Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 8, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Education; Families; Health · Source
39%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the bottom 5% of the Maine Senate
39% of 64 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Maine Senate is 69%. Ranks 32nd of 33, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Baldacci sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Maine Senate. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. Baldacci voted against the majority of Maine Senate Democrats 132 times; party unity 80%, in the bottom tenth of the Maine Senate (average 93.5%). 8.3% of Baldacci’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.5 times the State Senate Democrat average of 3.4%.
The measures on which Baldacci sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, 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
39%
Maine Senate average 69% · ranks 32nd of 33
Party unity
80%
Maine Senate average 93.5% · ranks 33rd of 35 · 132 votes against the majority of Maine Senate Democrats
Bipartisanship
8.3%
State Senate Democrats average 3.4% · ranks 27th of 329
Attendance
88%
Maine Senate average 95.2% · ranks 32nd of 35 · 771 roll calls
From Maine, 2024
99%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 6th of 47 State Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.38
More conservative than 86% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.03
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Baldacci, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Baldacci is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Baldacci says
Baldacci attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State Senate Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.7% of 420 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 138th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Baldacci’s 420 statements in the ME 2025–26 session (420 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the ME 2025–26 session
0%80%
Baldacci
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion224 statements
53%
43%
111th of 329
Credit claiming114 statements
27%
16%
60th of 329
Policy criticism49 statements
12%
10%
115th of 329
Bipartisanship35 statements
8%
3%
27th of 329
Personal attacks3 statements
1%
2%
138th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Baldacci | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 53% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 27% | 16% |
| Policy criticism | 12% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 8% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
420
statements classified
420 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 420 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Baldacci; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Baldacci does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Baldacci used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, below the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at abortion bans; peers 0.8%.
- “MAGA”1
- “extreme”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- abortion bans1
- Donald Trump1
- MAGA1
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 ME 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 19.2% | 61.5% | 11.5% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 21 | 4.8% | 28.6% | 52.4% | 9.5% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 13.6% | 81.8% | 9.1% | 59.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 70.0% | 5.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 75.0% | 33.3% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 75.0% | 25.0% | 43.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 16 | 6.3% | 25.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 9 | — (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 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 53.8% | 23.1% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 9 | — (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 | 9 | — (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 | 14 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 50.0% | 7.1% | 42.9% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 34 | 0.0% | 2.9% | 55.9% | 11.8% | 17.6% | 2.9% |
| Feb ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 35.3% | 5.9% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 12.0% | 36.0% | 0.0% | 28.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 63.6% | 4.5% | 27.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 26 | 3.9% | 15.4% | 34.6% | 0.0% | 11.5% | 3.9% |
| Jun ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 23.5% | 0.0% | 17.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 46 | 0.0% | 2.2% | 26.1% | 4.3% | 21.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 26 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 80.8% | 3.9% | 11.5% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 58.3% | 8.3% | 41.7% | 0.0% |
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 ME 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%. 4 months are hatched here.
In Baldacci’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.
May 14, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Health; target: JD · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA · 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 · policy discussion · Health · target: JDSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: GOPSource
All 420 statements
Newest first, the ME 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: 420 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Baldacci talks about most: 38% of policy statements, 2.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 33rd of 228).
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 Baldacci talks about. The bills Baldacci sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Baldacci talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the ME 2025–26 session
0%42%
Baldacci
Peers
Health86 statements
38%
17%
Economics and Public Finance46 statements
21%
10%
Government Operations and Politics35 statements
16%
14%
Education23 statements
10%
15%
Taxation20 statements
9%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Baldacci | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 38% | 17% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 21% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 14% |
| Education | 10% | 15% |
| Taxation | 9% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Baldacci’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 42%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 38% | 17% | 30% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 21% | 10% | 4% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 14% | 15% | 8% |
| Education | 10% | 15% | 7% | 9% |
| Taxation | 9% | 3% | 7% | 6% |
0.66
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 33rd of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Baldacci legislates on exactly the areas Baldacci 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 Baldacci sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Baldacci sits at −0.38 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 86% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.41 to −0.35, which understates the uncertainty; from 409 donors and 837 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”.
−0.38
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.41 to −0.35. From 409 donors and 837 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Baldacci, 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 Baldacci’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 Baldacci sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Maine Senate35 · median −0.5
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Baldacci |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 86% |
| Maine Senate | 35 | −0.5 | 51% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 37% |
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 Baldacci 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 Baldacci.
Money
Baldacci reported $45.3K in the 2024 cycle, 2.8 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $16.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 99% of itemized individual money came from Maine.
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.
$45.3K
itemized in the 2024 cycle
From 33 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $16.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2024 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)97 squares$44.1K
- PACs and other committees3 squares$1,200
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $44.1K | 97.3% |
| PACs and other committees | $1,200 | 2.7% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2024. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2024.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $86.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $60.0K |
| 2024 cycle | $45.3K |
Top donor states, 2024
Itemized contributions by donor state. 99% came from Maine.
- Maine$43.7K
- Florida$250
- Massachusetts$100
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 |
|---|---|
| Maine | $43.7K |
| Florida | $250 |
| Massachusetts | $100 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
33
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
99%
from Maine
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 Maine. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
- ATTORNEY LEGAL$38.5K 4 donors
- OTHER$1,350 8 donors
- RETIRED$1,100 7 donors
- HEALTHCARE MEDICAL$825 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2024 cycle.
- MAINE ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS CORPORATE PAC$475
- MATTIE FOR MAINE$475
- MSEA PACER PAC$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2024 cycle.
- STATE OF MAINE$375 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Baldacci voted with the majority of Maine Senate Democrats on 80% of party-line votes and missed 12% of 771 roll calls. Maine Senate on average: 93.5% party unity, 95.2% attendance. Across all roll calls, Baldacci voted against the majority of Maine Senate Democrats 132 times.
771 roll calls Baldacci could vote on in the ME 2025–26 session, compared with Maine Senate. 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 Baldacci voted with the majority of Maine Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
132
votes against the majority of Maine Senate Democrats
Party unity 80%, Maine Senate average 93.5%, ranks 33rd of 35. 771 roll calls in the ME 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Baldacci, the thin grey bar the Maine Senate average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Baldacci
Peers
Rank
Attendance
88%
95.2%
32nd of 35
Party unity
80%
93.5%
33rd of 35
Show the data
| Row | Baldacci | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 88% | 95.2% |
| Party unity | 80% | 93.5% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the ME 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2026 | LD 127 An Act To Strengthen Legislative Oversight Of Government Agencies And Programs By Reaffirming The Legislature'S Access To Confidential Records RECEDE AND CONCUR | Yea | With majority | pass | D 10–9 · R 11–0 · I 1–0Democrats 10 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| Apr 14, 2026 | LD 299 An Act To Support Investment In Agriculture ADOPT SENATE AMENDMENT (S-717) to COMMITTEE AMENDMENT | Yea | Against majority | fail | D 3–17 · R 14–0Democrats 3 yea, 17 nay; Republicans 14 yea, 0 nay | close vote · party crossover |
| Apr 14, 2026 | LD 493 An Act To Expand Testing For Perfluoroalkyl And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances To Private Drinking Water Wells ENACTMENT | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 0–13 · I 1–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 13 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 14, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 20–0 · R 8–6 · I 1–0Democrats 20 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 6 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover | |
| Apr 14, 2026 | LD 2054 An Act To Clarify The Laws Regarding Moose Hunting Permits For Hunting Outfitters RECEDE AND CONCUR | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 12–8 · R 11–2 · I 1–0Democrats 12 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 11 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law · 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 Baldacci most often
- Tim NangleD629 shared votes82%
- Chip CurryD658 shared votes81%
- Mike TippingD674 shared votes80%
- Joe RaffertyD658 shared votes79%
- Henry IngwersenD677 shared votes79%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Baldacci least often
- Joe MartinR670 shared votes27%
- David HagganR675 shared votes28%
- Jeff TimberlakeR625 shared votes29%
- Trey StewartR629 shared votes30%
- Stacey GuerinR669 shared votes30%
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
ME 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Baldacci sponsored 64 bills in the ME 2025–26 session; 16 became law. Cosponsored 88 others. 39% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Maine Senate average 69%; 32nd of 33).
The bills Baldacci sponsored and cosponsored in the ME 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 ME 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 64 | 64 | 25 | 17 | 16 |
| Cosponsored | 88 | 88 | 59 | 45 | 34 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Baldacci sponsored, ochre blocks bills Baldacci cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
39%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Maine Senate average 69%. Ranks 32nd of 33.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Baldacci, by number of shared bills in the ME 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Joe Rafferty19
- Donna Bailey18
- Mike Tipping17
- Rick Bennett17
- Ambureen Rana15
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 Baldacci’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| LD 555 | An Act To Create A Separate Department Of Child And Family Services | Cosponsor | Apr 9, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Sent for concurrence. ORDERED SENT FORTHWITH. Apr 29, 2026 |
| LD 1803 | An Act To Amend The Laws Governing Optometric Practice | Cosponsor | Apr 9, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Health(model) | Placed in the Legislative Files. (DEAD) Apr 13, 2026 |
| LD 2217 | An Act Related To The Electronic Tagging Of Deer | Sponsor | Apr 8, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | Placed in the Legislative Files. (DEAD) Apr 9, 2026 |
| LD 350 | An Act Regarding The Operations Of The Department Of Inland Fisheries And Wildlife | Sponsor | Apr 6, 2026 | Became law | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Became Law without Governor's Signature Apr 21, 2026 |
| LD 2138 | Resolve, Authorizing The Department Of Administrative And Financial Services To Convey The Interests Of The State In Certain Real Property In Bangor | Sponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | Became law | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Signed by Governor Apr 6, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Baldacci’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Baldacci’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 Baldacci 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 Baldacci posted
No images from Baldacci’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
181 turns, Mar 11, 2021 to May 14, 2025
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 Baldacci is most unusual among State Senate 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
- 34231d57-22e2-4f2f-be41-d2734fa6211f
- Open States
- ocd-person/34231d57-22e2-4f2f-be41-d2734fa6211f
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