Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 15, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Taxation · Source
8.5×
the State House Democrat rate of extreme labels
8.1% of 517 statements use an extreme label (42 statements); the average for State House Democrats is 1.0%. Ranks 15th of 764, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at MAGA.
An AI model reads each of Xiong’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.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 15% of Xiong’s statements contain a personal attack, 6.1 times the State House Democrat average of 2.5%. Xiong voted against the majority of Michigan House Democrats 65 times; party unity 75%, in the bottom tenth of the Michigan House (average 93.2%).
The measures on which Xiong 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
8.1%
State House Democrats average 1.0% · ranks 15th of 764
Personal attacks
15%
State House Democrats average 2.5% · ranks 19th of 764
Party unity
75%
Michigan House average 93.2% · ranks 104th of 110 · 65 votes against the majority of Michigan House Democrats
From Michigan, 2026
41%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1851st of 1,983 State House Democrats
Policy criticism
21%
State House Democrats average 10% · ranks 115th of 764
CSIP ideology
−0.59
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Xiong, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Xiong is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Xiong says
Xiong attacks opponents personally more than 97% of State House Democrats. Personal attacks in 15% of 517 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 19th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Xiong’s 517 statements in the MI 2025–26 session (517 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 MI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Xiong
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion194 statements
38%
39%
416th of 764
Policy criticism106 statements
21%
10%
115th of 764
Personal attacks80 statements
15%
3%
19th of 764
Credit claiming53 statements
10%
14%
421st of 764
Bipartisanship17 statements
3%
3%
239th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Xiong | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 38% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 21% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 15% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 10% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 3% |
517
statements classified
517 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 517 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Xiong; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Xiong does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Xiong used extreme labels in 8.1% of statements, 8.5 times the peer average. 42 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 1.0%.
- “MAGA”27
- “communist”8
- “extreme”6
- “far right”5
- “woke”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGA10
- GOP2
- MAGA extremists2
- MAGA trolls2
- China1
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 MI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 75 | 4.0% | 36.0% | 57.3% | 4.0% | 16.0% | 4.0% |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’25 | 26 | 11.5% | 34.6% | 69.2% | 0.0% | 3.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 53 | 3.8% | 11.3% | 45.3% | 3.8% | 26.4% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 64 | 9.4% | 10.9% | 17.2% | 6.3% | 1.6% | 4.7% |
| Jun ’25 | 26 | 3.9% | 23.1% | 46.2% | 7.7% | 3.9% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 44 | 9.1% | 27.3% | 40.9% | 4.5% | 4.5% | 6.8% |
| Aug ’25 | 53 | 9.4% | 35.9% | 37.7% | 5.7% | 1.9% | 7.5% |
| Sep ’25 | 98 | 34.7% | 15.3% | 21.4% | 1.0% | 15.3% | 21.4% |
| Oct ’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) |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 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) |
| Jun ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’26 | 59 | 30.5% | 1.7% | 33.9% | 0.0% | 10.2% | 10.2% |
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 MI 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%. 13 months are hatched here; 6 of them have no statements.
In Xiong’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.
Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Law · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at opponent; target: MifsudCynthia · 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 · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · LawSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Nick RhudySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: faithbl16308165Source
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at opponent · target: MifsudCynthiaSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
All 517 statements
Newest first, the MI 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: 517 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Xiong talks about most: 24% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.58 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 190th 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 Xiong talks about. The bills Xiong sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Xiong talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MI 2025–26 session
0%35%
Xiong
Peers
Government Operations and Politics46 statements
24%
15%
Economics and Public Finance45 statements
23%
11%
Education29 statements
15%
15%
Health25 statements
13%
15%
Immigration19 statements
10%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Xiong | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 24% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 11% |
| Education | 15% | 15% |
| Health | 13% | 15% |
| Immigration | 10% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Xiong’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 24% | 15% | 8% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 11% | 1% | 2% |
| Education | 15% | 15% | 7% | 10% |
| Health | 13% | 15% | 12% | 15% |
| Immigration | 10% | 4% | 4% | 1% |
0.58
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 190th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Xiong legislates on exactly the areas Xiong 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 Xiong sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Xiong sits at −0.59 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 56% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.62 to −0.55, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,121 donors and 404 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”.
−0.59
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.62 to −0.55. From 2,121 donors and 404 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Xiong, 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 Xiong’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 Xiong sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Michigan House110 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Xiong |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 56% |
| Michigan House | 110 | +0.4 | 37% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 25% |
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 Xiong 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 Xiong.
Money
Xiong reported $146.5K in the 2026 cycle, 3.6 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 41% of itemized individual money came from Michigan.
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.
$146.5K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 870 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)59 squares$86.7K
- PACs and other committees41 squares$59.8K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $86.7K | 59.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $59.8K | 40.8% |
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 | $514.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $146.5K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 41% came from Michigan.
- Michigan$35.9K
- District of Columbia$12.9K
- Minnesota$9,593
- California$9,184
- North Carolina$3,553
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 |
|---|---|
| Michigan | $35.9K |
| District of Columbia | $12.9K |
| Minnesota | $9,593 |
| California | $9,184 |
| North Carolina | $3,553 |
| Wisconsin | $3,451 |
| Oregon | $2,067 |
| Washington | $1,932 |
| Virginia | $1,531 |
| Maryland | $1,234 |
| New York | $922 |
| Colorado | $569 |
| Massachusetts | $496 |
| Oklahoma | $470 |
| South Carolina | $431 |
| Iowa | $303 |
| Georgia | $275 |
| Connecticut | $245 |
| Illinois | $182 |
| Texas | $172 |
| Alabama | $150 |
| Florida | $138 |
| Ohio | $129 |
| New Mexico | $124 |
| Missouri | $110 |
| Kansas | $100 |
| Louisiana | $91 |
| Pennsylvania | $78 |
| Rhode Island | $69 |
| Arizona | $50 |
| Hawaii | $48 |
| New Jersey | $34 |
| Nevada | $25 |
| South Dakota | $25 |
| Tennessee | $15 |
| Alaska | $10 |
| Arkansas | $10 |
| Indiana | $3 |
| Kentucky | $1 |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
870
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
41%
from Michigan
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 Michigan. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$30.8K 375 donors
- RETIRED$6,021 24 donors
- ENGINEER$2,825 10 donors
- ATTORNEY$1,635 9 donors
- STATE REPRESENTATIVE$1,150 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- THE NEXT 50 PAC - MICHIGAN$12.3K
- INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION CMTE$12.0K
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES PEOPLE$5,000
- UAW MICHIGAN VOLUNTARY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
- MICHIGAN REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$4,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- MICHIGAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES$1,030 3 donors
- STELLANTIS$775 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Xiong voted with the majority of Michigan House Democrats on 75% of party-line votes and missed none of 752 roll calls. Michigan House on average: 93.2% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Xiong voted against the majority of Michigan House Democrats 65 times.
752 roll calls Xiong could vote on in the MI 2025–26 session, compared with Michigan 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 Xiong voted with the majority of Michigan House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
65
votes against the majority of Michigan House Democrats
Party unity 75%, Michigan House average 93.2%, ranks 104th of 110. 752 roll calls in the MI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Xiong, the thin grey bar the Michigan House average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Xiong
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.9%
55th of 110
Party unity
75%
93.2%
104th of 110
Show the data
| Row | Xiong | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 75% | 93.2% |
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 MI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6302 Education: school districts; requirement to display an American flag in classrooms; provide for. Amends sec. 1347 of 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1347). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #374 Yeas 76 Nays 27 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 20–26 · R 56–1Democrats 20 yea, 26 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6259 Criminal procedure: sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for criminal sexual conduct; modify. Amends sec. 16y, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.16y). TIE BAR WITH: HB 6261'26, HB 6262'26 passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #375 Yeas 77 Nays 26 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 21–25 · R 56–1Democrats 21 yea, 25 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6260 Crimes: criminal sexual conduct; penalties for criminal sexual conduct in the first degree; modify. Amends sec. 520b of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.520b). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #376 Yeas 79 Nays 24 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | — | pass | D 23–23 · R 56–1Democrats 23 yea, 23 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6282 Public employees and officers: ethics; moratorium on former legislators accepting employment with an entity that receives a grant from the utility consumer participation board; provide for. Creates new act. passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #373 Yeas 88 Nays 15 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 32–14 · R 56–1Democrats 32 yea, 14 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 23, 2026 | HB 6262 Crimes: criminal sexual conduct; penalties for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree; modify. Amends sec. 520d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.520d). passed; given immediate effect Roll Call #378 Yeas 77 Nays 26 Excused 0 Not Voting 7 | Yea | Against majority | pass | D 21–25 · R 56–1Democrats 21 yea, 25 nay; Republicans 56 yea, 1 nay | 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 Xiong most often
- Denise MentzerD735 shared votes95%
- Angela WitwerD743 shared votes93%
- Jennifer ConlinD725 shared votes93%
- Mike McFallD688 shared votes92%
- Kelly BreenD742 shared votes92%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Xiong least often
- Steve CarraR752 shared votes42%
- Jim DeSanaR719 shared votes60%
- Jaime GreeneR649 shared votes61%
- Dylan WegelaD752 shared votes65%
- Donni SteeleR752 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
MI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Xiong sponsored 24 bills in the MI 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 334 others. 17% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Michigan House average 32%; 79th of 107).
The bills Xiong sponsored and cosponsored in the MI 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 MI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 24 | 24 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 334 | 334 | 100 | 9 | 9 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Xiong sponsored, ochre blocks bills Xiong cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
17%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Michigan House average 32%. Ranks 79th of 107.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Xiong, by number of shared bills in the MI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Carrie Rheingans131
- Regina Weiss108
- Kelly Breen105
- Matt Longjohn101
- Carol Glanville83
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 Xiong’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 6346 | Law enforcement: other; sharing of information obtained from captured plate data; prohibit. Amends title & secs. 1a & 4 of 1974 PA 163 (MCL 28.211a & 28.214). | Cosponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/24/2026 Sep 29, 2026 |
| HR 363 | A resolution to declare September 21–27, 2026, as Condemnation of Authoritarianism Week in the state of Michigan. | Cosponsor | Sep 23, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | referred to Committee on Government Operations Sep 23, 2026 |
| HR 361 | A resolution to declare October 2026 as Combating Antisemitism Month in the state of Michigan. | Cosponsor | Sep 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | adopted Sep 23, 2026 |
| HB 6345 | Environmental protection: hazardous products; sale of lead sinkers, weights, and tackle; regulate. Amends 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.101 - 324.90106) by adding pt. 174. | Cosponsor | Sep 23, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection(model) | bill electronically reproduced 09/23/2026 Sep 24, 2026 |
| HR 364 | A resolution to declare September 23, 2026, as Michigan Energy Independence Day in the state of Michigan. | Cosponsor | Sep 23, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | referred to Committee on Government Operations Sep 23, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Xiong’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Xiong’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 Xiong posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 4
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 Xiong posted
No images from Xiong’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 Xiong 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
- cd44a574-079b-4fd8-82cd-0daea8d7ff96
- Open States
- ocd-person/cd44a574-079b-4fd8-82cd-0daea8d7ff96
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