Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 7, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Oliver · Source
98%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, the highest of 33 in the Tennessee Senate
98% of 40 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Tennessee Senate is 70%. Ranks 1st of 33, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills McNally sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Tennessee Senate. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against the Tennessee Senate. 100% of McNally’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Tennessee, in the top quarter of State Senate Republicans. McNally sits at +0.48 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 68% of State Senate Republicans.
The measures on which McNally sits furthest from the middle of the Tennessee Senate, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Out of committee
98%
Tennessee Senate average 70% · ranks 1st of 33
From Tennessee, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 136th of 860 State Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.48
More conservative than 68% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.06
Itemized, 2026
$92.1K
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 323rd of 936
Party unity
98.2%
Tennessee Senate average 95.3% · ranks 15th of 33 · 13 votes against the majority of Tennessee Senate Republicans
Attendance
99.9%
Tennessee Senate average 99.6% · ranks 15th of 33 · 4,448 roll calls
Peer group: Tennessee Senate. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is McNally, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which McNally is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What McNally says
McNally criticizes policies less than 93% of State Senate Republicans. Policy criticism in 0% of 80 statements, against 9.5% for the average State Senate Republican; 331st of 354.
An AI model reads each of McNally’s 80 statements in the TN 2025–26 session (80 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the TN 2025–26 session
0%80%
McNally
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion23 statements
29%
37%
238th of 354
Credit claiming10 statements
13%
15%
188th of 354
Personal attacks1 statements
1%
2%
137th of 354
Bipartisanship1 statements
1%
2%
194th of 354
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
9%
331st of 354
Show the data
| Row | McNally | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 29% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 13% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 9% |
80
statements classified
80 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 80 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is McNally; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means McNally does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
McNally used extreme labels in 1.3% of statements, close to the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 1.3%.
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats1
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 TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 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) |
| Mar ’25 | 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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’25 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 10 | 10.0% | 0.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 10.0% |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 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%. 21 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.
In McNally’s words
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.
Feb 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement; extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats · 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 · target: OliverSource
All 80 statements
Newest first, the TN 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: 80 posts on X.
Policy
Immigration is what McNally talks about most: 30% of policy statements, 7.4 times the peer share. Peers give it 4.1%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
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 McNally talks about. The bills McNally sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What McNally talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TN 2025–26 session
0%100%
McNally
Peers
Immigration7 statements
30%
4%
Crime and Law Enforcement6 statements
26%
12%
Government Operations and Politics6 statements
26%
17%
Economics and Public Finance4 statements
17%
12%
Education2 statements
9%
14%
Show the data
| Row | McNally | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Immigration | 30% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 26% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 26% | 17% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 17% | 12% |
| Education | 9% | 14% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of McNally’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 100%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immigration | 30% | 4% | 0% | 1% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 26% | 12% | 0% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 26% | 17% | 0% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 17% | 12% | 0% | 3% |
| Education | 9% | 14% | 0% | 10% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means McNally legislates on exactly the areas McNally 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 McNally sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
McNally sits at +0.48 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 68% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.43 to +0.54, which understates the uncertainty; from 201 donors and 1,113 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”.
+0.48
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.43 to +0.54. From 201 donors and 1,113 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is McNally, 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 McNally’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 McNally sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Tennessee Senate33 · median +0.3
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of McNally |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 68% |
| Tennessee Senate | 33 | +0.3 | 79% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 82% |
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 McNally 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 McNally.
Money
McNally reported $92.1K in the 2026 cycle, 2.0 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% 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.
$92.1K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 3 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)3 squares$2,750
- PACs and other committees97 squares$89.3K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $2,750 | 3.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $89.3K | 97.0% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $169.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $275.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $158.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $92.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Tennessee.
- Tennessee$2,750
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 |
|---|---|
| Tennessee | $2,750 |
| 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 |
| Pennsylvania | 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 |
| 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 |
3
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Tennessee
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 Tennessee. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- TENNESSEE HIGHWAY CONTRACTORS PAC$10.0K
- TENNESSEE RPAC$10.0K
- TOTAL WINE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- TENNESSEE TELPAC$7,500
- AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
McNally voted with the majority of Tennessee Senate Republicans on 98.2% of party-line votes and missed none of 4,448 roll calls. Tennessee Senate on average: 95.3% party unity, 99.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, McNally voted against the majority of Tennessee Senate Republicans 13 times.
4,448 roll calls McNally could vote on in the TN 2025–26 session, compared with Tennessee Senate. 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 McNally voted with the majority of Tennessee Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
13
votes against the majority of Tennessee Senate Republicans
Party unity 98.2%, Tennessee Senate average 95.3%, ranks 15th of 33. 4,448 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is McNally, the thin grey bar the Tennessee Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
McNally
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.9%
99.6%
15th of 33
Party unity
98.2%
95.3%
15th of 33
Show the data
| Row | McNally | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.9% | 99.6% |
| Party unity | 98.2% | 95.3% |
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 TN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 2026 | HJR 1530 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Jordyn Brown, Salutatorian, Gordonsville High School - FLOOR VOTE: Motion to Adopt 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 6–0 · R 27–0Democrats 6 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1267 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Liya Rakeshbhai Patel, Valedictorian, Cumberland County High School - FLOOR VOTE: Motion to Adopt 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 27–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 23, 2026 | HB 2585 Damages - As introduced, states that the amount of damages awarded as noneconomic damages must not exceed $1 million in a health care liability action arising from obstetric or maternity negligence resulting in the death or permanent injury of a pregnant or postpartum woman. - Amends TCA Section 29- FLOOR VOTE: Third Consideration 4/23/2026 Failed | Did not vote | — | fail | D 6–0 · R 6–19Democrats 6 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 6 yea, 19 nay | party crossover |
| Apr 23, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 27–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Apr 23, 2026 | SJR 1268 Memorials, Academic Achievement - Nicolo Azzani, Salutatorian, Cumberland County High School - FLOOR VOTE: Motion to Adopt 4/23/2026 Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 27–0Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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 McNally most often
- Dawn WhiteR4,395 shared votes100%
- Ken YagerR4,074 shared votes100%
- Ed JacksonR4,428 shared votes100%
- Bill PowersR4,431 shared votes100%
- Becky MasseyR4,248 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as McNally least often
- Heidi CampbellD4,168 shared votes93%
- Charlane OliverD4,043 shared votes93%
- Jeff YarbroD3,893 shared votes93%
- Sara KyleD4,004 shared votes93%
- London LamarD3,715 shared votes94%
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
TN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
McNally sponsored 40 bills in the TN 2025–26 session; 32 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 98% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Tennessee Senate average 70%; 1st of 33).
The bills McNally 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.
Bills by stage
Counts for the TN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 40 | 40 | 39 | 32 | 32 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills McNally sponsored, ochre blocks bills McNally cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
98%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Tennessee Senate average 70%. Ranks 1st of 33.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with McNally, by number of shared bills in the TN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 McNally’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SR 451 | Memorials, Recognition - Office of the Chief Clerk of the Senate of the 2026 Legislative Session - | Sponsor | Apr 22, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Signed by Senate Speaker Apr 30, 2026 |
| SJR 1118 | Memorials, Retirement - Michael Charles Webb - | Sponsor | Apr 13, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. May 11, 2026 |
| SJR 1043 | Memorials, Recognition - Oak Ridge, "Birthplace of the Nuclear Navy" - | Sponsor | Mar 31, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Apr 22, 2026 |
| SR 361 | Memorials, Death - James Harding Pratt - | Sponsor | Mar 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted, Ayes 33, Nays 0 Apr 9, 2026 |
| SJR 1019 | Memorials, Retirement - Thomas Farmer - | Sponsor | Mar 26, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Apr 16, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. McNally’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls McNally’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 McNally posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/legislatorinfo/member.aspx?district=S5&ga=114Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes 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 McNally posted
No images from McNally’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 McNally is most unusual among Tennessee Senate, 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
- e00c236d-6153-4618-96f8-12e6a1d639aa
- Open States
- ocd-person/e00c236d-6153-4618-96f8-12e6a1d639aa
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