Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 1, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Emergency Management · Source
0.71
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top 5% of State House Democrats
Agreement 0.71 on a 0–1 scale; the average for State House Democrats is 0.54. Ranks 21st of 503, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Salisbury’s statements matches the mix in the bills Salisbury sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among State House Democrats.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 100% of Salisbury’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Pennsylvania, in the top tenth of State House Democrats. 70% of the 10 bills Salisbury sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the Pennsylvania House.
The measures on which Salisbury 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.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.71
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 21st of 503
From Pennsylvania, 2026
100%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 195th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Out of committee
70%
Pennsylvania House average 40% · ranks 24th of 171
Party unity
99.8%
Pennsylvania House average 95.1% · ranks 27th of 203 · 6 votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
Personal attacks
0%
State House Democrats average 2.5% · ranks 584th of 764
CSIP ideology
−0.70
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.06
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Salisbury, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Salisbury is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Salisbury says
Salisbury attacks opponents personally less than 76% of State House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0% of 488 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 584th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Salisbury’s 488 statements in the PA 2025–26 session (488 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 PA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Salisbury
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion258 statements
53%
39%
182nd of 764
Credit claiming111 statements
23%
14%
185th of 764
Policy criticism28 statements
6%
10%
453rd of 764
Bipartisanship4 statements
1%
3%
540th of 764
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
584th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Salisbury | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 53% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 23% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 6% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
488
statements classified
488 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 488 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Salisbury; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Salisbury does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Salisbury used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 21% of the peer average. 1 statement; peers 1.0%.
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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 40.9% | 0.0% | 36.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 8.0% | 56.0% | 0.0% | 12.0% | 4.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 19.2% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 38.1% | 4.8% | 23.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 46.7% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 57.1% | 0.0% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 72.7% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 52.4% | 0.0% | 23.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 29.2% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 55.6% | 11.1% | 44.4% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 57.1% | 0.0% | 42.9% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 63.2% | 0.0% | 31.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 54.5% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 23.8% | 85.7% | 0.0% | 23.8% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 32 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 65.6% | 0.0% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 20.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 5.3% | 68.4% | 0.0% | 52.6% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 64.7% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 35 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 17.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 33 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 3.0% | 12.1% | 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 PA 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%.
In Salisbury’s words
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.
Oct 5, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 27, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” · 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 488 statements
Newest first, the PA 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: 488 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Salisbury talks about most: 23% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 21st 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 Salisbury talks about. The bills Salisbury sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Salisbury talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the PA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Salisbury
Peers
Health60 statements
23%
15%
Education36 statements
14%
15%
Transportation and Public Works34 statements
13%
5%
Agriculture and Food30 statements
12%
5%
Government Operations and Politics29 statements
11%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Salisbury | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 23% | 15% |
| Education | 14% | 15% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 13% | 5% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 5% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Salisbury’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 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 23% | 15% | 11% | 15% |
| Education | 14% | 15% | 5% | 10% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 13% | 5% | 2% | 5% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 5% | 3% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 15% | 5% | 8% |
0.71
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 21st of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Salisbury legislates on exactly the areas Salisbury 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 Salisbury sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Salisbury sits at −0.70 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 62% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.76 to −0.64, which understates the uncertainty; from 284 donors and 600 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”.
−0.70
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.76 to −0.64. From 284 donors and 600 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Salisbury, 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 Salisbury’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 Salisbury sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Pennsylvania House203 · median −0.3
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Salisbury |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 38% |
| Pennsylvania House | 203 | −0.3 | 17% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 17% |
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 Salisbury 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 Salisbury.
Money
Salisbury reported $46.2K in the 2026 cycle, close to the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from Pennsylvania.
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.
$46.2K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 37 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)20 squares$9,336
- PACs and other committees80 squares$36.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $9,336 | 20.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $36.9K | 79.8% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $38.1K |
| 2024 cycle | $219.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $46.2K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from Pennsylvania.
- Pennsylvania$9,336
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 |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | $9,336 |
| 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 |
| New York | 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 |
| 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 |
37
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
100%
from Pennsylvania
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 Pennsylvania. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- ATTORNEY$2,500 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- THE BEACON COALITION POLITICAL ACT FUND$5,000
- LAW PAC$4,500
- IBEW LOCAL NO 5 PAC$2,500
- BRICKLAYERS & ALLIED CRAFT WORKERS PAC LOCAL 9$2,000
- LOCAL 0005 IBEW PAC$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Salisbury voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats on 99.8% of party-line votes and missed none of 1,497 roll calls. Pennsylvania House on average: 95.1% party unity, 99.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Salisbury voted against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats 6 times.
1,497 roll calls Salisbury could vote on in the PA 2025–26 session, compared with Pennsylvania 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 Salisbury voted with the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
6
votes against the majority of Pennsylvania House Democrats
Party unity 99.8%, Pennsylvania House average 95.1%, ranks 27th of 203. 1,497 roll calls in the PA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Salisbury, the thin grey bar the Pennsylvania House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Salisbury
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.9%
96th of 203
Party unity
99.8%
95.1%
27th of 203
Show the data
| Row | Salisbury | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.9% |
| Party unity | 99.8% | 95.1% |
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 PA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1431 An Act amending Title 34 (Game) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Pennsylvania Game Commission, further providing for Game Commission officers and employees; and, in enforcement, further providing for powers and duties of enforcement officers. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 922 An Act amending the act of January 28, 1988 (P.L.24, No.11), known as the Private Academic Schools Act, further providing for application for license, for issuance and renewal of license and for promulgation of rules and regulations. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 101–2 · R 100–0Democrats 101 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 1328 An Act requiring automated external defibrillators at utility or electrical worksites; imposing duties on the Department of Labor and Industry; and imposing penalties. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 94–6Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 94 yea, 6 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | SB 764 An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in alteration of territory or corporate entity and dissolution, further providing for conduct of referenda and for court review of transitional plan. FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 100–0Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 100 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Oct 21, 2026 | HB 2593 An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in general provisions relating to powers and duties of the Department of Health and its departmental administrative and advisory boards, providing for prostate health public education campaign; and FINAL PASSAGE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 103–0 · R 88–12Democrats 103 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 88 yea, 12 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 Salisbury most often
- Dan FrankelD1,497 shared votes100%
- Christina SappeyD1,497 shared votes100%
- Joe WebsterD1,497 shared votes100%
- Tarik KhanD1,497 shared votes100%
- Jessica BenhamD1,497 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Salisbury least often
- Wendy FinkR1,497 shared votes40%
- Scott BargerR1,497 shared votes42%
- Stephenie ScialabbaR821 shared votes45%
- Jamie WalshR1,497 shared votes47%
- Stephanie BorowiczR1,497 shared votes49%
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
PA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Salisbury sponsored 10 bills in the PA 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 192 others. 70% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Pennsylvania House average 40%; 24th of 171).
The bills Salisbury sponsored and cosponsored in the PA 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 PA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 10 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 192 | 192 | 96 | 13 | 13 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Salisbury sponsored, ochre blocks bills Salisbury cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
70%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Pennsylvania House average 40%. Ranks 24th of 171.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Salisbury, by number of shared bills in the PA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Ben Sanchez76
- Carol Hill-Evans59
- Tarik Khan49
- Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz41
- Roni Green41
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 Salisbury’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HB 1939 | An Act amending the act of June 13, 1967 (P.L.31, No.21), known as the Human Services Code, in public assistance, providing for fee schedule rates. | Cosponsor | Oct 6, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Laid on the table Oct 6, 2026 |
| HB 2771 | An Act amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for automated license plate reader systems; and imposing penalties. | Cosponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Third consideration and final passage Oct 19, 2026 |
| HB 2639 | An Act amending Title 35 (Health and Safety) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in Nonprofit Security Grant Fund, further providing for administration. | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Emergency Management(model) | Laid on the table Sep 30, 2026 |
| HB 2674 | An Act amending Title 66 (Public Utilities) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in general provisions relating to Public Utility Code, further providing for definitions. | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Energy(model) | Third consideration and final passage Oct 19, 2026 |
| HB 1097 | An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in riot, disorderly conduct and related offenses, providing for the offense of use of live pigeons for target. | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Laid on the table Sep 28, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Salisbury’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Salisbury’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 Salisbury 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 Salisbury posted
No images from Salisbury’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
8 turns, Jun 27, 2023 to May 4, 2026
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Salisbury 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
- 4bc74848-3896-4a0a-9310-970458f48d1a
- Open States
- ocd-person/4bc74848-3896-4a0a-9310-970458f48d1a
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