Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 16, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: calleymeans · Source
75%
of itemized money from West Virginia donors, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans
75% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in West Virginia. Ranks 2002nd of 2,335, where 1st is the highest share. 4 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in West Virginia, ranked among State House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 36% of the 50 bills Worrell sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the West Virginia House. Worrell missed 5.8% of 1,396 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the West Virginia House (average 95.6%).
The measures on which Worrell 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.
From West Virginia, 2026
75%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2002nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Out of committee
36%
West Virginia House average 22% · ranks 15th of 84
Attendance
94.2%
West Virginia House average 95.6% · ranks 73rd of 96 · 1,396 roll calls
CSIP ideology
+0.30
More liberal than 59% of State House Republicans · ± 0.04
Party unity
88%
West Virginia House average 86% · ranks 57th of 96 · 63 votes against the majority of West Virginia House Republicans
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.53
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 258th of 504
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Worrell, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Worrell is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Worrell says
Worrell stresses bipartisanship about as often as the median State House Republican. Bipartisanship in 0.7% of 149 statements, against 1.8% for the average State House Republican; 468th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Worrell’s 149 statements in the WV 2025–26 session (149 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.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the WV 2025–26 session
0%80%
Worrell
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion42 statements
28%
32%
435th of 791
Credit claiming21 statements
14%
13%
307th of 791
Policy criticism16 statements
11%
9%
255th of 791
Personal attacks3 statements
2%
3%
303rd of 791
Bipartisanship1 statements
1%
2%
468th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Worrell | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 28% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 14% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 11% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
149
statements classified
149 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 149 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Worrell; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Worrell does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Worrell used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, below the peer average. 1 statement; peers 1.4%.
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 WV 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 44 | 2.3% | 20.4% | 34.1% | 0.0% | 11.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 13.6% | 36.4% | 4.5% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 36 | 5.6% | 2.8% | 22.2% | 0.0% | 19.4% | 2.8% |
| 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 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’25 | 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 ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| May ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the WV 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%. 18 months are hatched here; 8 of them have no statements.
In Worrell’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 12, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Health · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 24, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: calleymeansSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: SecKennedySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Barry HolsteinSource
All 149 statements
Newest first, the WV 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: 149 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Worrell talks about most: 57% of policy statements, 5.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.53 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 258th 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 Worrell talks about. The bills Worrell sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Worrell talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the WV 2025–26 session
0%63%
Worrell
Peers
Health24 statements
57%
10%
Agriculture and Food13 statements
31%
4%
Economics and Public Finance2 statements
5%
12%
Education2 statements
5%
15%
Government Operations and Politics2 statements
5%
18%
Show the data
| Row | Worrell | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 57% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 31% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 5% | 12% |
| Education | 5% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 5% | 18% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Worrell’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.
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 63%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 57% | 10% | 44% | 10% |
| Agriculture and Food | 31% | 4% | 5% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 5% | 12% | 1% | 2% |
| Education | 5% | 15% | 3% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 5% | 18% | 8% | 12% |
0.53
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 258th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Worrell legislates on exactly the areas Worrell 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 Worrell sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Worrell sits at +0.30 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 59% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.26 to +0.34, which understates the uncertainty; from 108 donors and 858 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”.
+0.30
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.26 to +0.34. From 108 donors and 858 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Worrell, 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 Worrell’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 Worrell sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
West Virginia House97 · median +0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Worrell |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 41% |
| West Virginia House | 97 | +0.3 | 52% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 67% |
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 Worrell 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 Worrell.
Money
Worrell reported $33.9K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 75% of itemized individual money came from West Virginia.
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.
$33.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 4 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)6 squares$2,000
- PACs and other committees94 squares$31.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $2,000 | 5.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $31.9K | 94.1% |
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $27.8K |
| 2022 cycle | $95.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $70.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $33.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 75% came from West Virginia.
- West Virginia$1,500
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 |
|---|---|
| West Virginia | $1,500 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
4
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
75%
from West Virginia
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 West Virginia. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- OPERATORS POLITICAL EDUCATION & EDUCATION COMMITTEE (O.P.E.C)$5,600
- GREATER WV CARPENTERS PEC$2,800
- WEST VIRGINIA BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES PAC$2,800
- WEST VIRGINIA HEALTH CARE PAC$2,800
- WEST VIRGINIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION (HOSPAC)$2,800
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Worrell voted with the majority of West Virginia House Republicans on 88% of party-line votes and missed 5.8% of 1,396 roll calls. West Virginia House on average: 86% party unity, 95.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Worrell voted against the majority of West Virginia House Republicans 63 times.
1,396 roll calls Worrell could vote on in the WV 2025–26 session, compared with West Virginia 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 Worrell voted with the majority of West Virginia House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
63
votes against the majority of West Virginia House Republicans
Party unity 88%, West Virginia House average 86%, ranks 57th of 96. 1,396 roll calls in the WV 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Worrell, the thin grey bar the West Virginia House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Worrell
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.2%
95.6%
73rd of 96
Party unity
88%
86%
57th of 96
Show the data
| Row | Worrell | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 94.2% | 95.6% |
| Party unity | 88% | 86% |
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 WV 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 14, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 85–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 85 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Mar 14, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 88–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 88 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Mar 14, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–9 · R 86–2Democrats 0 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 86 yea, 2 nay | became law | |
| Mar 14, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 3–6 · R 71–17Democrats 3 yea, 6 nay; Republicans 71 yea, 17 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Mar 14, 2026 | HB 5381 Relating to developing a comprehensive energy development policy and plan for the Office of Energy PREVIOUS QUESTION | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 47–34Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 34 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 Worrell most often
- Kathie Hess CrouseR1,304 shared votes96%
- Tristan LeavittR1,242 shared votes96%
- Mike HiteR1,275 shared votes95%
- Jordan MaynorR1,284 shared votes95%
- Jonathan PinsonR1,283 shared votes95%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Worrell least often
- Chris AndersR1,284 shared votes76%
- Corby DillonR1,290 shared votes77%
- Mike PushkinD1,307 shared votes80%
- Hollis LewisD1,302 shared votes81%
- Kayla YoungD1,286 shared votes81%
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
WV 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Worrell sponsored 50 bills in the WV 2025–26 session; 11 became law. Cosponsored 104 others. 36% of sponsored bills got out of committee (West Virginia House average 22%; 15th of 84).
The bills Worrell sponsored and cosponsored in the WV 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 WV 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 50 | 50 | 18 | 12 | 11 |
| Cosponsored | 104 | 104 | 41 | 23 | 15 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Worrell sponsored, ochre blocks bills Worrell cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
36%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
West Virginia House average 22%. Ranks 15th of 84.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Worrell, by number of shared bills in the WV 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Mike Hite39
- Kathie Hess Crouse30
- Chuck Horst27
- Scot Heckert27
- Adam Burkhammer23
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 Worrell’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 22 | Requesting that Congress put a coking plant and power plant in West Virginia. | Cosponsor | Mar 5, 2026 | In committee | Energy(model) | To House Rules Mar 5, 2026 |
| HCR 29 | Requesting Joint Committee study the feasibility of establishing a flexible, short-duration, on-demand respite care program for seniors and caregivers | Cosponsor | Mar 5, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | To House Rules Mar 5, 2026 |
| HR 20 | Memoralizing the life of the Honorable Larry D. Kump; dedicated public servant, principled legislator, and devoted family man. | Cosponsor | Mar 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Completed legislative action Mar 2, 2026 |
| HB 5686 | Relating to the timing of payments of annually required deposit into an eligible recipient’s Hope Scholarship account | Cosponsor | Feb 27, 2026 | Became law | Education(model) | Chapter 129, Acts, Regular Session, 2026 Jun 29, 2026 |
| HR 19 | Urging Department of Administration to maintain trees on grounds to prevent damage to persons or property | Cosponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | To House Rules Feb 26, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Worrell’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Worrell’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 Worrell posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.wvlegislature.gov/House/lawmaker.cfm?member=Delegate%20WorrellLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
0changes 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 Worrell posted
No images from Worrell’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 Worrell 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- b875b7d6-4941-42a6-bcdf-c5da19bf0ced
- Open States
- ocd-person/b875b7d6-4941-42a6-bcdf-c5da19bf0ced
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