Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 30, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Taxation · Source
98%
of Democratic governors score to the right of Hobbs on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −1.14 (approximate range −1.17 to −1.11, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 132,255 donors and no roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Hobbs sits among Democratic governors, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against Democratic governors. 7.0% of Hobbs’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.9 times the Democratic governor average of 3.7%. 38% of Hobbs’s statements claim credit, in the top half of Democratic governors (average 26%).
The measures on which Hobbs sits furthest from the middle of Democratic governors, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
−1.14
More liberal than 98% of Democratic governors · ± 0.03
Bipartisanship
7.0%
Democratic governors average 3.7% · ranks 4th of 21
Credit claiming
38%
Democratic governors average 26% · ranks 6th of 21
Personal attacks
1.0%
Democratic governors average 4.2% · ranks 15th of 21
Policy criticism
9.2%
Democratic governors average 14% · ranks 15th of 21
Policy discussion
51%
Democratic governors average 49% · ranks 9th of 21
Peer group: Democratic governors. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hobbs, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hobbs is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Hobbs says
Hobbs attacks opponents personally less than 66% of Democratic governors. Personal attacks in 1.0% of 503 statements, against 4.2% for the average Democratic governor; 15th of 21.
An AI model reads each of Hobbs’s 503 statements in the current term (503 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 Democratic governors and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the current term
0%80%
Hobbs
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion254 statements
51%
49%
9th of 21
Credit claiming189 statements
38%
26%
6th of 21
Policy criticism46 statements
9%
14%
15th of 21
Bipartisanship35 statements
7%
4%
4th of 21
Personal attacks5 statements
1%
4%
15th of 21
Show the data
| Row | Hobbs | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 51% | 49% |
| Credit claiming | 38% | 26% |
| Policy criticism | 9% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 7% | 4% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 4% |
503
statements classified
503 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 503 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Hobbs; the thin grey bar is the average Democratic governors. A longer thick bar means Hobbs does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Hobbs used extreme labels in 1.2% of statements, below the peer average. 6 statements, most often aimed at agenda; peers 1.7%.
- “extreme”6
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- agenda1
- extremists1
- laws1
- Legislature1
- partisan agenda1
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 current term
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Feb ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’25 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 36.4% | 0.0% | 27.3% | 9.1% |
| Aug ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 60.0% | 20.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 13.3% | 6.7% | 26.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 14.3% | 42.9% | 4.8% |
| Nov ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 3.2% | 41.9% | 6.5% | 35.5% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 52.0% | 0.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 36 | 0.0% | 13.9% | 52.8% | 8.3% | 36.1% | 2.8% |
| Feb ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 13.3% | 46.7% | 3.3% | 40.0% | 3.3% |
| Mar ’26 | 35 | 0.0% | 22.9% | 62.9% | 0.0% | 48.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 33 | 0.0% | 12.1% | 51.5% | 6.1% | 57.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 14.3% | 50.0% | 3.6% | 53.6% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 17.4% | 52.2% | 13.0% | 47.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 57 | 3.5% | 10.5% | 43.9% | 5.3% | 17.5% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 38 | 2.6% | 5.3% | 65.8% | 21.1% | 39.5% | 2.6% |
| Sep ’26 | 32 | 3.1% | 6.3% | 62.5% | 9.4% | 31.3% | 3.1% |
| Oct ’26 | 56 | 1.8% | 5.4% | 67.9% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 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 current term, 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%. 6 months are hatched here; 2 of them have no statements.
In Hobbs’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 6, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Families; target: Andy Biggs · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 10, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “extreme” aimed at partisan agenda · 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 (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Families · target: Andy BiggsSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: Andy BiggsSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Andy BiggsSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Andy BiggsSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Andy BiggsSource
All 503 statements
Newest first, the current term
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: 503 posts on X.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what Hobbs talks about most: 20% of policy statements. Peers give it 20%.
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 Hobbs talks about. The bills Hobbs sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Hobbs talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the current term
0%35%
Hobbs
Peers
Economics and Public Finance51 statements
20%
20%
Health42 statements
17%
21%
Government Operations and Politics37 statements
15%
17%
Families27 statements
11%
4%
Labor and Employment27 statements
11%
7%
Show the data
| Row | Hobbs | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 20% | 20% |
| Health | 17% | 21% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 15% | 17% |
| Families | 11% | 4% |
| Labor and Employment | 11% | 7% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Hobbs’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Democratic governors. 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 Democratic governors averages.
Governors do not sponsor bills, so there is nothing to compare.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Hobbs legislates on exactly the areas Hobbs 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 Hobbs sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Hobbs sits at −1.14 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 98% of Democratic governors. Approximate range −1.17 to −1.11, which understates the uncertainty; from 132,255 donors and no 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”.
−1.14
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.17 to −1.11. From 132,255 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Hobbs, 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 Hobbs’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 Hobbs sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Democratic governors23 · median −0.8
Governors48 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Hobbs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic governors | 23 | −0.8 | 0% |
| Governors | 48 | +0.4 | 0% |
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 Hobbs 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 Hobbs.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this governor yet.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the current term.Governors do not cast roll-call votes.
Legislation
No bills for the current term.Governors do not sponsor bills.
Online
The lab crawls Hobbs’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 Hobbs posts with a vision model.
Websites
No websites are tracked for this official.
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 Hobbs posted
No images from Hobbs’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.
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 Hobbs is most unusual among Democratic governors, 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
- gov-AZ-katie-hobbs
- Governor id
- AZ-katie-hobbs
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.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- ImagesOct 28, 2026todayImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.
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