Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Public Lands and Natural Resources · Source
0.71
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top 5% of State House Republicans
Agreement 0.71 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State House Republicans is 0.53. Ranks 21st of 504, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Winter’s statements matches the mix in the bills Winter sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State House Republicans.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. Winter voted against the majority of Colorado House Republicans 145 times; party unity 88%, in the bottom quarter of the Colorado House (average 94.7%). 54% of Winter’s statements discuss policy, 1.7 times the State House Republican average of 32%.
The measures on which Winter sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.71
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 21st of 504
Party unity
88%
Colorado House average 94.7% · ranks 58th of 64 · 145 votes against the majority of Colorado House Republicans
Policy discussion
54%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 85th of 791
Itemized, 2026
$126.9K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 407th of 2,521
Policy criticism
17%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 138th of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.31
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Winter, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Winter is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Winter says
Winter attacks opponents personally less than 81% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 0% of 341 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 642nd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Winter’s 341 statements in the CO 2025–26 session (341 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the CO 2025–26 session
0%80%
Winter
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion183 statements
54%
32%
85th of 791
Credit claiming60 statements
18%
13%
223rd of 791
Policy criticism57 statements
17%
9%
138th of 791
Bipartisanship9 statements
3%
2%
195th of 791
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
642nd of 791
Show the data
| Row | Winter | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 54% | 32% |
| Credit claiming | 18% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 17% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
341
statements classified
341 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 341 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Winter; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Winter does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Winter used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 20% of the peer average. 1 statement; peers 1.4%.
- “radical”1
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 CO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 21.4% | 78.6% | 7.1% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 41.2% | 64.7% | 5.9% | 23.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 68.0% | 80.0% | 0.0% | 12.0% | 4.0% |
| May ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 15.8% | 31.6% | 0.0% | 26.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 26.7% | 6.7% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 75.0% | 16.7% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’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) |
| 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 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 11.8% | 76.5% | 0.0% | 29.4% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 26 | 0.0% | 26.9% | 69.2% | 7.7% | 19.2% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 17.9% | 85.7% | 3.6% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 57.1% | 0.0% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 26 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 34.6% | 3.9% | 19.2% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 53.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’26 | 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) |
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 CO 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%. 5 months are hatched here.
In Winter’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 6, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; extreme label “radical” · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 341 statements
Newest first, the CO 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: 341 posts on X.
Policy
Agriculture and Food is what Winter talks about most: 21% of policy statements, 4.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 21st of 504).
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 Winter talks about. The bills Winter sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Winter talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the CO 2025–26 session
0%35%
Winter
Peers
Agriculture and Food39 statements
21%
4%
Energy28 statements
15%
4%
Economics and Public Finance25 statements
14%
12%
Health25 statements
14%
10%
Labor and Employment19 statements
10%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Winter | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 21% | 4% |
| Energy | 15% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 12% |
| Health | 14% | 10% |
| Labor and Employment | 10% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Winter’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House 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 House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 21% | 4% | 8% | 3% |
| Energy | 15% | 4% | 13% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 12% | 5% | 2% |
| Health | 14% | 10% | 14% | 10% |
| Labor and Employment | 10% | 3% | 4% | 3% |
0.71
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 21st of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Winter legislates on exactly the areas Winter 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 Winter sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Winter sits at +0.31 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 58% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.28 to +0.34, which understates the uncertainty; from 575 donors and 595 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”.
+0.31
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.28 to +0.34. From 575 donors and 595 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Winter, 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 Winter’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 Winter sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Colorado House64 · median −0.6
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Winter |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 42% |
| Colorado House | 64 | −0.6 | 75% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 68% |
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 Winter 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 Winter.
Money
Winter reported $126.9K in the 2026 cycle, 3.8 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 96% of itemized individual money came from Colorado.
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.
$126.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 322 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)56 squares$71.6K
- PACs and other committees29 squares$36.5K
- Party committees15 squares$18.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $71.6K | 56.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $36.5K | 28.8% |
| Party committees | $18.9K | 14.9% |
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 House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $95.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $54.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $126.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 96% came from Colorado.
- Colorado$68.4K
- Arizona$900
- Kentucky$900
- Texas$450
- Pennsylvania$450
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 |
|---|---|
| Colorado | $68.4K |
| Kentucky | $900 |
| Arizona | $900 |
| Pennsylvania | $450 |
| North Carolina | $450 |
| Texas | $450 |
| 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 |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | 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 |
| Florida | No data |
322
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
96%
from Colorado
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 Colorado. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$16.0K 85 donors
- LOBBYIST$11.3K 33 donors
- GENERAL BUSINESS$5,880 26 donors
- AGRICULTURE$5,385 28 donors
- OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OCCUPATIONS$5,271 19 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- LAS ANIMAS COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY$11.9K
- COLORADO APARTMENT ASSOCIATION SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE$6,200
- REALTOR SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE (RSDC)$6,200
- JEFFERSON COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE$4,000
- COLORADO STATE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE SMALL DONOR COMMITTEE (FOP)$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- CITY OF TRINIDAD$900 3 donors
- THE CAPSTONE GROUP$750 3 donors
- STATE OF COLORADO$630 4 donors
- OTERO COUNTY$160 3 donors
- DOC$50 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Winter voted with the majority of Colorado House Republicans on 88% of party-line votes and missed 1.4% of 2,020 roll calls. Colorado House on average: 94.7% party unity, 96.6% attendance. Across all roll calls, Winter voted against the majority of Colorado House Republicans 145 times.
2,020 roll calls Winter could vote on in the CO 2025–26 session, compared with Colorado 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 Winter voted with the majority of Colorado House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
145
votes against the majority of Colorado House Republicans
Party unity 88%, Colorado House average 94.7%, ranks 58th of 64. 2,020 roll calls in the CO 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Winter, the thin grey bar the Colorado House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Winter
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.6%
96.6%
23rd of 64
Party unity
88%
94.7%
58th of 64
Show the data
| Row | Winter | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.6% | 96.6% |
| Party unity | 88% | 94.7% |
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 CO 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 41–2 · R 14–8Democrats 41 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 8 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| May 13, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 42–0 · R 1–21Democrats 42 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 1 yea, 21 nay | became law | |
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 43–0 · R 22–0Democrats 43 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| May 13, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 43–0 · R 21–1Democrats 43 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 21 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| May 13, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 38–5 · R 1–21Democrats 38 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 1 yea, 21 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Winter most often
- Jarvis CaldwellR1,964 shared votes94%
- Rose PuglieseR989 shared votes93%
- Dusty JohnsonR1,973 shared votes92%
- Ryan ArmagostR1,024 shared votes92%
- Carlos BarronR1,985 shared votes91%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Winter least often
- William LindstedtD1,020 shared votes45%
- Lorena GarcíaD1,956 shared votes49%
- Yara ZokaieD1,947 shared votes50%
- Tammy StoryD1,827 shared votes50%
- Emily SirotaD1,956 shared votes50%
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
CO 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Winter sponsored 58 bills in the CO 2025–26 session; 34 became law. Cosponsored 133 others. 95% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Colorado House average 93%; 31st of 64).
The bills Winter sponsored and cosponsored in the CO 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 CO 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 58 | 56 | 46 | 41 | 34 |
| Cosponsored | 133 | 129 | 129 | 121 | 56 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Winter sponsored, ochre blocks bills Winter cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
95%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Colorado House average 93%. Ranks 31st of 64.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Winter, by number of shared bills in the CO 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Monica Duran18
- Jarvis Caldwell17
- Byron Pelton15
- Rod Pelton14
- James Coleman13
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 Winter’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 1432 | Health-Care Payment Programs | Cosponsor | May 5, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Governor Signed Jun 4, 2026 |
| SB 189 | Automated Decision-Making Technology | Cosponsor | May 1, 2026 | Became law | Science, Technology, Communications(model) | Governor Signed May 14, 2026 |
| SJR 25 | Colorado Mining Association's 150th Anniversary | Cosponsor | Apr 30, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Signed by the President of the Senate May 13, 2026 |
| HJR 1030 | Mono & Matt Road Designation | Cosponsor | Apr 30, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Signed by the Speaker of the House Jun 3, 2026 |
| SB 183 | State Funding for Colorado School of Mines Capital Construction Costs | Sponsor | Apr 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Education(model) | Introduced In House - Assigned to Finance May 12, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Winter’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Winter’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 Winter posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 9
pages crawled
4changes 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.
Images Winter posted
No images from Winter’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
71 turns, Jan 17, 2023 to Apr 8, 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 Winter is most unusual among State House 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
- f3cd2006-7729-41b0-a009-0c5cf64e95e0
- Open States
- ocd-person/f3cd2006-7729-41b0-a009-0c5cf64e95e0
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