Attendance 90.6%; the average within the Massachusetts House is 97.4%. Ranks 149th 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 Nguyen 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.
6 measures against State House Democrats. Nguyen sits at −1.01 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 91% of State House Democrats. Nguyen voted against the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats 2 times; party unity 98.9%, in the bottom quarter of the Massachusetts House (average 98.5%).
The measures on which Nguyen 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
Massachusetts House average 97.4% · ranks 149th of 156 · 234 roll calls
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 91% of State House Democrats · ± 0.04
Party unity
Massachusetts House average 98.5% · ranks 126th of 156 · 2 votes against the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats
Out of committee
Massachusetts House average 4.0% · ranks 109th of 147
Talk-to-bills agreement
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 336th of 503
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 959th of 2,082
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Nguyen, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Nguyen is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Nguyen attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.6% of 173 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 360th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Nguyen’s 173 statements in the MA 2025–26 session (173 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the MA 2025–26 session
| Row | Nguyen | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 51% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 19% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
statements classified
173 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 173 |
The thick bar is Nguyen; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Nguyen does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Nguyen used extreme labels in 1.2% of statements, above the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 1.0%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the MA 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 30.0% | 60.0% | 10.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 7 | — (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 | 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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’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) |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’26 | 7 | — (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 ’26 | 6 | — (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 ’26 | 7 | — (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 ’26 | 6 | — (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 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 23.5% | 0.0% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 46.7% | 66.7% | 6.7% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 10.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 63 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 54.0% | 0.0% | 15.9% | 1.6% |
| Sep ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 70.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’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) |
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%. 16 months are hatched here; 3 of them have no statements.
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.
Jun 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 7, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; target: Donald Trump · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming; extreme label “MAGA, extreme” aimed at MAGA · Source
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 · policy discussion · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Donald TrumpSource
Newest first, the MA 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 173 posts on X.
Government Operations and Politics is what Nguyen talks about most: 33% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.50 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 336th of 503).
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 Nguyen talks about. The bills Nguyen sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the MA 2025–26 session
| Row | Nguyen | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 33% | 15% |
| Immigration | 19% | 4% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 16% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 10% | 11% |
| Environmental Protection | 10% | 3% |
The thick bar is the share of Nguyen’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.
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 36%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 33% | 15% | 5% | 8% |
| Immigration | 19% | 4% | 2% | 1% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 16% | 10% | 10% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 10% | 11% | 0% | 2% |
| Environmental Protection | 10% | 3% | 7% | 4% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 336th of 503.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Nguyen legislates on exactly the areas Nguyen 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 Nguyen sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Nguyen sits at −1.01 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 91% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −1.05 to −0.97, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,144 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.05 to −0.97. From 2,144 donors and 119 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Nguyen, 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 Nguyen’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Nguyen |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 9% |
| Massachusetts House | 157 | −0.6 | 15% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 4% |
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 Nguyen 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 Nguyen.
Nguyen reported $46.9K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 92% 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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 214 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $41.0K | 87.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $5,950 | 12.7% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $252.8K |
| 2022 cycle | $163.1K |
| 2024 cycle | $115.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $46.9K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 92% came from Massachusetts.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Massachusetts | $37.9K |
| Virginia | $1,200 |
| Arizona | $1,000 |
| New Hampshire | $650 |
| Illinois | $500 |
| Connecticut | $250 |
| Florida | $175 |
| Colorado | $163 |
| Maryland | $100 |
| Louisiana | $100 |
| Tennessee | $25 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | 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 |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Massachusetts
Of itemized individual dollars
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.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Nguyen voted with the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats on 98.9% of party-line votes and missed 9.4% of 234 roll calls. Massachusetts House on average: 98.5% party unity, 97.4% attendance. Across all roll calls, Nguyen voted against the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats 2 times.
234 roll calls Nguyen 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 Nguyen voted with the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Massachusetts House Democrats
Party unity 98.9%, Massachusetts House average 98.5%, ranks 126th of 156. 234 roll calls in the MA 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Nguyen, the thin grey bar the Massachusetts House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Nguyen | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 90.6% | 97.4% |
| Party unity | 98.9% | 98.5% |
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.
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 | Yea | 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 | 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 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 | Yea | With majority | 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 |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Nguyen most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Nguyen least often
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.
MA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Nguyen sponsored 19 bills in the MA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 151 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Massachusetts House average 4.0%; 109th of 147).
The bills Nguyen 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.
Counts for the MA 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 19 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 151 | 151 | 8 | 6 | 3 |
Ink blocks are bills Nguyen sponsored, ochre blocks bills Nguyen cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Massachusetts House average 4.0%. Ranks 109th of 147.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Nguyen, by number of shared bills in the MA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Nguyen’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H 5620 | An Act promoting rule of law, oversight, trust and equal constitutional treatment | Cosponsor | Jul 29, 2026 | Became law | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Signed by the Governor, Chapter 163 of the Acts of 2026 Aug 5, 2026 |
| H 5590 | An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts | Cosponsor | Jul 20, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Committee recommended ought to pass and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means Jul 23, 2026 |
| S 3117 | An Act to authorize the town of North Andover to ban SGARs and FGARS | Cosponsor | Jun 11, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection(model) | Bill reported favorably by committee and placed in the Orders of the Day for the next session Jul 22, 2026 |
| S 3093 | An Act authorizing the town of Andover to prohibit the use of anticoagulant rodenticides by commercial pesticide applicators | Cosponsor | May 19, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection(model) | Bill reported favorably by committee and placed in the Orders of the Day for the next session Jul 22, 2026 |
| H 5302 | An Act helping employees after a relative’s tragedy | Cosponsor | Mar 26, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means Mar 26, 2026 |
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Nguyen’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Nguyen’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 Nguyen posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Nguyen’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
1 turn, Mar 25, 2026 to Mar 25, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Nguyen 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
