Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Commerce · Source
14%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom 5% of the Massachusetts House
Attendance 86%; the average within the Massachusetts House is 97.4%. Ranks 154th of 156, where 1st has the highest attendance. 234 roll calls in the MA 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Boldyga could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Massachusetts House. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 25% of Boldyga’s statements criticize a policy, 2.7 times the State House Republican average of 9.3%. Boldyga sits at +0.75 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 94% of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Boldyga 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.
Attendance
86%
Massachusetts House average 97.4% · ranks 154th of 156 · 234 roll calls
Policy criticism
25%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 58th of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.75
More conservative than 94% of State House Republicans · ± 0.06
Personal attacks
6.9%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 99th of 791
From Massachusetts, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 392nd of 2,335 State House Republicans
Extreme labels
2.9%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 135th of 791
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Boldyga, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Boldyga is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Boldyga says
Boldyga stresses bipartisanship less than 67% of State House Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0.2% of 447 statements, against 1.8% for the average State House Republican; 538th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Boldyga’s 447 statements in the MA 2025–26 session (447 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 MA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Boldyga
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion177 statements
40%
32%
275th of 791
Policy criticism113 statements
25%
9%
58th of 791
Personal attacks31 statements
7%
3%
99th of 791
Credit claiming19 statements
4%
13%
580th of 791
Bipartisanship1 statements
0%
2%
538th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Boldyga | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 40% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 25% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 7% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 4% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
447
statements classified
447 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 447 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Boldyga; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Boldyga does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Boldyga used extreme labels in 2.9% of statements, 2.0 times the peer average. 13 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 1.4%.
- “radical”3
- “extreme”2
- “communist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats2
- socialism2
- Billionaires1
- Democrat Party1
- Democrat Socialist1
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 MA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 98 | 9.2% | 25.5% | 38.8% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 2.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 144 | 7.6% | 34.0% | 40.3% | 0.7% | 4.9% | 1.4% |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’25 | 27 | 11.1% | 14.8% | 22.2% | 0.0% | 3.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 13 | 7.7% | 30.8% | 38.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’25 | 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 ’25 | 22 | 9.1% | 31.8% | 36.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 12.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 16.7% |
| Dec ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 19.2% | 57.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 11.5% |
| Jan ’26 | 45 | 4.4% | 2.2% | 55.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.2% |
| Feb ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 18.2% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 16 | 6.3% | 50.0% | 43.8% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’26 | 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) |
| Aug ’26 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
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 MA 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%. 12 months are hatched here; 4 of them have no statements.
In Boldyga’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 5, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Law; extreme label “communist” aimed at Zohran Mamdani · 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: James Van NostrandSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Ted CruzSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: 2 guysSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: GeorgeSource
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 447 statements
Newest first, the MA 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: 447 posts on X.
Policy
Energy is what Boldyga talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 5.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.44 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 405th 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 Boldyga talks about. The bills Boldyga sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Boldyga talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Boldyga
Peers
Energy40 statements
23%
4%
Government Operations and Politics38 statements
21%
18%
Immigration37 statements
21%
5%
Economics and Public Finance28 statements
16%
12%
Environmental Protection18 statements
10%
2%
Show the data
| Row | Boldyga | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Energy | 23% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 18% |
| Immigration | 21% | 5% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% |
| Environmental Protection | 10% | 2% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Boldyga’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energy | 23% | 4% | 2% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 18% | 11% | 12% |
| Immigration | 21% | 5% | 5% | 1% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Environmental Protection | 10% | 2% | 5% | 3% |
0.44
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 405th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Boldyga legislates on exactly the areas Boldyga 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 Boldyga sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Boldyga sits at +0.75 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 94% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.69 to +0.81, which understates the uncertainty; from 119 donors and 119 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”.
+0.75
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.69 to +0.81. From 119 donors and 119 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Boldyga, 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 Boldyga’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 Boldyga sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Massachusetts House157 · median −0.6
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Boldyga |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 94% |
| Massachusetts House | 157 | −0.6 | 95% |
| All State House | 5324 | +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 Boldyga 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 Boldyga.
Money
Boldyga reported $10.3K in the 2026 cycle, 31% of the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Massachusetts.
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.
$10.3K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 24 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)84 squares$8,749
- PACs and other committees6 squares$600
- Party committees10 squares$1,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $8,749 | 84.5% |
| PACs and other committees | $600 | 5.8% |
| Party committees | $1,000 | 9.7% |
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 House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $33.6K |
| 2022 cycle | $35.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $16.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $10.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Massachusetts.
- Massachusetts$8,749
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 |
|---|---|
| Massachusetts | $8,749 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
24
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Massachusetts
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 Massachusetts. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$800 6 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- STOCKBRIDGE REPTC$1,000
- MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMM$500
- LYNNE ARCHAMBAULT COMMITTEE$100
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Boldyga voted with the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed 14% of 234 roll calls. Massachusetts House on average: 98.5% party unity, 97.4% attendance. Across all roll calls, Boldyga voted against the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans 30 times.
234 roll calls Boldyga could vote on in the MA 2025–26 session, compared with Massachusetts 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 Boldyga voted with the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
30
votes against the majority of Massachusetts House Republicans
Party unity 100%, Massachusetts House average 98.5%, ranks 58th of 156. 234 roll calls in the MA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Boldyga, the thin grey bar the Massachusetts House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Boldyga
Peers
Rank
Attendance
86%
97.4%
154th of 156
Party unity
100%
98.5%
58th of 156
Show the data
| Row | Boldyga | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 86% | 97.4% |
| Party unity | 100% | 98.5% |
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 MA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 117–9 · R 0–24 · I 1–0Democrats 117 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 24 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 22, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 127–0 · R 24–0 · I 1–0Democrats 127 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 22, 2026 | H 5388 An Act authorizing the transfer of a certain parcel of land in the town of Marion from the Open Space Acquisition Commission to the Select Board H. 5388 On Enactment Land Taking | Yea | With majority | pass | D 128–0 · R 24–0 · I 1–0Democrats 128 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jul 15, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 127–0 · R 24–0 · I 1–0Democrats 127 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jul 8, 2026 | H 5569 An Act relative to property tax classifications in the city of Watertown for fiscal year 2027 and subsequent fiscal years H. 5569 On passing to be engrossed | Did not vote | — | pass | D 125–0 · R 23–0 · I 1–0Democrats 125 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 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 Boldyga most often
- Marc LombardoR199 shared votes100%
- Joe McKennaR186 shared votes90%
- Alyson Sullivan-AlmeidaR188 shared votes89%
- Justin ThurberR201 shared votes89%
- Donnie BerthiaumeR200 shared votes89%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Boldyga least often
- Vanna HowardD121 shared votes28%
- Natalie BlaisD96 shared votes30%
- Ann-Margaret FerranteD81 shared votes31%
- Danielle GregoireD183 shared votes32%
- Margaret ScarsdaleD191 shared votes32%
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
MA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Boldyga sponsored 19 bills in the MA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 11 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Massachusetts House average 4.0%; 109th of 147).
The bills Boldyga sponsored and cosponsored in the MA 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 MA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 19 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 11 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Boldyga sponsored, ochre blocks bills Boldyga cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
0%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Massachusetts House average 4.0%. Ranks 109th of 147.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Boldyga, by number of shared bills in the MA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- John Marsi4
- Joe McKenna3
- Steve Xiarhos3
- Donnie Berthiaume3
- Kelly Pease3
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 Boldyga’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H 4380 | An Act amending the charter of the city known as the town of Agawam to strike the reference to the board of appeals | Cosponsor | Aug 7, 2025 | Became law | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Signed by the Governor, Chapter 31 of the Acts of 2026 Feb 25, 2026 |
| H 4192 | An Act relative to the election and composition of the conservation commission within the town of Southwick | Cosponsor | Jun 4, 2025 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Accompanied a study order, see H4776 Nov 24, 2025 |
| H 4064 | An Act to safeguard judicial integrity through enhanced witness protection | Sponsor | May 1, 2025 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Accompanied a study order, see H5281 (under House Rule 27) Mar 26, 2026 |
| HD 4557 | An Act requiring local approval for battery storage facility permitting | Cosponsor | Apr 24, 2025 | In committee | Energy(model) | Reported, referred to the committee on Joint Rules, reported, rules suspended and referred to the committee on Municipalities and Regional Government Oct 23, 2025 |
| H 4685 | An Act requiring local approval for battery storage facility permitting | Cosponsor | Apr 24, 2025 | In committee | Energy(model) | Accompanied a study order, see H5353 (under House Rule 27) Apr 13, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Boldyga’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Boldyga’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 Boldyga posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 5
pages crawled
3changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Boldyga posted
No images from Boldyga’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
3 turns, Apr 27, 2026 to Apr 28, 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 Boldyga 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
- 0e72fc19-89be-49b9-8baf-5f35f938ec87
- Open States
- ocd-person/0e72fc19-89be-49b9-8baf-5f35f938ec87
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