Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics · Source
15%
of roll calls missed, the lowest attendance of 35 in the Colorado Senate
Attendance 85%; the average within the Colorado Senate is 97.2%. Ranks 35th of 35, where 1st has the highest attendance. 1,666 roll calls in the CO 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Danielson could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Colorado Senate. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. Danielson sits at −1.09 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 93% of State Senate Democrats. The policy areas Danielson talks about and legislates on agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale, in the top tenth of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Danielson sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
85%
Colorado Senate average 97.2% · ranks 35th of 35 · 1,666 roll calls
CSIP ideology
−1.09
More liberal than 93% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.04
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.67
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 23rd of 228
Itemized, 2026
$448.9K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 68th of 746
From Colorado, 2026
69%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 630th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Party unity
98.8%
Colorado Senate average 94.2% · ranks 6th of 35 · 11 votes against the majority of Colorado Senate Democrats
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Danielson, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Danielson is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Danielson says
Danielson claims credit more than 94% of State Senate Democrats. Credit claiming in 38% of 116 statements, against 16% for the average State Senate Democrat; 19th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Danielson’s 116 statements in the CO 2025–26 session (116 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the CO 2025–26 session
0%80%
Danielson
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion83 statements
72%
43%
16th of 329
Credit claiming44 statements
38%
16%
19th of 329
Policy criticism11 statements
9%
10%
146th of 329
Bipartisanship6 statements
5%
3%
73rd of 329
Personal attacks3 statements
3%
2%
93rd of 329
Show the data
| Row | Danielson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 72% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 38% | 16% |
| Policy criticism | 9% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 5% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 2% |
116
statements classified
116 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 116 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Danielson; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Danielson does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Danielson used extreme labels in 0.9% of statements, close to the peer average. 1 statement; peers 0.8%.
- “radical”1
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 CO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 23 | 0.0% | 13.0% | 82.6% | 4.3% | 43.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 25 | 4.0% | 12.0% | 96.0% | 4.0% | 52.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 18.2% | 72.7% | 9.1% | 36.4% | 4.5% |
| May ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 80.0% | 10.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 11 | 9.1% | 0.0% | 63.6% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 CO 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%. 17 months are hatched here; 10 of them have no statements.
In Danielson’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.
Jun 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 8, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “radical” · 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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald Trump, Tina PetersSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
All 116 statements
Newest first, the CO 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: 116 posts on X.
Policy
Labor and Employment is what Danielson talks about most: 30% of policy statements, 5.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 23rd of 228).
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 Danielson talks about. The bills Danielson sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Danielson talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the CO 2025–26 session
0%35%
Danielson
Peers
Labor and Employment25 statements
30%
6%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues16 statements
19%
8%
Public Lands and Natural Resources9 statements
11%
1%
Crime and Law Enforcement8 statements
10%
8%
Government Operations and Politics8 statements
10%
14%
Show the data
| Row | Danielson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and Employment | 30% | 6% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 19% | 8% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 11% | 1% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 10% | 8% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 10% | 14% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Danielson’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labor and Employment | 30% | 6% | 17% | 6% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 19% | 8% | 11% | 5% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 11% | 1% | 3% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 10% | 8% | 12% | 9% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 10% | 14% | 9% | 8% |
0.67
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 23rd of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Danielson legislates on exactly the areas Danielson 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 Danielson sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Danielson sits at −1.09 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 93% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.13 to −1.05, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,288 donors and 1,054 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”.
−1.09
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.13 to −1.05. From 5,288 donors and 1,054 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Danielson, 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 Danielson’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 Danielson sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Colorado Senate35 · median −0.7
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Danielson |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 7% |
| Colorado Senate | 35 | −0.7 | 6% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 3% |
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 Danielson 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 Danielson.
Money
Danielson reported $448.9K in the 2026 cycle, 8.1 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 69% of itemized individual money came from Colorado.
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.
$448.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 5,104 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)67 squares$302.2K
- PACs and other committees33 squares$146.8K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $302.2K | 67.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $146.8K | 32.7% |
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $16.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $98.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $14.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $448.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 69% came from Colorado.
- Colorado$209.8K
- California$13.4K
- New York$8,528
- Minnesota$7,983
- Florida$4,873
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 |
|---|---|
| Colorado | $209.8K |
| California | $13.4K |
| New York | $8,528 |
| Minnesota | $7,983 |
| Florida | $4,873 |
| Washington | $4,661 |
| Texas | $4,058 |
| Illinois | $3,999 |
| Virginia | $3,929 |
| Michigan | $3,302 |
| Pennsylvania | $2,900 |
| Massachusetts | $2,745 |
| Maryland | $2,538 |
| Missouri | $2,397 |
| District of Columbia | $2,229 |
| Arizona | $1,950 |
| Tennessee | $1,688 |
| North Carolina | $1,677 |
| Oregon | $1,539 |
| New Mexico | $1,346 |
| New Jersey | $1,197 |
| Ohio | $1,153 |
| South Carolina | $1,010 |
| Connecticut | $978 |
| Georgia | $952 |
| Indiana | $943 |
| Alabama | $828 |
| Hawaii | $798 |
| New Hampshire | $787 |
| Wisconsin | $778 |
| Montana | $756 |
| Iowa | $729 |
| Arkansas | $689 |
| Utah | $511 |
| Alaska | $442 |
| Maine | $436 |
| Nevada | $436 |
| Kansas | $426 |
| Oklahoma | $378 |
| Idaho | $341 |
| South Dakota | $322 |
| Rhode Island | $290 |
| Nebraska | $283 |
| Vermont | $258 |
| Kentucky | $235 |
| Louisiana | $233 |
| Delaware | $212 |
| West Virginia | $95 |
| Mississippi | $59 |
| North Dakota | $32 |
| Wyoming | $15 |
5,104
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
69%
from Colorado
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 Colorado. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT CURRENTLY EMPLOYED$132.2K 3,797 donors
- GENERAL BUSINESS$35.8K 250 donors
- CONSULTANT$26.8K 100 donors
- ATTORNEY/LEGAL$19.0K 74 donors
- RETIRED$13.5K 182 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- BUILDING A STRONGER COLORADO$15.7K
- COLORADO AFL-CIO SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE (COLORADO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR & CONGRESS OF INDUSTRI$15.5K
- COLORADO STATE CONFERENCE OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE (CSCEW)$15.0K
- COLORADO PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS SMALL DONOR FUND$12.5K
- PLUMBERS LOCAL 3 SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE$12.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- STATE OF COLORADO$5,110 14 donors
- STATE OF CO$1,650 5 donors
- MICROSOFT$1,560 3 donors
- UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO$468 4 donors
- STATE OF CALIFORNIA$40 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Danielson voted with the majority of Colorado Senate Democrats on 98.8% of party-line votes and missed 15% of 1,666 roll calls. Colorado Senate on average: 94.2% party unity, 97.2% attendance. Across all roll calls, Danielson voted against the majority of Colorado Senate Democrats 11 times.
1,666 roll calls Danielson could vote on in the CO 2025–26 session, compared with Colorado 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 Danielson voted with the majority of Colorado Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
11
votes against the majority of Colorado Senate Democrats
Party unity 98.8%, Colorado Senate average 94.2%, ranks 6th of 35. 1,666 roll calls in the CO 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Danielson, the thin grey bar the Colorado Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Danielson
Peers
Rank
Attendance
85%
97.2%
35th of 35
Party unity
98.8%
94.2%
6th of 35
Show the data
| Row | Danielson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 85% | 97.2% |
| Party unity | 98.8% | 94.2% |
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 CO 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 12–0Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 12 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 9–3Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 9 yea, 3 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 0–12Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 12 nay | became law | |
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 0–12Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 12 nay | became law | |
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 12–0Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 12 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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 Danielson most often
- James ColemanD906 shared votes99%
- Mike WeissmanD1,415 shared votes99%
- Lisa CutterD1,404 shared votes99%
- Faith WinterD763 shared votes99%
- Iman JodehD1,349 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Danielson least often
- Lynda Zamora WilsonR631 shared votes47%
- Mark BaisleyR1,389 shared votes53%
- John CarsonR1,408 shared votes62%
- Rod PeltonR1,380 shared votes65%
- Janice RichR1,408 shared votes66%
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
CO 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Danielson sponsored 38 bills in the CO 2025–26 session; 23 became law. Cosponsored 192 others. 97% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Colorado Senate average 94%; 13th of 35).
The bills Danielson sponsored and cosponsored in the CO 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 CO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 38 | 38 | 34 | 32 | 23 |
| Cosponsored | 192 | 192 | 191 | 171 | 90 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Danielson sponsored, ochre blocks bills Danielson cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
97%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Colorado Senate average 94%. Ranks 13th of 35.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Danielson, by number of shared bills in the CO 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Cathy Kipp21
- James Coleman21
- Lisa Cutter20
- Iman Jodeh18
- Katie Wallace16
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 Danielson’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SJR 26 | Adjourn Sine Die | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced In House - Assigned to May 20, 2026 |
| SB 190 | Release Information About Peace Officer Use of Force | Cosponsor | May 4, 2026 | Became law | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Governor Signed Jun 3, 2026 |
| SR 9 | Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Awareness Month | Cosponsor | May 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Senate Third Reading Passed - No Amendments May 7, 2026 |
| SB 184 | Firefighter Cancer Benefits & Workers' Compensation | Cosponsor | Apr 29, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Labor and Employment(model) | Governor Vetoed Jun 3, 2026 |
| HB 1425 | Applied Behavior Analysis Services | Cosponsor | Apr 28, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Governor Signed Jun 2, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Danielson’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Sep 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Danielson’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 Danielson posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 19
pages crawled
10changes 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 Danielson posted
No images from Danielson’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
95 turns, Feb 13, 2023 to May 13, 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 Danielson is most unusual among State Senate Democrats, 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
- c06af980-c553-4f79-a39d-295b7226f029
- Open States
- ocd-person/c06af980-c553-4f79-a39d-295b7226f029
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