Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 20, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Energy; Agriculture and Food; International Affairs; target: Trump · Source
14.3×
the State House Democrat rate of personal attacks
36% of 214 statements contain a personal attack (78 statements); the average for State House Democrats is 2.5%. Ranks 1st of 764, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Mitchell’s posts on X and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. The policy areas Mitchell talks about and legislates on agree at 0.25 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom 5% of State House Democrats. 42% of the 31 bills Mitchell sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of the Tennessee House.
The measures on which Mitchell 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.
Personal attacks
36%
State House Democrats average 2.5% · ranks 1st of 764
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.25
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 495th of 503
Out of committee
42%
Tennessee House average 71% · ranks 91st of 97
Credit claiming
0.5%
State House Democrats average 14% · ranks 691st of 764
Attendance
98.1%
Tennessee House average 99.1% · ranks 84th of 97 · 4,525 roll calls
CSIP ideology
−0.53
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Mitchell, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Mitchell is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Mitchell says
Mitchell claims credit less than 90% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 0.5% of 214 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 691st of 764.
An AI model reads each of Mitchell’s 214 statements in the TN 2025–26 session (214 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the TN 2025–26 session
0%80%
Mitchell
Peers
Rank
Personal attacks78 statements
36%
3%
1st of 764
Policy discussion56 statements
26%
39%
572nd of 764
Policy criticism29 statements
14%
10%
238th of 764
Bipartisanship2 statements
1%
3%
521st of 764
Credit claiming1 statements
0%
14%
691st of 764
Show the data
| Row | Mitchell | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 36% | 3% |
| Policy discussion | 26% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 14% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 14% |
214
statements classified
214 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 214 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Mitchell; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Mitchell does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Mitchell used extreme labels in 1.9% of statements, 1.9 times the peer average. 4 statements, most often aimed at American history; peers 1.0%.
- “MAGA”2
- “communist”1
- “fascist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- American history1
- GOP1
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 | 46 | 37.0% | 21.7% | 21.7% | 4.3% | 0.0% | 2.2% |
| Feb ’25 | 23 | 34.8% | 13.0% | 17.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 45 | 48.9% | 0.0% | 22.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 16 | 25.0% | 18.8% | 37.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 13 | 53.8% | 7.7% | 15.4% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 7.7% |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’25 | 10 | 20.0% | 20.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% |
| Oct ’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) |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’26 | 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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| May ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’26 | 11 | 18.2% | 9.1% | 18.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 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) |
| Sep ’26 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| 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%. 15 months are hatched here; 2 of them have no statements.
In Mitchell’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 29, 2025 · 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.
Nov 9, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; extreme label “extreme” aimed at GOP · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Agriculture and Food · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Agriculture and Food · target: Bill LeeSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: unknownSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Felon in ChiefSource
All 214 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: 214 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Mitchell talks about most: 18% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.25 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 495th 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 Mitchell talks about. The bills Mitchell sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Mitchell talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the TN 2025–26 session
0%44%
Mitchell
Peers
Education10 statements
18%
15%
Economics and Public Finance9 statements
16%
11%
Armed Forces and National Security8 statements
15%
3%
Health8 statements
15%
15%
Agriculture and Food5 statements
9%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Mitchell | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 18% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 11% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 15% | 3% |
| Health | 15% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 9% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Mitchell’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 44%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 18% | 15% | 5% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 11% | 0% | 2% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 15% | 3% | 0% | 1% |
| Health | 15% | 15% | 5% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 9% | 5% | 0% | 3% |
0.25
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 495th of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Mitchell legislates on exactly the areas Mitchell 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 Mitchell sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Mitchell sits at −0.53 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 65% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.56 to −0.49, which understates the uncertainty; from 143 donors and 1,143 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”.
−0.53
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.56 to −0.49. From 143 donors and 1,143 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Mitchell, 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 Mitchell’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 Mitchell sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Tennessee House97 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Mitchell |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 65% |
| Tennessee House | 97 | +0.4 | 10% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 29% |
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 Mitchell 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 Mitchell.
Money
Mitchell reported $56.9K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 98% 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.
$56.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 35 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)8 squares$4,795
- PACs and other committees92 squares$52.1K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $4,795 | 8.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $52.1K | 91.6% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $41.0K |
| 2022 cycle | $55.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $236.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $56.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 98% came from Tennessee.
- Tennessee$4,695
- Maryland$100
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 | $4,695 |
| Maryland | $100 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
35
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
98%
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.
- NOT EMPLOYED$1,885 18 donors
- RETIRED$1,310 5 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- HCA TRISTAR FUND$7,500
- WSWT POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
- CCF$2,000
- COMCAST CORPORATION$2,000
- FRIENDS OF THA$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Mitchell voted with the majority of Tennessee House Democrats on 94.6% of party-line votes and missed 1.9% of 4,525 roll calls. Tennessee House on average: 96.3% party unity, 99.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Mitchell voted against the majority of Tennessee House Democrats 56 times.
4,525 roll calls Mitchell 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 Mitchell 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.
56
votes against the majority of Tennessee House Democrats
Party unity 94.6%, Tennessee House average 96.3%, ranks 82nd of 97. 4,525 roll calls in the TN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Mitchell, the thin grey bar the Tennessee House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Mitchell
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.1%
99.1%
84th of 97
Party unity
94.6%
96.3%
82nd of 97
Show the data
| Row | Mitchell | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.1% | 99.1% |
| Party unity | 94.6% | 96.3% |
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 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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 Mitchell most often
- Caleb HemmerD4,122 shared votes99%
- Harold LoveD3,893 shared votes98%
- Sam McKenzieD3,982 shared votes98%
- John ClemmonsD4,377 shared votes98%
- Bob FreemanD3,864 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Mitchell least often
- Debra MoodyR3,819 shared votes83%
- Kevin RaperR3,758 shared votes84%
- Andrew FarmerR3,932 shared votes84%
- Timothy HillR4,436 shared votes84%
- Greg MartinR4,156 shared votes84%
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
Mitchell sponsored 31 bills in the TN 2025–26 session; 11 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 42% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Tennessee House average 71%; 91st of 97).
The bills Mitchell 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 | 31 | 27 | 12 | 11 | 11 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Mitchell sponsored, ochre blocks bills Mitchell cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
42%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Tennessee House average 71%. Ranks 91st of 97.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Mitchell, 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 Mitchell’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 1609 | Memorials, Sports - Ricky Woods, National Wrestling Hall of Fame - | Sponsor | Apr 22, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. May 7, 2026 |
| HJR 1608 | Memorials, Sports - Jeremy Boyd, National Wrestling Hall of Fame - | Sponsor | Apr 22, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. May 7, 2026 |
| HJR 1541 | Memorials, Death - Don Schlitz - | Sponsor | Apr 20, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. May 7, 2026 |
| HJR 1214 | Memorials, Public Service - Representative Caleb Hemmer - | Sponsor | Mar 23, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Apr 9, 2026 |
| HJR 1014 | Memorials, Sports - Nashville Christian School football team, 2025 TSSAA Division II-A state champion - | Sponsor | Feb 23, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Signed by Governor. Mar 13, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Mitchell’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Mitchell’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 Mitchell posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/legislatorinfo/member.aspx?district=H50Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 7
pages 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
- Xvotebo
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/VoteBo/
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/bo.mitchell.75/
- Instagramwww.instagram.com/votebo/
- TikTokwww.tiktok.com/@votebo
Images Mitchell posted
No images from Mitchell’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 Mitchell is most unusual among State House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- e0272220-99f1-4cfb-9d29-946b86279e0b
- Open States
- ocd-person/e0272220-99f1-4cfb-9d29-946b86279e0b
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