Attendance 90%; the average within the Tennessee House is 99.1%. Ranks 96th of 97, where 1st has the highest attendance. 2,752 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Pearson could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Tennessee House. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
6 measures against State House Democrats. Pearson sits at −1.11 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 95% of State House Democrats. 41% of Pearson’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Tennessee, in the bottom tenth of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Pearson 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.
Attendance
Tennessee House average 99.1% · ranks 96th of 97 · 2,752 roll calls
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 95% of State House Democrats · ± 0.04
From Tennessee, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1852nd of 1,983 State House Democrats
Out of committee
Tennessee House average 71% · ranks 90th of 97
Policy discussion
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 101st of 764
Party unity
Tennessee House average 96.3% · ranks 18th of 97 · 178 votes against the majority of Tennessee House Democrats
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Pearson, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Pearson is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Pearson claims credit less than 74% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 4.5% of 440 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 571st of 764.
An AI model reads each of Pearson’s 440 statements in the TN 2025–26 session (440 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 TN 2025–26 session
| Row | Pearson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 60% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 5% | 14% |
| Personal attacks | 3% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
statements classified
440 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 440 |
The thick bar is Pearson; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Pearson does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Pearson used extreme labels in 1.8% of statements, 1.9 times the peer average. 8 statements, most often aimed at Brent Taylor; 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 TN 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 81.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 10 | 10.0% | 50.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 29 | 3.5% | 6.9% | 13.8% | 0.0% | 13.8% | 3.5% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 34 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 29.4% | 2.9% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 7.7% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 87 | 1.1% | 3.5% | 62.1% | 1.1% | 5.8% | 2.3% |
| Sep ’26 | 89 | 4.5% | 3.4% | 67.4% | 2.3% | 1.1% | 2.3% |
| Oct ’26 | 131 | 3.0% | 5.3% | 78.6% | 1.5% | 1.5% | 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 TN 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; 4 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 8, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Brent Taylor · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Brent TaylorSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Commerce · Health · target: Brent TaylorSource
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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: opponentSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · target: Brent TaylorSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Economics and Public Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · Environmental Protection · target: Brent TaylorSource
Newest first, the TN 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: 440 posts on X.
Government Operations and Politics is what Pearson talks about most: 55% of policy statements, 3.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.48 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 368th 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 Pearson talks about. The bills Pearson sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the TN 2025–26 session
| Row | Pearson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 55% | 15% |
| Environmental Protection | 19% | 3% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 18% | 3% |
| Labor and Employment | 16% | 6% |
| Health | 14% | 15% |
The thick bar is the share of Pearson’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 60%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 55% | 15% | 11% | 8% |
| Environmental Protection | 19% | 3% | 5% | 4% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 18% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Labor and Employment | 16% | 6% | 5% | 6% |
| Health | 14% | 15% | 11% | 15% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 368th of 503.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Pearson legislates on exactly the areas Pearson 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 Pearson sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Pearson sits at −1.11 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 95% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.15 to −1.08, which understates the uncertainty; from 34,446 donors and 454 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 −1.15 to −1.08. From 34,446 donors and 454 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Pearson, 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 Pearson’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 Pearson |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 5% |
| Tennessee House | 97 | +0.4 | 1% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 2% |
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 Pearson 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 Pearson.
Pearson reported $13.5K in the 2026 cycle, 33% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 41% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.
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 292 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) | $13.0K | 96.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $500 | 3.7% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $2.0M |
| 2026 cycle | $13.5K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 41% came from Tennessee.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Tennessee | $5,380 |
| California | $1,449 |
| Virginia | $1,277 |
| Florida | $708 |
| Massachusetts | $602 |
| New York | $422 |
| Illinois | $389 |
| Maine | $359 |
| New Jersey | $271 |
| Texas | $268 |
| Wisconsin | $250 |
| Ohio | $233 |
| Oregon | $219 |
| Pennsylvania | $184 |
| Nevada | $100 |
| Hawaii | $95 |
| Minnesota | $85 |
| District of Columbia | $85 |
| Washington | $71 |
| Kentucky | $65 |
| New Mexico | $60 |
| North Carolina | $57 |
| South Carolina | $55 |
| Kansas | $50 |
| Alabama | $50 |
| Colorado | $45 |
| Georgia | $38 |
| Missouri | $37 |
| Iowa | $33 |
| Delaware | $25 |
| Michigan | $20 |
| Indiana | $19 |
| New Hampshire | $14 |
| Louisiana | $13 |
| Rhode Island | $9 |
| Mississippi | $5 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Tennessee
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 Tennessee. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Pearson voted with the majority of Tennessee House Democrats on 99.0% of party-line votes and missed 10% of 2,752 roll calls. Tennessee House on average: 96.3% party unity, 99.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Pearson voted against the majority of Tennessee House Democrats 178 times.
2,752 roll calls Pearson could vote on in the TN 2025–26 session, compared with Tennessee 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 Pearson voted with the majority of Tennessee House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Tennessee House Democrats
Party unity 99.0%, Tennessee House average 96.3%, ranks 18th of 97. 2,752 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Pearson, the thin grey bar the Tennessee House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Pearson | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 90% | 99.1% |
| Party unity | 99.0% | 96.3% |
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 TN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2026 | HJR 8 Memorials, Death - U.S. Senator James Ralph Sasser - FLOOR VOTE: REFER TO COMMITTEE 5/6/2026 Passed | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–18 · R 66–1Democrats 0 yea, 18 nay; Republicans 66 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | HB 2111 Correctional Programs - As enacted, creates the state families of incarcerated individuals advisory board within the department of correction for the purposes of assisting the families of incarcerated individuals. - Amends TCA Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 41. FLOOR VOTE: MESSAGE CALENDAR 2 CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT # 4 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 19–0 · R 75–0Democrats 19 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 75 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1209 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Max Christopher Collins, Salutatorian, Creek Wood High School - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 4 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–0 · R 70–0Democrats 17 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 70 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1240 Memorials, Interns - Aaron Sullivan - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 3 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 18–0 · R 71–0Democrats 18 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 71 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1208 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Christopher Heath Foster, Valedictorian, Creek Wood High School - FLOOR VOTE: CONSENT CALENDAR 4 PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 17–0 · R 70–0Democrats 17 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 70 yea, 0 nay | became law |
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Pearson most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Pearson 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.
TN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Pearson sponsored 35 bills in the TN 2025–26 session; 6 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 43% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Tennessee House average 71%; 90th of 97).
The bills Pearson sponsored and cosponsored in the TN 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 TN 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 35 | 34 | 14 | 6 | 6 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills Pearson sponsored, ochre blocks bills Pearson 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
Tennessee House average 71%. Ranks 90th of 97.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Pearson, by number of shared bills in the TN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 Pearson’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 293 | Memorials, Recognition - Johnnie Mosley and Memphis Bus Riders Union - | Sponsor | Apr 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Filed for introduction Apr 23, 2026 |
| HR 295 | Memorials, Recognition - Sarah Houston - | Sponsor | Apr 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Filed for introduction Apr 23, 2026 |
| HR 296 | Memorials, Recognition - "Veterans Suicide Prevention Day," September 22 - | Sponsor | Apr 23, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Filed for introduction Apr 23, 2026 |
| HR 294 | Memorials, Recognition - Memphis Community Against Pollution (MCAP) and President KeShaun Pearson - | Sponsor | Apr 23, 2026 | Introduced | Unassigned | Filed for introduction Apr 23, 2026 |
| HJR 1547 | Memorials, Recognition - "Veterans Suicide Prevention Day," September 22 - | Sponsor | Apr 20, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Assigned to General Subcommittee of Senate Finance, Ways & Means Committee Apr 23, 2026 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Pearson’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Pearson’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 Pearson posts with a vision model.
Official site
wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/legislatorinfo/member.aspx?district=H86Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
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 Pearson’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.
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Pearson 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
