Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health · Source
$1.1M
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of State Senate Republicans
The median for State Senate Republicans is $46.2K. Ranks 21st of 936, where 1st raised the most. 105 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State Senate Republicans. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. Coleman sits at +0.80 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 94% of State Senate Republicans. 49% of Coleman’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Pennsylvania, in the bottom tenth of State Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Coleman sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Itemized, 2026
$1.1M
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 21st of 936
CSIP ideology
+0.80
More conservative than 94% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.06
From Pennsylvania, 2026
49%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 789th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Policy discussion
59%
State Senate Republicans average 37% · ranks 45th of 354
Party unity
92.3%
Pennsylvania Senate average 93.4% · ranks 41st of 50 · 77 votes against the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Republicans
Bipartisanship
3.7%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 77th of 354
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Coleman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Coleman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Coleman says
Coleman attacks opponents personally more than 60% of State Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 1.1% of 270 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 140th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Coleman’s 270 statements in the PA 2025–26 session (270 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 PA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Coleman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion160 statements
59%
37%
45th of 354
Credit claiming42 statements
16%
15%
149th of 354
Policy criticism28 statements
10%
9%
119th of 354
Bipartisanship10 statements
4%
2%
77th of 354
Personal attacks3 statements
1%
2%
140th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Coleman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 59% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 16% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 10% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
270
statements classified
270 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 270 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Coleman; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Coleman does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Coleman used no extreme labels in 270 statements. The peer average is 1.3%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 52.4% | 0.0% | 9.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 21 | 4.8% | 38.1% | 61.9% | 0.0% | 4.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 25 | 4.0% | 8.0% | 44.0% | 0.0% | 8.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.0% | 5.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 61.1% | 5.6% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 80.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 18 | 5.6% | 16.7% | 66.7% | 5.6% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 36.4% | 0.0% | 27.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 54.5% | 18.2% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’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) |
| 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 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 63.6% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| 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 | 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) |
| Oct ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 66.7% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 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 PA 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%. 10 months are hatched here.
In Coleman’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Health; Environmental Protection · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 24, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Governor · 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: GovernorSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: secretarySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Governor ShapiroSource
All 270 statements
Newest first, the PA 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: 270 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Coleman talks about most: 20% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.56 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 95th of 226).
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 Coleman talks about. The bills Coleman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Coleman talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the PA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Coleman
Peers
Government Operations and Politics32 statements
20%
17%
Education25 statements
16%
14%
Transportation and Public Works22 statements
14%
6%
Economics and Public Finance14 statements
9%
12%
Armed Forces and National Security12 statements
8%
6%
Show the data
| Row | Coleman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 17% |
| Education | 16% | 14% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 14% | 6% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 9% | 12% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 8% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Coleman’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 35%. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 17% | 19% | 12% |
| Education | 16% | 14% | 15% | 10% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 14% | 6% | 3% | 6% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 9% | 12% | 3% | 3% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 8% | 6% | 0% | 2% |
0.56
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 95th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Coleman legislates on exactly the areas Coleman 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 Coleman sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Coleman sits at +0.80 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 94% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.74 to +0.85, which understates the uncertainty; from 168 donors and 443 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”.
+0.80
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.74 to +0.85. From 168 donors and 443 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Coleman, 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 Coleman’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 Coleman sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Pennsylvania Senate50 · median +0.2
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Coleman |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 94% |
| Pennsylvania Senate | 50 | +0.2 | 92% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 97% |
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 Coleman 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 Coleman.
Money
Coleman reported $1.1M in the 2026 cycle, 24.5 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 49% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
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.
$1.1M
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 105 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)49 squares$556.8K
- PACs and other committees51 squares$575.1K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $556.8K | 49.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $575.1K | 50.8% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $1.2M |
| 2024 cycle | $161.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $1.1M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 49% came from Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania$270.3K
- Tennessee$250.0K
- Georgia$10.3K
- Florida$10.0K
- North Carolina$10.0K
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 |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $270.3K |
| Tennessee | $250.0K |
| Georgia | $10.3K |
| North Carolina | $10.0K |
| Florida | $10.0K |
| Maine | $1,000 |
| Alaska | 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 |
| 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 |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
105
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
49%
from Pennsylvania
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 Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- OWNER$92.8K 15 donors
- PRESIDENT$39.0K 9 donors
- ATTORNEY$10.4K 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- OPERATORS FOR SKILL PAC$425.0K
- FRIENDS OF KIM WARD$75.0K
- PA AUTOMOTIVE PAC$10.0K
- PA FUTURE FUND$10.0K
- PAA PAC$7,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- PACE O MATIC$275.0K 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Coleman voted with the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Republicans on 92.3% of party-line votes and missed none of 502 roll calls. Pennsylvania Senate on average: 93.4% party unity, 98.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Coleman voted against the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Republicans 77 times.
502 roll calls Coleman could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania 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 Coleman voted with the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
77
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania Senate Republicans
Party unity 92.3%, Pennsylvania Senate average 93.4%, ranks 41st of 50. 502 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Coleman, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Coleman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
98.9%
14th of 50
Party unity
92.3%
93.4%
41st of 50
Show the data
| Row | Coleman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 98.9% |
| Party unity | 92.3% | 93.4% |
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 PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2187 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in administrative organization, further providing for criminal history background checks of employees and contractors with access to Federal tax information. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 27–0Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 558 An Act amending the act of April 6, 1951 (P.L.69, No.20), known as The Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, in creation of leases, statute of frauds and mortgaging of leaseholds, providing for rental applications. FINAL PASSAGE | Nay | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 13–14Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 13 yea, 14 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 1098 An Act amending the act of November 22, 1978 (P.L.1166, No.274), referred to as the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency Law, providing for Investigation and Prosecution of Internet Crimes Against Children Program. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 23–0 · R 27–0Democrats 23 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 807 An Act amending the act of November 6, 1987 (P.L.381, No.79), known as the Older Adults Protective Services Act, in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions; in administration, further providing for investigations of reports of need for protective services, for immunity from civil a FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–8 · R 27–0Democrats 15 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2437 An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in unconventional gas well fee, further providing for Statewide initiatives. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 22–1 · R 27–0Democrats 22 yea, 1 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 Coleman most often
- Chris GebhardR502 shared votes88%
- Scott HutchinsonR502 shared votes88%
- Doug MastrianoR496 shared votes88%
- Dawn KeeferR502 shared votes88%
- Scott MartinR498 shared votes86%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Coleman least often
- Tim KearneyD499 shared votes64%
- Lindsey WilliamsD502 shared votes64%
- Amanda CappellettiD499 shared votes64%
- Nikil SavalD502 shared votes64%
- Katie MuthD484 shared votes65%
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
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Coleman sponsored 40 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 65 others. 23% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Pennsylvania Senate average 24%; 24th of 49).
The bills Coleman sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 40 | 40 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 65 | 65 | 21 | 4 | 4 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Coleman sponsored, ochre blocks bills Coleman cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
23%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Pennsylvania Senate average 24%. Ranks 24th of 49.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Coleman, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Pat Stefano50
- Kristin Phillips-Hill39
- Greg Rothman37
- Cris Dush36
- Tracy Pennycuick34
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 Coleman’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 390 | A Resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to conduct a performance audit of the participant-directed medical assistance programs of the Commonwealth and provide a report to the General Assembly. | Sponsor | Oct 13, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Referred to Health & Human Services Oct 13, 2026 |
| SB 1479 | An Act amending the act of June 17, 1913 (P.L.507, No.335), referred to as the Intangible Personal Property Tax Law, repealing provisions relating to the imposition of a personal property tax, powers of commissioners, duties and powers of the board of revision of taxes or county commissioners, cert | Sponsor | Sep 25, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Referred to Finance Sep 25, 2026 |
| SB 1440 | An Act amending Title 35 (Health and Safety) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in emergency medical services system, providing for laryngectomy patient care QR code. | Cosponsor | Aug 19, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Referred to Veterans Affairs & Emergency Preparedness Aug 19, 2026 |
| SB 1426 | An Act designating the interchange of Interstate 81 with State Route 4007, known as Exit 119, on the border of Cass Township and Butler Township, Schuylkill County, as the PSP Trooper Michael E. Pahira, Jr. Memorial Interchange. | Cosponsor | Aug 10, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to Transportation Aug 10, 2026 |
| SB 1420 | An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in special vehicles and pedestrians, further providing for riding on roadways and pedalcycle paths. | Sponsor | Aug 10, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Referred to Transportation Aug 10, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 31 times in 90 days. Coleman’s official site had 22 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Coleman’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 Coleman posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 22
pages crawled
31changes in 90 days
- 1
pages crawled
0changes 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 Coleman posted
No images from Coleman’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
102 turns, Jan 10, 2023 to Jul 12, 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 Coleman is most unusual among State Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- ecd51b53-a59b-4b92-b203-c1d24f748cb1
- Open States
- ocd-person/ecd51b53-a59b-4b92-b203-c1d24f748cb1
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