oct ’25 | 52 | 0.0% | 9.6% | 11.5% | 0.0% | 1.9% | 5.8% |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’26 | 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) |
| Feb ’26 | 16 | 6.3% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 89 | 10.1% | 5.6% | 6.7% | 1.1% | 0.0% | 6.7% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’26 | 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) |
| Aug ’26 | 20 | 15.0% | 15.0% | 45.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 107 | 16.8% | 5.6% | 28.0% | 0.9% | 0.0% | 1.9% |
| Oct ’26 | 85 | 16.5% | 2.4% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 2.4% | 0.0% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the MT 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 7 months are hatched here.
In Trebas’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.
Oct 10, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “communist” aimed at Democrats, Republicans · 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: Geraldo RiveraSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: SheSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: Mike JohnsonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: tramppoliticsSource
All 852 statements
Newest first, the MT 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 852 posts on X.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what Trebas talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 2.7 times the peer share. Peers give it 12%.
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 Trebas talks about. The bills Trebas sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Trebas talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MT 2025–26 session
0%37%
Trebas
Peers
Economics and Public Finance56 statements
33%
12%
Government Operations and Politics31 statements
18%
17%
Taxation25 statements
15%
7%
Health20 statements
12%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security8 statements
5%
6%
Show the data
| Row | Trebas | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 33% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 17% |
| Taxation | 15% | 7% |
| Health | 12% | 9% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 5% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Trebas’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 37%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
No sponsored or cosponsored bills with a policy area in this window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Trebas legislates on exactly the areas Trebas 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 Trebas sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Trebas sits at +0.44 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 63% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.40 to +0.48, which understates the uncertainty; from 102 donors and 597 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”.
+0.44
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.40 to +0.48. From 102 donors and 597 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Trebas, 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 Trebas’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 Trebas sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Montana Senate50 · median +0.2
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Trebas |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 63% |
| Montana Senate | 50 | +0.2 | 72% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 79% |
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 Trebas 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 Trebas.
Money
Trebas reported $20.1K in the 2022 cycle, below the State Senate Republicans’ median of $34.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 99% of itemized individual money came from Montana.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
$20.1K
itemized in the 2022 cycle
From 84 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $34.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2022 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)86 squares$17.2K
- PACs and other committees11 squares$2,200
- Party committees3 squares$700
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $17.2K | 85.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $2,200 | 11.0% |
| Party committees | $700 | 3.5% |
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 2022. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2022.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $5,591 |
| 2022 cycle | $20.1K |
Top donor states, 2022
Itemized contributions by donor state. 99% came from Montana.
- Montana$17.1K
- Texas$360
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Montana | $17.1K |
| Texas | $360 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | 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 |
| 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 |
| Florida | No data |
84
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
99%
from Montana
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Montana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2022 cycle.
- RETIRED$1,950 14 donors
- GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$1,570 12 donors
- SENATOR$850 3 donors
- LEGISLATOR$670 3 donors
- ATTORNEY$540 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2022 cycle.
- CASCADE COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL CMTE.$600
- CASCADE COUNTY REPUBLICANS PAC$500
- MONTANA RPAC$400
- GREATER MONTANA IEC PAC$300
- GUILD PAC$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2022 cycle.
- STATE OF MONTANA$2,750 10 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Trebas voted with the majority of Montana Senate Republicans on 89% of party-line votes and missed 0.4% of 2,812 roll calls. Montana Senate on average: 85% party unity, 98.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Trebas voted against the majority of Montana Senate Republicans 493 times.
2,812 roll calls Trebas could vote on in the MT 2025–26 session, compared with Montana Senate. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Trebas voted with the majority of Montana Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
493
votes against the majority of Montana Senate Republicans
Party unity 89%, Montana Senate average 85%, ranks 33rd of 50. 2,812 roll calls in the MT 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Trebas, the thin grey bar the Montana Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Trebas
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.5%
98.9%
22nd of 50
Party unity
89%
85%
33rd of 50
Show the data
| Row | Trebas | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.5% | 98.9% |
| Party unity | 89% | 85% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Trebas most often
- Barry UsherR2,658 shared votes82%
- Daniel EmrichR2,779 shared votes81%
- Matt RegierR2,756 shared votes81%
- Tony TezakR2,793 shared votes81%
- Bob PhalenR2,798 shared votes81%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Trebas least often
- Andrea OlsenD2,771 shared votes45%
- Mary Ann DunwellD2,797 shared votes50%
- Jacinda MorigeauD2,761 shared votes51%
- Susan WebberD2,665 shared votes51%
- Cora NeumannD2,793 shared votes52%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
MT 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
No bills for the MT 2025–26 session.No sponsored or cosponsored bills are recorded for this official in this time window.
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Trebas’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Trebas’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 Trebas posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
Campaign site
jeremytrebas.com/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFJzB5leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWG81NBSDa7miTpCqnVt-PbyF9bA_oSQ5V1nTr203bMSZVl3deEQ0EEL8Q_aem_ge7eU_ejZB33Dkbjn1nI9ALast crawled Oct 1, 2026
15pages 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
Images Trebas posted
No images from Trebas’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 Trebas is most unusual among State Senate 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- b51a470c-840d-404c-aebe-a7cb47c3edff
- Open States
- ocd-person/b51a470c-840d-404c-aebe-a7cb47c3edff
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