3.4% of 669 statements use an extreme label (23 statements); the average for State House Democrats is 1.0%. Ranks 62nd of 764, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at fascism.
An AI model reads each of Stewart’s posts on X and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against State House Democrats. 26% of the 421 bills Stewart sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of the Rhode Island House. Stewart reported $6,410 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats (median $40.4K).
The measures on which Stewart sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Extreme labels
State House Democrats average 1.0% · ranks 62nd of 764
Out of committee
Rhode Island House average 39% · ranks 63rd of 74
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1780th of 2,082
From Rhode Island, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1601st of 1,983 State House Democrats
Attendance
Rhode Island House average 90.9% · ranks 15th of 74 · 1,359 roll calls
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.06
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Stewart, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Stewart is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Stewart claims credit less than 77% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 3.7% of 669 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 595th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Stewart’s 669 statements in the RI 2025–26 session (669 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the RI 2025–26 session
| Row | Stewart | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 38% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 14% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 4% | 14% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
statements classified
669 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 669 |
The thick bar is Stewart; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Stewart does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Stewart used extreme labels in 3.4% of statements, 3.6 times the peer average. 23 statements, most often aimed at fascism; peers 1.0%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the RI 2025–26 session
| 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 | 18 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’25 | 25 | 4.0% | 8.0% | 12.0% | 0.0% | 4.0% | 12.0% |
| May ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 55.6% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 42 | 0.0% | 19.1% | 38.1% | 2.4% | 2.4% | 7.1% |
| Jul ’25 | 36 | 2.8% | 25.0% | 30.6% | 2.8% | 0.0% | 2.8% |
| Aug ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 27.5% | 50.0% | 2.5% | 5.0% | 5.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 34 | 2.9% | 11.8% | 32.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| Oct ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 9.7% | 25.8% | 0.0% | 3.2% | 6.5% |
| Nov ’25 | 50 | 2.0% | 12.0% | 26.0% | 0.0% | 2.0% | 2.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 38 | 2.6% | 5.3% | 39.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 42 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 52.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 41 | 0.0% | 17.1% | 36.6% | 0.0% | 4.9% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 29 | 6.9% | 34.5% | 51.7% | 3.5% | 6.9% | 6.9% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 36.4% | 9.1% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 7.4% | 25.9% | 0.0% | 7.4% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 44 | 0.0% | 20.4% | 56.8% | 0.0% | 6.8% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 44 | 4.5% | 4.5% | 43.2% | 0.0% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 53 | 1.9% | 5.7% | 24.5% | 1.9% | 3.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.6% |
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 RI 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%. 3 months are hatched here.
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.
Sep 5, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Science, Technology, Communications; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 2, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Taxation; Government Operations and Politics; Law; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Trump · Source
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: MillennialOtherSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Housing and Community Development · target: establishment politiciansSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Greg AbbottSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Housing and Community Development · Health · Economics and Public Finance · 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 · target: Donald TrumpSource
Newest first, the RI 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 669 posts on X.
Taxation is what Stewart talks about most: 17% of policy statements, 4.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.60 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 161st of 503).
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 Stewart talks about. The bills Stewart sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the RI 2025–26 session
| Row | Stewart | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Taxation | 17% | 4% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 15% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 13% | 5% |
| Labor and Employment | 13% | 6% |
The thick bar is the share of Stewart’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
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 House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxation | 17% | 4% | 5% | 7% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 10% | 3% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 15% | 9% | 8% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 13% | 5% | 5% | 5% |
| Labor and Employment | 13% | 6% | 5% | 6% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 161st of 503.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Stewart legislates on exactly the areas Stewart 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 Stewart sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Stewart sits at −0.62 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 52% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.67 to −0.56, which understates the uncertainty; from 53 donors and 593 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.67 to −0.56. From 53 donors and 593 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Stewart, 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 Stewart’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Stewart |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 52% |
| Rhode Island House | 74 | −0.7 | 66% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 23% |
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 Stewart 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 Stewart.
Stewart reported $6,410 in the 2026 cycle, 16% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 76% of itemized individual money came from Rhode Island.
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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 53 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $5,410 | 84.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $1,000 | 15.6% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2026 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | $6,410 |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 76% came from Rhode Island.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Rhode Island | $4,095 |
| California | $1,000 |
| Massachusetts | $315 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Rhode Island
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Rhode Island. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Stewart voted with the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats on 97.0% of party-line votes and missed 2.3% of 1,359 roll calls. Rhode Island House on average: 94.0% party unity, 90.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Stewart voted against the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats 24 times.
1,359 roll calls Stewart could vote on in the RI 2025–26 session, compared with Rhode Island 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 Stewart voted with the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats
Party unity 97.0%, Rhode Island House average 94.0%, ranks 39th of 74. 1,359 roll calls in the RI 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Stewart, the thin grey bar the Rhode Island House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Stewart | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.7% | 90.9% |
| Party unity | 97.0% | 94.0% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the RI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 57–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 57 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | HR 8351 JOINT RESOLUTION CREATING A SPECIAL JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION TO STUDY RHODE ISLAND'S EDUCATION FUNDING FORMULA AND EDUCATION FINANCE SYSTEM PASSAGE OF AMENDMENT | Yea | With majority | pass | D 52–0 · R 9–0 · I 1–0Democrats 52 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 9 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 11, 2026 | SB 3358 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CRANSTON TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION, IMPROVEMENT, RENOVATION AND REPAIR OF FIRE AND PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT BY THE ISSUANCE OF NOT MORE THAN $8,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND NOTES THEREFOR IN CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 57–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 57 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 57–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 57 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 55–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 55 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Stewart most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Stewart least often
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.
RI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Stewart sponsored 421 bills in the RI 2025–26 session; 46 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 26% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Rhode Island House average 39%; 63rd of 74).
The bills Stewart sponsored and cosponsored in the RI 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.
Counts for the RI 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 421 | 421 | 108 | 46 | 46 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills Stewart sponsored, ochre blocks bills Stewart cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Rhode Island House average 39%. Ranks 63rd of 74.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Stewart, by number of shared bills in the RI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Stewart’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 8638 | HOUSE RESOLUTION HONORING REPRESENTATIVE DAVID MORALES FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND | Sponsor | Jun 11, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 06/11/2026 House read and passed Jun 11, 2026 |
| HR 8619 | HOUSE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE MONTH OF JUNE 2026 AS "PRIDE MONTH" IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND | Sponsor | Jun 4, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 06/04/2026 House read and passed Jun 4, 2026 |
| HB 8591 | AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF PAWTUCKET TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND EQUIPPING OF BRIDGES AND ALL COSTS INCIDENTAL OR RELATED THERETO AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCING THEREOF, INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF NOT MORE THAN $2,000,000 BONDS AND NOTES THEREFOR, TO FUND THE CAPITAL I | Sponsor | May 27, 2026 | Became law | Transportation and Public Works(model) | 06/23/2026 Signed by Governor Jun 23, 2026 |
| HB 8594 | AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF PAWTUCKET TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPAVING OF STREETS IN THE CITY AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCING THEREOF, INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF NOT MORE THAN $3,000,000 BONDS AND NOTES THEREFOR, TO FUND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE TWO FISCAL YEARS 2028 AND 2029 | Sponsor | May 27, 2026 | Became law | Transportation and Public Works(model) | 06/23/2026 Signed by Governor Jun 23, 2026 |
| HB 8588 | AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF PAWTUCKET TO PROVIDE FOR THE PLANNING, EVALUATION, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPPING AND RECONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWERS AND STORM SEWERS IN THE CITY AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCING THEREOF, INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF NOT MORE THAN $4,000,000 BONDS AND NOTES THEREFOR, TO FUN | Sponsor | May 27, 2026 | Became law | Water Resources Development(model) | 06/23/2026 Signed by Governor Jun 23, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Stewart’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Stewart’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 Stewart posts with a vision model.
Official site
www.rilegislature.gov/representatives/stewart/Pages/Biography.aspxLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Stewart’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
7 turns, Mar 5, 2026 to Jun 10, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Stewart is most unusual among State House 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
