Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship; credit claiming · Source
$567.3K
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of State House Republicans
The median for State House Republicans is $33.7K. Ranks 70th of 2,521, where 1st raised the most. 403 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State House Republicans. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. The policy areas Gress talks about and legislates on agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale, in the top quarter of State House Republicans. 3.6% of Gress’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.0 times the State House Republican average of 1.8%.
The measures on which Gress 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.
Itemized, 2026
$567.3K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 70th of 2,521
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.65
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 67th of 504
Bipartisanship
3.6%
State House Republicans average 1.8% · ranks 130th of 791
Out of committee
61%
Arizona House average 34% · ranks 13th of 56
Attendance
90.4%
Arizona House average 93.0% · ranks 46th of 60 · 1,672 roll calls
CSIP ideology
+0.23
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Gress, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gress is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Gress says
Gress attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Republican. Personal attacks in 0.5% of 415 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 455th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Gress’s 415 statements in the AZ 2025–26 session (415 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 AZ 2025–26 session
0%80%
Gress
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion154 statements
37%
32%
310th of 791
Credit claiming65 statements
16%
13%
277th of 791
Policy criticism42 statements
10%
9%
272nd of 791
Bipartisanship15 statements
4%
2%
130th of 791
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
3%
455th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Gress | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 37% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 16% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 10% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
415
statements classified
415 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 415 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Gress; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Gress does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Gress used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, below the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at far-left politicians; peers 1.4%.
- “extreme”1
- “far left”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- far-left politicians1
- NEA1
- NEAToday1
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 AZ 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 20 | 5.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 15.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 33.3% | 55.6% | 5.6% | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 33.3% | 6.7% | 13.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 35.3% | 5.9% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 30.8% | 7.7% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 41 | 2.4% | 0.0% | 4.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.4% |
| Aug ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 13.3% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 40.0% | 50.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 42.9% | 0.0% | 23.8% | 4.8% |
| Dec ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 15.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 30.8% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 18.8% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 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) |
| Apr ’26 | 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) |
| May ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 50.0% | 8.3% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 10.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 3.3% | 13.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 11.8% | 58.8% | 5.9% | 17.6% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 33 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 42.4% | 3.0% | 12.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 35 | 0.0% | 5.7% | 65.7% | 5.7% | 20.0% | 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 AZ 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%. 2 months are hatched here.
In Gress’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 24, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Education; target: Superintendent · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 10, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “far left” aimed at far-left politicians · 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 · policy discussion · Education · target: SuperintendentSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Patricia JimenezSource
All 415 statements
Newest first, the AZ 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: 415 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Gress talks about most: 38% of policy statements, 2.5 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 67th 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 Gress talks about. The bills Gress sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Gress talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the AZ 2025–26 session
0%53%
Gress
Peers
Education58 statements
38%
15%
Crime and Law Enforcement32 statements
21%
11%
Government Operations and Politics26 statements
17%
18%
Economics and Public Finance21 statements
14%
12%
Families14 statements
9%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Gress | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 38% | 15% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 21% | 11% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 17% | 18% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 12% |
| Families | 9% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Gress’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 53%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 38% | 15% | 49% | 9% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 21% | 11% | 7% | 11% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 17% | 18% | 6% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 12% | 1% | 2% |
| Families | 9% | 4% | 7% | 2% |
0.65
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 67th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Gress legislates on exactly the areas Gress 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 Gress sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Gress sits at +0.23 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 70% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.20 to +0.26, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,012 donors and 567 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”.
+0.23
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.20 to +0.26. From 1,012 donors and 567 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gress, 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 Gress’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 Gress sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Arizona House60 · median +0.2
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Gress |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 30% |
| Arizona House | 60 | +0.2 | 57% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 61% |
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 Gress 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 Gress.
Money
Gress reported $567.3K in the 2026 cycle, 16.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from Arizona.
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.
$567.3K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 403 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)90 squares$508.9K
- PACs and other committees10 squares$58.5K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $508.9K | 89.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $58.5K | 10.3% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $559.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $663.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $567.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from Arizona.
- Arizona$475.8K
- California$8,500
- Texas$7,541
- Massachusetts$5,500
- New Jersey$3,500
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 |
|---|---|
| Arizona | $475.8K |
| California | $8,500 |
| Texas | $7,541 |
| Massachusetts | $5,500 |
| New Jersey | $3,500 |
| New York | $3,000 |
| Colorado | $2,000 |
| Ohio | $1,000 |
| Illinois | $667 |
| Wisconsin | $500 |
| Hawaii | $300 |
| Virginia | $250 |
| Tennessee | $104 |
| District of Columbia | $102 |
| Florida | $100 |
| New Hampshire | $50 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
403
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
93%
from Arizona
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 Arizona. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$103.1K 75 donors
- PRESIDENT$35.0K 16 donors
- ATTORNEY$31.7K 35 donors
- CEO$27.1K 21 donors
- CONSULTANT$25.1K 36 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ACTION BEHAVIOR CENTERS PAC$3,000
- REALTORS OF ARIZONA$3,000
- GCE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (GCE PAC)$2,500
- PINNACLE WEST PAC$2,500
- THE CIGNA GROUP EMPLOYEE PAC$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BEST EFFORTS$16.1K 5 donors
- HORIZON STRATEGIES$5,760 3 donors
- VIAWEST GROUP$4,600 3 donors
- VERIDUS$4,004 9 donors
- DEMENNA PUBLIC AFFAIRS$2,600 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Gress voted with the majority of Arizona House Republicans on 92.8% of party-line votes and missed 9.6% of 1,672 roll calls. Arizona House on average: 93.3% party unity, 93.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Gress voted against the majority of Arizona House Republicans 91 times.
1,672 roll calls Gress could vote on in the AZ 2025–26 session, compared with Arizona 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 Gress voted with the majority of Arizona House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
91
votes against the majority of Arizona House Republicans
Party unity 92.8%, Arizona House average 93.3%, ranks 42nd of 60. 1,672 roll calls in the AZ 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Gress, the thin grey bar the Arizona House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Gress
Peers
Rank
Attendance
90.4%
93.0%
46th of 60
Party unity
92.8%
93.3%
42nd of 60
Show the data
| Row | Gress | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 90.4% | 93.0% |
| Party unity | 92.8% | 93.3% |
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 AZ 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–22 · R 31–0Democrats 0 yea, 22 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 nay | much discussed | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–5 · R 30–0Democrats 17 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 0 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 2–20 · R 31–0Democrats 2 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | fail | D 2–20 · R 19–12Democrats 2 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 19 yea, 12 nay | party crossover | |
| Jun 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–17 · R 31–0Democrats 5 yea, 17 nay; Republicans 31 yea, 0 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 Gress most often
- Chris LopezR1,423 shared votes95%
- James TaylorR1,476 shared votes94%
- Justin WilmethR1,405 shared votes94%
- Selina BlissR1,503 shared votes94%
- Quang NguyenR1,510 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gress least often
- Mariana SandovalD1,489 shared votes38%
- Anna AbeytiaD1,140 shared votes41%
- Quantá CrewsD1,295 shared votes42%
- Brian GarciaD1,390 shared votes42%
- Aaron MárquezD1,477 shared votes43%
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
AZ 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Gress sponsored 97 bills in the AZ 2025–26 session; 14 became law. Cosponsored 97 others. 61% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Arizona House average 34%; 13th of 56).
The bills Gress sponsored and cosponsored in the AZ 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 AZ 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 97 | 64 | 59 | 32 | 14 |
| Cosponsored | 97 | 73 | 73 | 50 | 23 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Gress sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gress cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
61%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Arizona House average 34%. Ranks 13th of 56.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gress, by number of shared bills in the AZ 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Carine Werner34
- Hildy Angius34
- Teresa Martinez24
- Neal Carter23
- Pamela Carter23
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 Gress’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 2315 | exchange teachers; technical correction | Sponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Education(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HB 2314 | technical correction; private schools | Sponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Education(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HB 2839 | municipal tax; exemption; food | Cosponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Taxation(model) | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HCR 2063 | Yvonne Fedderson; death resolution | Sponsor | Jun 13, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | House First Reading. Jun 13, 2026 |
| HCR 2066 | Louis Gasper; death resolution | Cosponsor | Apr 29, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Transmit to Secretary of State May 5, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Gress’s campaign site had 5 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Gress’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 Gress posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 5
pages crawled
2changes 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 Gress posted
No images from Gress’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
141 turns, Jan 9, 2023 to Jun 12, 2026
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Gress 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
- bfb503ce-dcb1-444b-9484-8a90e73c6a6f
- Open States
- ocd-person/bfb503ce-dcb1-444b-9484-8a90e73c6a6f
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