Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 18, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Taxation; Labor and Employment · Source
90%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top 5% of the Maine Senate
90% of 10 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Maine Senate is 69%. Ranks 2nd of 33, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Harrington sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Maine Senate. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. Harrington voted against the majority of Maine Senate Republicans 57 times; party unity 93.2%, in the bottom quarter of the Maine Senate (average 93.5%). Harrington reported $21.6K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom half of State Senate Republicans (median $46.2K).
The measures on which Harrington 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.
Out of committee
90%
Maine Senate average 69% · ranks 2nd of 33
Attendance
99.8%
Maine Senate average 95.2% · ranks 3rd of 35 · 771 roll calls
Party unity
93.2%
Maine Senate average 93.5% · ranks 29th of 35 · 57 votes against the majority of Maine Senate Republicans
Itemized, 2026
$21.6K
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 619th of 936
From Maine, 2026
92%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 542nd of 860 State Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.33
More liberal than 54% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Harrington, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Harrington is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Harrington says
Harrington criticizes policies more than 93% of State Senate Republicans. Policy criticism in 27% of 66 statements, against 9.5% for the average State Senate Republican; 25th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Harrington’s 66 statements in the ME 2025–26 session (66 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 ME 2025–26 session
0%80%
Harrington
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion30 statements
45%
37%
126th of 354
Policy criticism18 statements
27%
9%
25th of 354
Credit claiming4 statements
6%
15%
259th of 354
Personal attacks3 statements
5%
2%
67th of 354
Bipartisanship3 statements
5%
2%
55th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Harrington | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 45% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 27% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 6% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 5% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 5% | 2% |
66
statements classified
66 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 66 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Harrington; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Harrington does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Harrington used extreme labels in 6.1% of statements, 4.8 times the peer average. 4 statements, most often aimed at Democrat party; peers 1.3%.
- “extreme”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrat party1
- democrat politicians1
- left wing1
- left-wing media1
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 ME 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 ME 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 2 of them have no statements.
In Harrington’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 6, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 25, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Democrat party · 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 attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Nirav ShahSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: DemocratsSource
All 66 statements
Newest first, the ME 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: 66 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Harrington talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 2.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.55 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 106th 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 Harrington talks about. The bills Harrington sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Harrington talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the ME 2025–26 session
0%35%
Harrington
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement7 statements
23%
12%
Economics and Public Finance6 statements
20%
12%
Government Operations and Politics5 statements
17%
17%
Energy4 statements
13%
6%
Health3 statements
10%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Harrington | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 23% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 20% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 17% | 17% |
| Energy | 13% | 6% |
| Health | 10% | 9% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Harrington’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 23% | 12% | 17% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 20% | 12% | 2% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 17% | 17% | 2% | 12% |
| Energy | 13% | 6% | 26% | 3% |
| Health | 10% | 9% | 10% | 11% |
0.55
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 106th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Harrington legislates on exactly the areas Harrington 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 Harrington sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Harrington sits at +0.33 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 54% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.30 to +0.37, which understates the uncertainty; from 184 donors and 1,142 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”.
+0.33
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.30 to +0.37. From 184 donors and 1,142 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Harrington, 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 Harrington’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 Harrington sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Maine Senate35 · median −0.5
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Harrington |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 46% |
| Maine Senate | 35 | −0.5 | 66% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 69% |
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 Harrington 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 Harrington.
Money
Harrington reported $21.6K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 92% of itemized individual money came from Maine.
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.
$21.6K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 55 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)74 squares$16.1K
- PACs and other committees21 squares$4,500
- Party committees5 squares$1,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $16.1K | 74.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $4,500 | 20.8% |
| Party committees | $1,000 | 4.6% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $14.2K |
| 2022 cycle | $38.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $23.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $21.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 92% came from Maine.
- Maine$14.8K
- California$500
- Texas$500
- Florida$350
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 |
|---|---|
| Maine | $14.8K |
| California | $500 |
| Texas | $500 |
| Florida | $350 |
| 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 |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | 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 |
| Tennessee | 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 |
55
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
92%
from Maine
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 Maine. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$7,775 27 donors
- GOVERNMENT CIVIL$1,737 7 donors
- GENERAL BUSINESS$1,725 7 donors
- CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING$1,200 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- DIRIGO PAC$1,000
- ENERGY PAC FOR MAINE$1,000
- COPART INC.$500
- MAINE TRUCK PAC$500
- ON THE ROAD TO MAINE'S FUTURE$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Harrington voted with the majority of Maine Senate Republicans on 93.2% of party-line votes and missed 0.1% of 771 roll calls. Maine Senate on average: 93.5% party unity, 95.2% attendance. Across all roll calls, Harrington voted against the majority of Maine Senate Republicans 57 times.
771 roll calls Harrington could vote on in the ME 2025–26 session, compared with Maine 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 Harrington voted with the majority of Maine Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
57
votes against the majority of Maine Senate Republicans
Party unity 93.2%, Maine Senate average 93.5%, ranks 29th of 35. 771 roll calls in the ME 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Harrington, the thin grey bar the Maine Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Harrington
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.8%
95.2%
3rd of 35
Party unity
93.2%
93.5%
29th of 35
Show the data
| Row | Harrington | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.8% | 95.2% |
| Party unity | 93.2% | 93.5% |
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 ME 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2026 | LD 127 An Act To Strengthen Legislative Oversight Of Government Agencies And Programs By Reaffirming The Legislature'S Access To Confidential Records RECEDE AND CONCUR | Yea | With majority | pass | D 10–9 · R 11–0 · I 1–0Democrats 10 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| Apr 14, 2026 | LD 299 An Act To Support Investment In Agriculture ADOPT SENATE AMENDMENT (S-717) to COMMITTEE AMENDMENT | Yea | With majority | fail | D 3–17 · R 14–0Democrats 3 yea, 17 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 0 nay | close vote · party crossover |
| Apr 14, 2026 | LD 493 An Act To Expand Testing For Perfluoroalkyl And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances To Private Drinking Water Wells ENACTMENT | Nay | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 0–13 · I 1–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 13 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 14, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 8–6 · I 1–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 6 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Apr 14, 2026 | LD 2054 An Act To Clarify The Laws Regarding Moose Hunting Permits For Hunting Outfitters RECEDE AND CONCUR | Yea | With majority | pass | D 12–8 · R 11–2 · I 1–0Democrats 12 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 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 Harrington most often
- Sue BernardR719 shared votes93%
- Trey StewartR720 shared votes93%
- David HagganR766 shared votes91%
- Jeff TimberlakeR701 shared votes91%
- Russell BlackR712 shared votes90%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Harrington least often
- Peggy RotundoD714 shared votes16%
- Anne CarneyD728 shared votes16%
- Pinny Beebe-CenterD744 shared votes17%
- Joe RaffertyD730 shared votes17%
- Henry IngwersenD767 shared votes17%
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
ME 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Harrington sponsored 10 bills in the ME 2025–26 session; 5 became law. Cosponsored 75 others. 90% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Maine Senate average 69%; 2nd of 33).
The bills Harrington sponsored and cosponsored in the ME 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 ME 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 10 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 5 |
| Cosponsored | 75 | 75 | 51 | 37 | 14 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Harrington sponsored, ochre blocks bills Harrington cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
90%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Maine Senate average 69%. Ranks 2nd of 33.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Harrington, by number of shared bills in the ME 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Reagan Paul25
- Chad Perkins18
- Steven Foster18
- Trey Stewart18
- Billy Bob Faulkingham17
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 Harrington’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| LD 395 | An Act To Restore Access To Federal Laws Beneficial To The Wabanaki Nations | Cosponsor | Apr 13, 2026 | Became law | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Signed by Governor Apr 15, 2026 |
| LD 208 | An Act To Eliminate The 72-Hour Waiting Period On Firearm Purchases | Cosponsor | Apr 9, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Placed in Legislative Files (DEAD) Apr 9, 2026 |
| LD 1009 | An Act To Restore Full Civil Rights To Possess Firearms To Persons Previously Convicted Of Certain Nonviolent Felony Crimes | Cosponsor | Apr 9, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Died in Possession of the Senate when the Legislature adjourned Sine Die and was PLACED IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILES. (DEAD) Apr 29, 2026 |
| LD 2151 | An Act To Improve Access To Affordable Prescription Drugs In Underserved Areas | Cosponsor | Mar 26, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Health(model) | Died in Possession of the Senate when the Legislature adjourned Sine Die and was PLACED IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILES. (DEAD) Apr 29, 2026 |
| LD 1416 | An Act To Require The Department Of Health And Human Services To Immediately Take Custody Of Persons Sentenced To Mental Health Facilities That May Not Include County Or Regional Jails | Cosponsor | Mar 17, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Health(model) | Died in Possession of the Senate when the Legislature adjourned Sine Die and was PLACED IN THE LEGISLATIVE FILES. (DEAD) Apr 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Harrington’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Harrington’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 Harrington posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 11
pages crawled
2changes 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 Harrington posted
No images from Harrington’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
85 turns, Jun 7, 2021 to May 20, 2025
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 Harrington 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
- f4b39a4f-3a31-4e15-9b0a-459cb260f535
- Open States
- ocd-person/f4b39a4f-3a31-4e15-9b0a-459cb260f535
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