Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 9, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Education · Source
0.43
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats
Agreement 0.43 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State House Democrats is 0.54. Ranks 421st of 503, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Grant’s statements matches the mix in the bills Grant sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State House Democrats.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 24% of Grant’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats (average 39%). 3.4% of Grant’s statements contain a personal attack, in the top half of State House Democrats (average 2.5%).
The measures on which Grant 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.
Party unity
100%
South Carolina House average 93.8% · ranks 2nd of 124 · 10 votes against the majority of South Carolina House Democrats
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.43
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 421st of 503
Attendance
95.2%
South Carolina House average 88% · ranks 25th of 124 · 1,346 roll calls
Policy discussion
24%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 594th of 764
Personal attacks
3.4%
State House Democrats average 2.5% · ranks 194th of 764
CSIP ideology
−0.76
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.07
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Grant, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Grant is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Grant says
Grant claims credit less than 71% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 5.4% of 652 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 551st of 764.
An AI model reads each of Grant’s 652 statements in the SC 2025–26 session (652 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.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the SC 2025–26 session
0%80%
Grant
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion159 statements
24%
39%
594th of 764
Policy criticism76 statements
12%
10%
269th of 764
Credit claiming35 statements
5%
14%
551st of 764
Personal attacks22 statements
3%
3%
194th of 764
Bipartisanship11 statements
2%
3%
410th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Grant | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 24% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 12% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 5% | 14% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
652
statements classified
652 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 652 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Grant; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Grant does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Grant used extreme labels in 1.1% of statements, close to the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 1.0%.
- “MAGA”4
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGA3
- GOP1
- Republicans1
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 SC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 53 | 3.8% | 3.8% | 13.2% | 3.8% | 5.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 39 | 2.6% | 12.8% | 35.9% | 2.6% | 10.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 96 | 2.1% | 15.6% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 54 | 3.7% | 14.8% | 24.1% | 1.8% | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| May ’25 | 41 | 0.0% | 2.4% | 14.6% | 0.0% | 12.2% | 2.4% |
| Jun ’25 | 65 | 7.7% | 9.2% | 24.6% | 6.2% | 4.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 43 | 4.7% | 9.3% | 18.6% | 2.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 45 | 2.2% | 15.6% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 2.2% |
| Sep ’25 | 44 | 6.8% | 11.4% | 22.7% | 0.0% | 2.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 22 | 4.5% | 13.6% | 36.4% | 4.5% | 4.5% | 4.5% |
| Nov ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 10.5% | 21.1% | 0.0% | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 54.5% | 9.1% | 27.3% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 17 | 5.9% | 23.5% | 35.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 16 | 6.3% | 25.0% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 13.6% | 13.6% | 0.0% | 13.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 22.7% | 36.4% | 0.0% | 4.5% | 4.5% |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
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 SC 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%. 5 months are hatched here.
In Grant’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.
Aug 26, 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.
Jul 8, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at GOP · 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 attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: PresidentSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: PresidentSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: RJ MaySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Stephen FrankSource
All 652 statements
Newest first, the SC 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: 652 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Grant talks about most: 28% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.43 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 421st 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 Grant talks about. The bills Grant sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Grant talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the SC 2025–26 session
0%35%
Grant
Peers
Education44 statements
28%
15%
Government Operations and Politics34 statements
21%
15%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues30 statements
19%
10%
Economics and Public Finance22 statements
14%
11%
Crime and Law Enforcement17 statements
11%
8%
Show the data
| Row | Grant | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 28% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 19% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 11% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Grant’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.
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 House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 28% | 15% | 12% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 15% | 6% | 8% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 19% | 10% | 2% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 11% | 0% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 8% | 6% | 9% |
0.43
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 421st of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Grant legislates on exactly the areas Grant 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 Grant sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Grant sits at −0.76 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 69% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.83 to −0.69, which understates the uncertainty; from 349 donors and 286 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”.
−0.76
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.83 to −0.69. From 349 donors and 286 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Grant, 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 Grant’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 Grant sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
South Carolina House124 · median +0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Grant |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 31% |
| South Carolina House | 124 | +0.3 | 10% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 14% |
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 Grant 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 Grant.
Money
Grant reported $46.0K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 81% of itemized individual money came from South Carolina.
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.
$46.0K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 155 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)88 squares$40.5K
- PACs and other committees12 squares$5,499
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $40.5K | 88.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $5,499 | 11.9% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $57.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $46.0K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 81% came from South Carolina.
- South Carolina$32.6K
- District of Columbia$2,000
- North Carolina$1,394
- California$1,000
- New Jersey$1,000
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 |
|---|---|
| South Carolina | $32.6K |
| District of Columbia | $2,000 |
| North Carolina | $1,394 |
| New Jersey | $1,000 |
| California | $1,000 |
| Kentucky | $1,000 |
| Georgia | $523 |
| Illinois | $500 |
| Tennessee | $250 |
| Virginia | $157 |
| Ohio | $53 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
155
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
81%
from South Carolina
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 South Carolina. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- CONSULTANT$3,085 6 donors
- ATTORNEY$2,780 7 donors
- PHYSICIAN$1,405 3 donors
- UNEMPLOYED$901 5 donors
- LAWYER$850 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- CONSERVATION VOTERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA PAC$1,000
- SOUTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE PAC$1,000
- SCADA PAC$999
- SCOPAPAC$750
- DUKE ENERGY CORP. PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Grant voted with the majority of South Carolina House Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 4.7% of 1,346 roll calls. South Carolina House on average: 93.8% party unity, 88% attendance. Across all roll calls, Grant voted against the majority of South Carolina House Democrats 10 times.
1,346 roll calls Grant could vote on in the SC 2025–26 session, compared with South Carolina 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 Grant voted with the majority of South Carolina House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
10
votes against the majority of South Carolina House Democrats
Party unity 100%, South Carolina House average 93.8%, ranks 2nd of 124. 1,346 roll calls in the SC 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Grant, the thin grey bar the South Carolina House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Grant
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.2%
88%
25th of 124
Party unity
100%
93.8%
2nd of 124
Show the data
| Row | Grant | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.2% | 88% |
| Party unity | 100% | 93.8% |
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 SC 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 32–0 · R 64–15Democrats 32 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 64 yea, 15 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–32 · R 15–64Democrats 0 yea, 32 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 64 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 32–0 · R 63–17Democrats 32 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 63 yea, 17 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–3 · R 51–18Democrats 27 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 51 yea, 18 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Aug 25, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 32–0 · R 63–15Democrats 32 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 63 yea, 15 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 Grant most often
- Courtney WatersD850 shared votes99%
- Keishan ScottD704 shared votes99%
- Kambrell GarvinD1,058 shared votes99%
- Michael RiversD1,195 shared votes99%
- Wendell GilliardD1,187 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Grant least often
- Rob HarrisR1,152 shared votes61%
- April CromerR1,219 shared votes61%
- Dianne MitchellR685 shared votes61%
- Jordan PaceR1,131 shared votes61%
- Thomas BeachR1,200 shared votes62%
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
SC 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Grant sponsored 1,024 bills in the SC 2025–26 session; 4 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 97% of sponsored bills got out of committee (South Carolina House average 96%; 54th of 124).
The bills Grant sponsored and cosponsored in the SC 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 SC 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 1,024 | 1,024 | 992 | 83 | 4 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Grant sponsored, ochre blocks bills Grant 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
South Carolina House average 96%. Ranks 54th of 124.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Grant, by number of shared bills in the SC 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Kambrell Garvin11
- Wendell Jones10
- John King9
- Gilda Cobb-Hunter9
- Tiffany Spann-Wilder9
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 Grant’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H 5810 | UNESCO Middle Passage Marker | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Aug 25, 2026 |
| H 5806 | Pastor Sammie D. Simmons Day in SC | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Aug 25, 2026 |
| H 5800 | Friendship United Methodist Church 160th Anniversary | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Aug 25, 2026 |
| H 5807 | Alica James obituary and memorial service | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Aug 25, 2026 |
| H 5795 | Katherine Liles, sympathy | Sponsor | Aug 25, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Introduced and adopted Aug 25, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Grant’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Grant’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 Grant posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 14
pages crawled
6changes 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
- XGrantForSC
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/grantforsc
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/hamilton.grant.5/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/hamilton_r._grant
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/grantforsc/
Images Grant posted
No images from Grant’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 Grant 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- c7b115f3-0fa8-4a8b-b01f-9b222f44018f
- Open States
- ocd-person/c7b115f3-0fa8-4a8b-b01f-9b222f44018f
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