Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 25, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance · Source
40%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom tenth of the New Hampshire House
Attendance 60%; the average within the New Hampshire House is 89%. Ranks 361st of 382, where 1st has the highest attendance. 557 roll calls in the NH 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls Smith could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the New Hampshire House. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
5 measures against State House Democrats. 39% of Smith’s itemized money in the 2022 cycle came from New Hampshire, in the bottom tenth of State House Democrats. Smith sits at −0.35 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 87% of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Smith 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.
Attendance
60%
New Hampshire House average 89% · ranks 361st of 382 · 557 roll calls
From New Hampshire, 2022
39%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 21st of 22 State House Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.35
More conservative than 87% of State House Democrats · ± 0.04
Itemized, 2022
$2,650
State House Democrats’ median $1,450 · ranks 9th of 25
Party unity
96.6%
New Hampshire House average 95.3% · ranks 222nd of 381 · 14 votes against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats
Statements
7
7 posts on X
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Smith, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Smith is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Smith says
Smith claims credit less than 95% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 0% of 7 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 729th of 765.
An AI model reads each of Smith’s 7 statements in the NH 2025–26 session (7 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 NH 2025–26 session
0%80%
Smith
Peers
Rank
Personal attacks1 statements
14%
3%
26th of 765
Policy criticism1 statements
14%
10%
222nd of 765
Policy discussion1 statements
14%
39%
676th of 765
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
676th of 765
Credit claiming0 statements
0%
14%
729th of 765
Show the data
| Row | Smith | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Personal attacks | 14% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 14% | 10% |
| Policy discussion | 14% | 39% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 14% |
7
statements classified
7 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 7 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Smith; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Smith does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Smith used no extreme labels in 7 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 NH 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 NH 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; 18 of them have no statements.
In Smith’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.
Feb 23, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Silver · 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: SilverSource
All 7 statements
Newest first, the NH 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: 7 posts on X.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what Smith talks about most: 100% of policy statements, 9.4 times the peer share. Peers give it 11%.
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 Smith talks about. The bills Smith sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Smith talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NH 2025–26 session
0%100%
Smith
Peers
Economics and Public Finance1 statements
100%
11%
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 | Smith | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 100% | 11% |
| 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 Smith’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.
No sponsored or cosponsored bills with a policy area in this window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Smith legislates on exactly the areas Smith 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 Smith sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Smith sits at −0.35 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 87% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.40 to −0.31, which understates the uncertainty; from 8 donors and 445 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”.
−0.35
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.40 to −0.31. From 8 donors and 445 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Smith, 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 Smith’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 Smith sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
New Hampshire House382 · median 0.0
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Smith |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 87% |
| New Hampshire House | 382 | 0.0 | 29% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 39% |
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 Smith 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 Smith.
Money
Smith reported $2,650 in the 2022 cycle, 1.8 times the State House Democrats’ median of $1,450. State filings report no small-donation total. 39% of itemized individual money came from New Hampshire.
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.
$2,650
itemized in the 2022 cycle
From 8 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $1,450.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2022 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)43 squares$1,150
- Party committees57 squares$1,500
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $1,150 | 43.4% |
| Party committees | $1,500 | 56.6% |
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 2022. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2022.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $2,650 |
Top donor states, 2022
Itemized contributions by donor state. 39% came from New Hampshire.
- New Hampshire$450
- Minnesota$400
- New York$300
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 |
|---|---|
| New Hampshire | $450 |
| Minnesota | $400 |
| New York | $300 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | 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 |
| 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 |
8
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
39%
from New Hampshire
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 New Hampshire. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2022 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2022 cycle.
- DOVER DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE$1,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2022 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Smith voted with the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats on 96.6% of party-line votes and missed 40% of 557 roll calls. New Hampshire House on average: 95.3% party unity, 89% attendance. Across all roll calls, Smith voted against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats 14 times.
557 roll calls Smith could vote on in the NH 2025–26 session, compared with New Hampshire 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 Smith voted with the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
14
votes against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats
Party unity 96.6%, New Hampshire House average 95.3%, ranks 222nd of 381. 557 roll calls in the NH 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Smith, the thin grey bar the New Hampshire House average. The scale runs from 50% to 100% to show the gap.
50%100%
Smith
Peers
Rank
Attendance
60%
89%
361st of 382
Party unity
96.6%
95.3%
222nd of 381
Show the data
| Row | Smith | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 60% | 89% |
| Party unity | 96.6% | 95.3% |
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 NH 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 2026 | HB 2026 relative to the state 10-year transportation improvement plan; relative to toll rate adjustments and periodic toll reviews for the New Hampshire turnpike system to support the 2027-2036 ten-year transportation plan; and relative to reconstruction of the Gregg Mill Road Bridge in the town of New Bost Veto Override | Yea | With majority | pass | D 143–0 · R 148–25 · I 1–0Democrats 143 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 148 yea, 25 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| Aug 19, 2026 | HB 1358 establishing a commission to study transitioning all public schools to public charter schools. Veto Override | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–143 · R 149–23 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 143 nay; Republicans 149 yea, 23 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote · party crossover |
| Aug 19, 2026 | Did not vote | — | pass | D 0–139 · R 161–9 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 139 nay; Republicans 161 yea, 9 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Aug 19, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–142 · R 158–13 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 142 nay; Republicans 158 yea, 13 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Aug 19, 2026 | HB 1726 relative to the sale of surplus state-owned land and establishing a commission to study the sale of state-owned property. Veto Override | Did not vote | — | fail | D 2–135 · R 98–71 · I 1–0Democrats 2 yea, 135 nay; Republicans 98 yea, 71 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | 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 Smith most often
- Christal LloydD325 shared votes97%
- Fred DavisD310 shared votes97%
- Myles EnglandD134 shared votes97%
- Toni WeinsteinD305 shared votes96%
- Peter BixbyD331 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Smith least often
- Kevin VervilleR211 shared votes6.6%
- Robley HallR213 shared votes7.0%
- Thomas WalshR282 shared votes7.4%
- Vanessa SheehanR312 shared votes8.0%
- Kristin NobleR295 shared votes8.1%
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
NH 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
No bills for the NH 2025–26 session.No sponsored or cosponsored bills are recorded for this official in this time window.
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Smith’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Smith’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 Smith posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=409173Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes 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 Smith posted
No images from Smith’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
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Smith 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
- 1d25683b-5c85-41cb-8585-6e18ddd0f648
- Open States
- ocd-person/1d25683b-5c85-41cb-8585-6e18ddd0f648
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