100% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Pennsylvania. Ranks 195th of 1,983, where 1st is the highest share. 24 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Pennsylvania, ranked among State House Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
6 measures against State House Democrats. 5.6% of Guzman’s statements contain a personal attack, 2.2 times the State House Democrat average of 2.5%. The policy areas Guzman talks about and legislates on agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale, in the top quarter of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Guzman 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.
From Pennsylvania, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 195th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Personal attacks
State House Democrats average 2.5% · ranks 122nd of 764
Talk-to-bills agreement
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 106th of 503
Bipartisanship
State House Democrats average 2.9% · ranks 583rd of 764
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 65% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05
Out of committee
Pennsylvania House average 40% · ranks 103rd of 171
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Guzman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Guzman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Guzman stresses bipartisanship less than 76% of State House Democrats. Bipartisanship in 0.3% of 340 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Democrat; 583rd of 764.
An AI model reads each of Guzman’s 340 statements in the PA 2025–26 session (340 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 PA 2025–26 session
| Row | Guzman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 38% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 12% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 6% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 6% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
statements classified
340 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 340 |
The thick bar is Guzman; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Guzman does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Guzman used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 30% of the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at Unnamed politician; 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 PA 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 22 | 4.5% | 4.5% | 27.3% | 0.0% | 31.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 13.3% | 73.3% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 21.4% | 42.9% | 0.0% | 21.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 46.7% | 6.7% | 26.7% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 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) |
| Aug ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 41.7% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 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) |
| Oct ’25 | 7 | — (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 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 55.6% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 29 | 20.7% | 10.3% | 17.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.5% |
| Mar ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Jun ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 7.4% | 51.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 30.8% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’26 | 60 | 16.7% | 1.7% | 21.7% | 0.0% | 1.7% | 0.0% |
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 PA 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%. 9 months are hatched here.
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 7, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Armed Forces and National Security; target: Scott Bessent · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 26, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Education · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Unnamed politician; target: Unnamed politician · 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 · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Scott BessentSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: this dudeSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: AaronSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: BernsteinSource
Newest first, the PA 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: 340 posts on X.
Economics and Public Finance is what Guzman talks about most: 15% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 106th 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 Guzman talks about. The bills Guzman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the PA 2025–26 session
| Row | Guzman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 11% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 14% | 3% |
| Education | 13% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 13% | 15% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 12% | 5% |
The thick bar is the share of Guzman’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 11% | 1% | 2% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 14% | 3% | 3% | 1% |
| Education | 13% | 15% | 13% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 13% | 15% | 5% | 8% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 12% | 5% | 13% | 5% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 106th of 503.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Guzman legislates on exactly the areas Guzman 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 Guzman sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Guzman sits at −0.52 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 65% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.57 to −0.48, which understates the uncertainty; from 63 donors and 900 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 −0.57 to −0.48. From 63 donors and 900 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Guzman, 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 Guzman’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 Guzman |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 65% |
| Pennsylvania House | 203 | −0.3 | 38% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 29% |
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 Guzman 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 Guzman.
Guzman reported $38.3K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
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 24 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) | $19.1K | 49.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $19.3K | 50.3% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $39.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $111.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $121.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $38.3K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Pennsylvania.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $19.1K |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | 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 Pennsylvania
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 Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Guzman voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats on 99.0% of party-line votes and missed none of 1,497 roll calls. Pennsylvania House on average: 95.1% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Guzman voted against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats 16 times.
1,497 roll calls Guzman could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania 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 Guzman voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
Party unity 99.0%, Pennsylvania House average 95.1%, ranks 95th of 203. 1,497 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Guzman, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Guzman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 99.0% | 95.1% |
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 PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1431 An Act amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Pennsylvania Game Commission, further providing for Game Commission officers and employees; and, in enforcement, further providing for powers and duties of enforcement officers. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 922 An Act amending the act of January 28, 1988 (P.L.24, No.11), known as the Private Academic Schools Act, further providing for application for license, for issuance and renewal of license and for promulgation of rules and regulations. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–2 · R 100–0Democrats 101 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1328 An Act requiring automated external defibrillators at utility or electrical worksites; imposing duties on the Department of Labor and Industry; and imposing penalties. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 94–6Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 94 yea, 6 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 764 An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in alteration of territory or corporate entity and dissolution, further providing for conduct of referenda and for court review of transitional plan. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2593 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in general provisions relating to powers and duties of the Department of Health and its departmental administrative and advisory boards, providing for prostate health public education campaign; and FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 88–12Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 88 yea, 12 nay | party crossover |
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 Guzman most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Guzman 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.
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Guzman sponsored 36 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 323 others. 31% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Pennsylvania House average 40%; 103rd of 171).
The bills Guzman sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 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 PA 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 36 | 36 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 323 | 323 | 140 | 11 | 10 |
Ink blocks are bills Guzman sponsored, ochre blocks bills Guzman 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
Pennsylvania House average 40%. Ranks 103rd of 171.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Guzman, by number of shared bills in the PA 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 Guzman’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 673 | A Resolution directing the Joint State Government Commission to conduct a study on the feasibility, community impact and process for converting immigrant detention centers operating in this Commonwealth into community-centered projects, with fair, transparent and rigorous local stakeholder participa | Cosponsor | Oct 23, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Intergovernmental Affairs & Operations Oct 23, 2026 |
| HB 2880 | An Act amending the act of July 31, 1968 (P.L.805, No.247), known as the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, in general provisions, further providing for definitions; in comprehensive plan, further providing for preparation of comprehensive plan; in subdivision and land development, further p | Cosponsor | Oct 21, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Consumer Protection, Technology & Utilities Oct 21, 2026 |
| HB 2852 | An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, in pupils and attendance, providing for education of children and youth experiencing homelessness. | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Referred to Education Oct 15, 2026 |
| HR 659 | A Resolution designating November 10, 2026, as the "251st Birthday of the United States Marine Corps" in Pennsylvania. | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Reported as committed Oct 20, 2026 |
| HR 654 | A Resolution recognizing November 10, 2026, as "Bill White Day" in Pennsylvania. | Cosponsor | Oct 9, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Reported as amended Oct 19, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Guzman’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Guzman’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 Guzman posts with a vision model.
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 Guzman’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.
29 turns, Jun 22, 2021 to Apr 27, 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 Guzman 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
