Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
0.66
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top quarter of State House Republicans
Agreement 0.66 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State House Republicans is 0.53. Ranks 57th of 504, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Woog’s statements matches the mix in the bills Woog sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State House Republicans.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 0% of Woog’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans (average 2.9%). Woog missed 4.5% of 2,020 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Colorado House (average 96.6%).
The measures on which Woog sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.66
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 57th of 504
Personal attacks
0%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 642nd of 791
Attendance
95.5%
Colorado House average 96.6% · ranks 50th of 64 · 2,020 roll calls
Out of committee
88%
Colorado House average 93% · ranks 50th of 64
Extreme labels
0%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 618th of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.36
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Woog, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Woog is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Woog says
Woog attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 330 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Woog’s 330 statements in the CO 2025–26 session (330 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the CO 2025–26 session
0%80%
Woog
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion127 statements
38%
32%
288th of 791
Policy criticism41 statements
12%
9%
216th of 791
Credit claiming32 statements
10%
13%
405th of 791
Bipartisanship9 statements
3%
2%
191st of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Woog | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 38% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 12% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 10% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
330
statements classified
330 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 330 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Woog; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Woog does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Woog used no extreme labels in 330 statements. The peer average is 1.4%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the CO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 15.8% | 36.8% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 42.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 40.0% | 2.9% | 8.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 11.5% | 26.9% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 6.7% | 13.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 31.3% | 68.8% | 12.5% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 35.7% | 7.1% | 21.4% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 43.8% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 36.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 18.8% | 12.5% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 15.8% | 26.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 18.2% | 36.4% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 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) |
| Aug ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 66.7% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the CO 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 4 months are hatched here.
In Woog’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works; Commerce; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Energy · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 330 statements
Newest first, the CO 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 330 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Woog talks about most: 20% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 57th of 504).
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 Woog talks about. The bills Woog sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Woog talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the CO 2025–26 session
0%35%
Woog
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement26 statements
20%
11%
Economics and Public Finance24 statements
19%
12%
Commerce16 statements
13%
4%
Energy16 statements
13%
4%
Housing and Community Development13 statements
10%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Woog | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 20% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 12% |
| Commerce | 13% | 4% |
| Energy | 13% | 4% |
| Housing and Community Development | 10% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Woog’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. 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 Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 20% | 11% | 20% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 19% | 12% | 5% | 2% |
| Commerce | 13% | 4% | 4% | 3% |
| Energy | 13% | 4% | 7% | 3% |
| Housing and Community Development | 10% | 3% | 5% | 2% |
0.66
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 57th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Woog legislates on exactly the areas Woog 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 Woog sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Woog sits at +0.36 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 50% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.33 to +0.39, which understates the uncertainty; from 388 donors and 578 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”.
+0.36
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.33 to +0.39. From 388 donors and 578 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Woog, 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 Woog’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 Woog sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Colorado House64 · median −0.6
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Woog |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 50% |
| Colorado House | 64 | −0.6 | 81% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 73% |
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 Woog 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 Woog.
Money
Woog reported $92.9K in the 2026 cycle, 2.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 91% of itemized individual money came from Colorado.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
$92.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 132 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)38 squares$35.2K
- PACs and other committees57 squares$52.8K
- Party committees5 squares$5,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $35.2K | 37.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $52.8K | 56.8% |
| Party committees | $5,000 | 5.4% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $50.8K |
| 2022 cycle | $79.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $115.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $92.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 91% came from Colorado.
- Colorado$32.0K
- North Carolina$450
- Minnesota$450
- Pennsylvania$450
- Kentucky$450
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Colorado | $32.0K |
| Minnesota | $450 |
| Michigan | $450 |
| Pennsylvania | $450 |
| Kentucky | $450 |
| North Carolina | $450 |
| Louisiana | $450 |
| North Dakota | $250 |
| Arizona | $200 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | 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 |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
132
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
91%
from Colorado
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Colorado. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- LOBBYIST$7,900 26 donors
- RETIRED$7,610 31 donors
- OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OCCUPATIONS$3,645 13 donors
- CONSULTANT$3,100 12 donors
- FINANCIAL/INVESTMENT$2,950 7 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF METRO DENVER SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE$6,200
- COLORADO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE$6,200
- REALTOR SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE (RSDC)$5,000
- WELD COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE$5,000
- COPIC SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE$4,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- POLITICAL WORKS$1,350 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Woog voted with the majority of Colorado House Republicans on 95.8% of party-line votes and missed 4.5% of 2,020 roll calls. Colorado House on average: 94.7% party unity, 96.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Woog voted against the majority of Colorado House Republicans 122 times.
2,020 roll calls Woog could vote on in the CO 2025–26 session, compared with Colorado 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 Woog voted with the majority of Colorado House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
122
votes against the majority of Colorado House Republicans
Party unity 95.8%, Colorado House average 94.7%, ranks 36th of 64. 2,020 roll calls in the CO 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Woog, the thin grey bar the Colorado House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Woog
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.5%
96.6%
50th of 64
Party unity
95.8%
94.7%
36th of 64
Show the data
| Row | Woog | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.5% | 96.6% |
| Party unity | 95.8% | 94.7% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the CO 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 41–2 · R 14–8Democrats 41 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 8 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| May 13, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 42–0 · R 1–21Democrats 42 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 1 yea, 21 nay | became law | |
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 43–0 · R 22–0Democrats 43 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 43–0 · R 21–1Democrats 43 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 21 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| May 13, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 38–5 · R 1–21Democrats 38 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 1 yea, 21 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 Woog most often
- Chris RichardsonR1,924 shared votes91%
- Dusty JohnsonR1,910 shared votes91%
- Ava FlanellR874 shared votes90%
- Scott SlaughR852 shared votes90%
- Lori Garcia SanderR1,902 shared votes89%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Woog least often
- William LindstedtD1,026 shared votes39%
- Yara ZokaieD1,883 shared votes41%
- Javier MabreyD1,880 shared votes42%
- Jamie JacksonD1,884 shared votes42%
- Elizabeth VelascoD1,832 shared votes42%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
CO 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Woog sponsored 17 bills in the CO 2025–26 session; 7 became law. Cosponsored 106 others. 88% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Colorado House average 93%; 50th of 64).
The bills Woog sponsored and cosponsored in the CO 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the CO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 17 | 15 | 11 | 10 | 7 |
| Cosponsored | 106 | 100 | 100 | 94 | 30 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Woog sponsored, ochre blocks bills Woog cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
88%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Colorado House average 93%. Ranks 50th of 64.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Woog, by number of shared bills in the CO 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Jarvis Caldwell12
- Rebecca Keltie10
- Carlos Barron10
- Ryan Gonzalez9
- Ty Winter8
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 Woog’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HJR 1032 | Notify Governor of Adjournment | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Senate Third Reading Lay on the Table-Deemed Lost - No Amendments May 22, 2026 |
| SJR 25 | Colorado Mining Association's 150th Anniversary | Cosponsor | Apr 30, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Signed by the President of the Senate May 13, 2026 |
| HJR 1030 | Mono & Matt Road Designation | Cosponsor | Apr 30, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Signed by the Speaker of the House Jun 3, 2026 |
| HB 1420 | Wind Energy Facilities Light-Mitigating Technology | Cosponsor | Apr 21, 2026 | Became law | Energy(model) | Governor Signed Jun 4, 2026 |
| HR 1007 | Colorado 150th Anniversary | Cosponsor | Apr 13, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Signed by the Speaker of the House Jun 3, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Woog’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Woog’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 Woog posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 37
pages crawled
63changes 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
- Xdanielpwoog
- Facebookfacebook.com/representativedanwoog
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/woog4trustee
- Instagraminstagram.com/danielpwoog
- YouTubewww.youtube.com/@DanWoogColorado
Images Woog posted
No images from Woog’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
13 turns, Jan 8, 2025 to Apr 28, 2025
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 Woog is most unusual among State House Republicans, 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
- df050043-0b4f-4b51-8df0-ffd6cd6cd5b2
- Open States
- ocd-person/df050043-0b4f-4b51-8df0-ffd6cd6cd5b2
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