Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 17, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Transportation and Public Works · Source
93%
of State House Democrats score to the right of Eischeid on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −1.06 (approximate range −1.11 to −1.00, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 1,015 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 Eischeid sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
4 measures against State House Democrats. 11% of the 9 bills Eischeid sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom half of the Alaska House. Eischeid reported $63.6K in the 2026 cycle, in the top half of State House Democrats (median $40.4K).
The measures on which Eischeid sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
−1.06
More liberal than 93% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05
Out of committee
11%
Alaska House average 22% · ranks 25th of 34
Itemized, 2026
$63.6K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 794th of 2,082
From Alaska, 2026
93%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 994th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Statements
6
6 posts on X
Bills sponsored
9
and 37 cosponsored
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Eischeid, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Eischeid is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Eischeid says
Eischeid criticizes policies less than 93% of State House Democrats. Policy criticism in 0% of 6 statements, against 10% for the average State House Democrat; 717th of 765.
An AI model reads each of Eischeid’s 6 statements in the AK 2025–26 session (6 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the AK 2025–26 session
0%80%
Eischeid
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2 statements
33%
39%
481st of 765
Credit claiming2 statements
33%
14%
62nd of 765
Bipartisanship1 statements
17%
3%
7th of 765
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
584th of 765
Policy criticism0 statements
0%
10%
717th of 765
Show the data
| Row | Eischeid | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 33% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 33% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 17% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 0% | 10% |
6
statements classified
6 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 6 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Eischeid; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Eischeid does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Eischeid used no extreme labels in 6 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the AK 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 AK 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; 20 of them have no statements.
In Eischeid’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 30, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 6, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works · 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 6 statements
Newest first, the AK 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: 6 posts on X.
Policy
Transportation and Public Works is what Eischeid talks about most: 100% of policy statements, 19.0 times the peer share. Peers give it 5.3%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
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 Eischeid talks about. The bills Eischeid sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Eischeid talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the AK 2025–26 session
0%100%
Eischeid
Peers
Transportation and Public Works2 statements
100%
5%
Agriculture and Food0 statements
0%
5%
Armed Forces and National Security0 statements
0%
3%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues0 statements
0%
10%
Commerce0 statements
0%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Eischeid | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation and Public Works | 100% | 5% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 3% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 10% |
| Commerce | 0% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Eischeid’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. 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 100%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transportation and Public Works | 100% | 5% | 3% | 5% |
| Agriculture and Food | 0% | 5% | 1% | 3% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 0% | 3% | 3% | 1% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 0% | 10% | 1% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 0% | 8% | 4% | 9% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Eischeid legislates on exactly the areas Eischeid 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 Eischeid sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Eischeid sits at −1.06 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 93% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.11 to −1.00, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,015 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”.
−1.06
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.11 to −1.00. From 1,015 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Eischeid, 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 Eischeid’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 Eischeid sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Alaska House38 · median −0.1
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Eischeid |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 7% |
| Alaska House | 38 | −0.1 | 8% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 3% |
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 Eischeid 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 Eischeid.
Money
Eischeid reported $63.6K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from Alaska.
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.
$63.6K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 245 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)65 squares$41.4K
- PACs and other committees33 squares$21.2K
- Party committees2 squares$1,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $41.4K | 65.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $21.2K | 33.3% |
| Party committees | $1,000 | 1.6% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $88.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $160.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $63.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from Alaska.
- Alaska$38.5K
- California$1,775
- Wisconsin$300
- Connecticut$257
- Maine$200
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 |
|---|---|
| Alaska | $38.5K |
| California | $1,775 |
| Wisconsin | $300 |
| Connecticut | $257 |
| Maine | $200 |
| New York | $110 |
| Iowa | $100 |
| Arkansas | $75 |
| Illinois | $25 |
| Texas | $20 |
| Virginia | $10 |
| Vermont | $5 |
| Nevada | $5 |
| New Jersey | $3 |
| Minnesota | $1 |
| Massachusetts | $1 |
| Pennsylvania | $1 |
| Maryland | $1 |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | 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 |
| Florida | No data |
245
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
93%
from Alaska
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 Alaska. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$13.6K 94 donors
- LAWYER$1,350 3 donors
- NOT EMPLOYED$1,341 20 donors
- ATTORNEY$1,250 8 donors
- LEGISLATOR$800 8 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ALASKA LABORERS LOCAL 341 PAC$2,000
- ANCHORAGE POLICE DEPT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PAC$2,000
- ASEA / AFSCME LOCAL 52 PAC$2,000
- EPIC- APEA/AFT$2,000
- ALASKA PROF. FIRE FIGHTERS ASSN. PAF$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NEA-ALASKA$825 5 donors
- MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE$810 5 donors
- STATE OF ALASKA$675 7 donors
- SOA$200 3 donors
- ASD$124 9 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the AK 2025–26 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Eischeid sponsored 9 bills in the AK 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 37 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Alaska House average 22%; 25th of 34).
The bills Eischeid sponsored and cosponsored in the AK 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 AK 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 9 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 37 | 37 | 31 | 27 | 14 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Eischeid sponsored, ochre blocks bills Eischeid cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
11%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Alaska House average 22%. Ranks 25th of 34.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Eischeid, by number of shared bills in the AK 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Andy Josephson21
- Alyse Galvin18
- Scott Kawasaki16
- Andi Story14
- Calvin Schrage13
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 Eischeid’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HJR 39 | Urging the federal government to waive the new H-1B Visa fees for teachers in the state. | Cosponsor | Feb 23, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Immigration(model) | (H) PERMANENTLY FILED 9/22 LEGIS RESOLVE 35 Sep 30, 2026 |
| HJR 38 | Urging the United States Congress to recognize public safety telecommunicators as first responders; and urging the United States Congress to pass the Enhancing First Response Act. | Cosponsor | Feb 23, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Emergency Management(model) | (H) PERMANENTLY FILED 9/22 LEGIS RESOLVE 29 Sep 30, 2026 |
| HB 335 | An Act relating to veterinarians and veterinarian technicians; establishing a pet and service animal disaster emergency plan; relating to the Alaska State Emergency Response Commission; and relating to local emergency planning committees. | Sponsor | Feb 23, 2026 | In committee | Emergency Management(model) | (H) REFERRED TO FINANCE Apr 24, 2026 |
| HB 307 | An Act relating to court-ordered compensatory visitation with a child; and providing for an effective date. | Cosponsor | Feb 13, 2026 | In committee | Families(model) | (H) COSPONSOR(S): EISCHEID Apr 24, 2026 |
| HB 302 | An Act relating to travel insurance; relating to the business of insurance; relating to exceptions to prohibited rebates; relating to the powers of the director of the division of insurance; relating to prohibited practices in the advertisement of insurance; relating to unemployment benefits; and pr | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Became law | Finance and Financial Sector(model) | (H) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF LAW SEE CHAPTER Jul 3, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Eischeid’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Eischeid’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 Eischeid posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Eischeid posted
No images from Eischeid’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
2 turns, May 20, 2025 to May 11, 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 Eischeid is most unusual among State House Democrats, 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
- 132c5970-0ed3-4a8c-baa9-2917196daedb
- Open States
- ocd-person/132c5970-0ed3-4a8c-baa9-2917196daedb
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