Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 6, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Armed Forces and National Security; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source
22
statements classified
22 posts on X in the NJ 2026–27 session. No measure in the NJ 2026–27 session stands far from the peer average.
Every post, press release, newsletter and floor speech the lab collected and ran through its classifier.
At a glance
4 measures against State Senate Republicans. 3.4% of the 119 bills Steinhardt sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom half of the New Jersey Senate. Steinhardt reported $97.9K in the 2026 cycle, in the top half of State Senate Republicans (median $46.2K). Steinhardt sits at +0.34 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 53% of State Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Steinhardt sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Out of committee
3.4%
New Jersey Senate average 6.3% · ranks 29th of 40
Itemized, 2026
$97.9K
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 301st of 936
CSIP ideology
+0.34
More liberal than 53% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.06
From New Jersey, 2026
96%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 420th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Statements
22
22 posts on X
Bills sponsored
119
and 76 cosponsored
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Steinhardt, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Steinhardt is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Steinhardt says
Steinhardt stresses bipartisanship less than 87% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0% of 22 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 311th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Steinhardt’s 22 statements in the NJ 2026–27 session (22 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the NJ 2026–27 session
0%80%
Steinhardt
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion15 statements
68%
37%
15th of 354
Policy criticism6 statements
27%
9%
25th of 354
Credit claiming2 statements
9%
15%
216th of 354
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
272nd of 354
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
311th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Steinhardt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 68% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 27% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 9% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
22
statements classified
22 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 22 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Steinhardt; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Steinhardt does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Steinhardt used no extreme labels in 22 statements. The peer average is 1.3%.
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 NJ 2026–27 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 NJ 2026–27 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%. 10 months are hatched here; 3 of them have no statements.
In Steinhardt’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; Health; Housing and Community Development · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health; Commerce · 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 22 statements
Newest first, the NJ 2026–27 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: 22 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Steinhardt talks about most: 53% of policy statements, 5.9 times the peer share. Peers give it 9.1%. 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 Steinhardt talks about. The bills Steinhardt sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Steinhardt talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NJ 2026–27 session
0%59%
Steinhardt
Peers
Health8 statements
53%
9%
Commerce4 statements
27%
4%
Crime and Law Enforcement3 statements
20%
12%
Government Operations and Politics3 statements
20%
17%
Armed Forces and National Security2 statements
13%
6%
Show the data
| Row | Steinhardt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 53% | 9% |
| Commerce | 27% | 4% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 20% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 17% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 13% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Steinhardt’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 59%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 53% | 9% | 15% | 11% |
| Commerce | 27% | 4% | 2% | 3% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 20% | 12% | 18% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 17% | 8% | 12% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 13% | 6% | 4% | 2% |
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 Steinhardt legislates on exactly the areas Steinhardt 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 Steinhardt sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Steinhardt sits at +0.34 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 53% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.28 to +0.39, which understates the uncertainty; from 114 donors and 186 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”.
+0.34
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.28 to +0.39. From 114 donors and 186 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Steinhardt, 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 Steinhardt’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 Steinhardt sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
New Jersey Senate40 · median −0.5
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Steinhardt |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 47% |
| New Jersey Senate | 40 | −0.5 | 95% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 70% |
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 Steinhardt 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 Steinhardt.
Money
Steinhardt reported $97.9K in the 2026 cycle, 2.1 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 96% of itemized individual money came from New Jersey.
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.
$97.9K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 55 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)57 squares$55.3K
- PACs and other committees39 squares$38.6K
- Party committees4 squares$4,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $55.3K | 56.5% |
| PACs and other committees | $38.6K | 39.4% |
| Party committees | $4,000 | 4.1% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $56.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $213.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $97.9K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 96% came from New Jersey.
- New Jersey$53.0K
- Maryland$750
- North Carolina$500
- Pennsylvania$465
- New York$350
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 Jersey | $53.0K |
| Maryland | $750 |
| North Carolina | $500 |
| Pennsylvania | $465 |
| New York | $350 |
| Florida | $265 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | 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 |
55
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
96%
from New Jersey
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 Jersey. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BUSINESS OWNER$17.5K 11 donors
- ATTORNEY$11.1K 12 donors
- MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTIVE$7,480 15 donors
- INSURANCE$5,050 5 donors
- LOBBYISTS/GOVERNMENT RELATIONS$4,750 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 825$10.0K
- LOCAL 102 PAC$4,000
- NJ FUEL MERCHANTS PAC$4,000
- WARREN COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE$4,000
- WARREN COUNTY BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL$3,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- MCCARTER & ENGLISH$800 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the NJ 2026–27 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Steinhardt sponsored 119 bills in the NJ 2026–27 session; none became law. Cosponsored 76 others. 3.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New Jersey Senate average 6.3%; 29th of 40).
The bills Steinhardt sponsored and cosponsored in the NJ 2026–27 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 NJ 2026–27 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 119 | 119 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 76 | 76 | 6 | 4 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Steinhardt sponsored, ochre blocks bills Steinhardt cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
3.4%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
New Jersey Senate average 6.3%. Ranks 29th of 40.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Steinhardt, by number of shared bills in the NJ 2026–27 session; the square shows their party.
- Parker Space65
- Carmen Amato54
- Tony Bucco47
- Mike Testa45
- Kristin Corrado36
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 Steinhardt’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SCR 142 | Proposes constitutional amendment to require Legislature to approve person appointed by Governor to fill vacancy in Office of Lieutenant Governor. | Sponsor | Oct 8, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee Oct 8, 2026 |
| S 4728 | "Emergency Crop Loss Relief Act of 2026"; appropriates $60 million. | Cosponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Economic Growth Committee Oct 5, 2026 |
| S 4772 | Makes FY2027 supplemental appropriation of $455,000 to DOH for NJ Center for Tourette Syndrome and Associated Disorders. | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee Oct 5, 2026 |
| S 4693 | "Protecting New Jersey from Predatory Drug Pricing Act." | Sponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Commerce Committee Oct 1, 2026 |
| S 4690 | Extends permitted working hours for certain minors during school year. | Sponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Labor Committee Oct 1, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Steinhardt’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Steinhardt’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 Steinhardt posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislative-roster/456/senator-steinhardtLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 8
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 Steinhardt posted
No images from Steinhardt’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 Steinhardt is most unusual among State Senate 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. That is the case for Steinhardt in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 2798197f-1516-44ef-9933-99e5b23f19c8
- Open States
- ocd-person/2798197f-1516-44ef-9933-99e5b23f19c8
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