Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 7, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
1.9×
the State Senate Democrat rate of policy discussion
81% of 962 statements discuss policy (775 statements); the average for State Senate Democrats is 43%. Ranks 3rd of 329, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of McNerney’s posts on X and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. 8.5% of McNerney’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.5 times the State Senate Democrat average of 3.4%. 35% of McNerney’s statements claim credit, 2.2 times the State Senate Democrat average of 16%.
The measures on which McNerney sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy discussion
81%
State Senate Democrats average 43% · ranks 3rd of 329
Bipartisanship
8.5%
State Senate Democrats average 3.4% · ranks 24th of 329
Credit claiming
35%
State Senate Democrats average 16% · ranks 24th of 329
CSIP ideology
−1.10
More liberal than 94% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.02
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.68
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 13th of 228
Out of committee
100%
California Senate average 88% · ranks 4th of 39
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is McNerney, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which McNerney is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What McNerney says
McNerney stresses bipartisanship more than 92% of State Senate Democrats. Bipartisanship in 8.5% of 962 statements, against 3.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 24th of 329.
An AI model reads each of McNerney’s 962 statements in the CA 2025–26 session (962 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the CA 2025–26 session
0%80%
McNerney
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion775 statements
81%
43%
3rd of 329
Credit claiming341 statements
35%
16%
24th of 329
Policy criticism212 statements
22%
10%
37th of 329
Bipartisanship82 statements
9%
3%
24th of 329
Personal attacks18 statements
2%
2%
105th of 329
Show the data
| Row | McNerney | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 81% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 35% | 16% |
| Policy criticism | 22% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 9% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 2% |
962
statements classified
962 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 962 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is McNerney; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means McNerney does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
McNerney used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, close to the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at Trump Pentagon; peers 0.8%.
- “MAGA”6
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Trump Pentagon1
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 CA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 53 | 3.8% | 43.4% | 84.9% | 0.0% | 15.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 62 | 6.5% | 33.9% | 88.7% | 3.2% | 14.5% | 4.8% |
| Mar ’25 | 97 | 8.3% | 17.5% | 65.0% | 5.1% | 30.9% | 1.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 58 | 0.0% | 22.4% | 77.6% | 12.1% | 41.4% | 3.5% |
| May ’25 | 76 | 2.6% | 30.3% | 73.7% | 14.5% | 22.4% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 39 | 0.0% | 38.5% | 76.9% | 17.9% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 32 | 0.0% | 31.3% | 84.4% | 18.8% | 56.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 44 | 0.0% | 29.5% | 77.3% | 0.0% | 29.5% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 48 | 0.0% | 22.9% | 81.3% | 14.6% | 43.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 11.1% | 85.2% | 3.7% | 44.4% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 31.8% | 59.1% | 9.1% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 63.6% | 86.4% | 0.0% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 26 | 3.9% | 11.5% | 84.6% | 11.5% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 53 | 0.0% | 20.8% | 73.6% | 1.9% | 32.1% | 1.9% |
| Mar ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 6.7% | 76.7% | 13.3% | 26.7% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 50 | 0.0% | 8.0% | 92.0% | 14.0% | 46.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 39 | 0.0% | 5.1% | 92.3% | 15.4% | 59.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 49 | 0.0% | 16.3% | 85.7% | 14.3% | 53.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 14.3% | 92.9% | 7.1% | 42.9% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 61 | 1.6% | 8.2% | 85.3% | 8.2% | 47.5% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 48 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 87.5% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 91.7% | 0.0% | 66.7% | 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 CA 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%.
In McNerney’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.
Aug 31, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; Science, Technology, Communications; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Trump Pentagon · 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 · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Law · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal 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 · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Education · target: TrumpSource
All 962 statements
Newest first, the CA 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: 962 posts on X.
Policy
Energy is what McNerney talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 5.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 13th of 228).
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 McNerney talks about. The bills McNerney sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What McNerney talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the CA 2025–26 session
0%35%
McNerney
Peers
Energy176 statements
23%
4%
Water Resources Development140 statements
18%
1%
Science, Technology, Communications106 statements
14%
3%
Environmental Protection103 statements
13%
4%
Agriculture and Food93 statements
12%
5%
Show the data
| Row | McNerney | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | 23% | 4% |
| Water Resources Development | 18% | 1% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 14% | 3% |
| Environmental Protection | 13% | 4% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of McNerney’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy | 23% | 4% | 23% | 3% |
| Water Resources Development | 18% | 1% | 3% | 1% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 14% | 3% | 9% | 1% |
| Environmental Protection | 13% | 4% | 10% | 3% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 5% | 7% | 3% |
0.68
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 13th of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means McNerney legislates on exactly the areas McNerney 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 McNerney sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
McNerney sits at −1.10 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 94% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.12 to −1.08, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,584 donors and 5,849 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”.
−1.10
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.12 to −1.08. From 1,584 donors and 5,849 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is McNerney, 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 McNerney’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 McNerney sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
California Senate39 · median −0.7
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of McNerney |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 6% |
| California Senate | 39 | −0.7 | 13% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 3% |
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 McNerney 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 McNerney.
Money
McNerney reported $330.8K in the 2026 cycle, 6.0 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 92% of itemized individual money came from California.
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.
$330.8K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 176 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)27 squares$88.9K
- PACs and other committees73 squares$241.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $88.9K | 26.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $241.9K | 73.1% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $887.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $330.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 92% came from California.
- California$81.9K
- District of Columbia$3,500
- Colorado$2,000
- Oklahoma$1,000
- Massachusetts$500
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 |
|---|---|
| California | $81.9K |
| District of Columbia | $3,500 |
| Colorado | $2,000 |
| Oklahoma | $1,000 |
| Massachusetts | $500 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
176
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
92%
from California
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 California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$39.2K 84 donors
- RETIRED$16.2K 24 donors
- ATTORNEY$2,450 7 donors
- ENGINEER$2,300 3 donors
- LAWYER$1,750 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT$12.4K
- BAY AREA LEGISLATIVE LEADERS PAC$11.8K
- CALIFORNIANS FOR RESPONSIBLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE$11.8K
- FACULTY FOR OUR UNIVERSITY'S FUTURE$11.8K
- CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.5K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
McNerney voted with the majority of California Senate Democrats on 99.8% of party-line votes and missed 0.7% of 3,673 roll calls. California Senate on average: 98.7% party unity, 93.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, McNerney voted against the majority of California Senate Democrats 3 times.
3,673 roll calls McNerney could vote on in the CA 2025–26 session, compared with California 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 McNerney voted with the majority of California Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
3
votes against the majority of California Senate Democrats
Party unity 99.8%, California Senate average 98.7%, ranks 8th of 39. 3,673 roll calls in the CA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is McNerney, the thin grey bar the California Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
McNerney
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.2%
93.8%
5th of 39
Party unity
99.8%
98.7%
8th of 39
Show the data
| Row | McNerney | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.2% | 93.8% |
| Party unity | 99.8% | 98.7% |
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 CA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 29–0 · R 0–4Democrats 29 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 4 nay | became law | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 22–5 · R 0–9Democrats 22 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 9 nay | party crossover | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 25–1 · R 4–4Democrats 25 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 4 nay | became law | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 30–0 · R 10–0Democrats 30 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | AB 2694 Public postsecondary education: community colleges: statewide baccalaureate degree program. 3rd Reading AB2694 Alvarez et al. By Cabaldon | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 6–1Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 6 yea, 1 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 McNerney most often
- Mike McGuireD3,634 shared votes100%
- Jesse ArreguínD3,608 shared votes100%
- Sasha PérezD3,487 shared votes100%
- Monique LimónD3,440 shared votes100%
- Sabrina CervantesD3,544 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as McNerney least often
- Marie Alvarado-GilR3,047 shared votes73%
- Kelly SeyartoR3,354 shared votes75%
- Tony StricklandR3,400 shared votes75%
- Brian JonesR3,266 shared votes75%
- Roger NielloR3,149 shared votes76%
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
CA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
McNerney sponsored 38 bills in the CA 2025–26 session; 19 became law. Cosponsored 96 others. 100% of sponsored bills got out of committee (California Senate average 88%; 4th of 39).
The bills McNerney sponsored and cosponsored in the CA 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 CA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 38 | 38 | 30 | 23 | 19 |
| Cosponsored | 96 | 96 | 84 | 63 | 57 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills McNerney sponsored, ochre blocks bills McNerney cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
100%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
California Senate average 88%. Ranks 4th of 39.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with McNerney, by number of shared bills in the CA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Jesse Arreguín27
- Tim Grayson27
- Scott Wiener24
- Bob Archuleta23
- Dave Cortese23
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 McNerney’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 135 | Relative to 40th Infantry Division of the California National Guard. | Cosponsor | Aug 6, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 5352.) Aug 13, 2026 |
| SCR 187 | Relative to Father's Day. | Cosponsor | Jun 15, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 143, Statutes of 2026. Jul 2, 2026 |
| SR 117 | Relative to Taiwan. | Cosponsor | May 27, 2026 | Passed one chamber | International Affairs(model) | Read. Adopted. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 4861.) Jun 18, 2026 |
| SJR 18 | Relative to campaign finance reform. | Sponsor | May 14, 2026 | Became law | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 207, Statutes of 2026. Aug 24, 2026 |
| SJR 17 | Korean American veterans. | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | Became law | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 168, Statutes of 2026. Aug 11, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 95 times in 90 days. McNerney’s official site had 66 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls McNerney’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 McNerney posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 66
pages crawled
95changes in 90 days
- 4
pages crawled
3changes 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 McNerney posted
No images from McNerney’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
117 turns, Jan 13, 2025 to Aug 31, 2026
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 McNerney is most unusual among State Senate 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
- e9733632-df5d-48b4-b4a3-4768e7dcb5f7
- Open States
- ocd-person/e9733632-df5d-48b4-b4a3-4768e7dcb5f7
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