Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 30, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: @tigerfan1979 · Source
2.6×
the State House Democrat rate of personal attacks
6.6% of 787 statements contain a personal attack (52 statements); the average for State House Democrats is 2.5%. Ranks 99th of 764, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Landry’s posts on X and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 1.5% of Landry’s statements claim credit, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats (average 14%). 18% of Landry’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of State House Democrats (average 39%).
The measures on which Landry 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.
Personal attacks
6.6%
State House Democrats average 2.5% · ranks 99th of 764
Credit claiming
1.5%
State House Democrats average 14% · ranks 664th of 764
Policy discussion
18%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 647th of 764
Extreme labels
1.4%
State House Democrats average 1.0% · ranks 168th of 764
Attendance
89%
Louisiana House average 90.7% · ranks 78th of 102 · 2,668 roll calls
CSIP ideology
−0.69
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Landry, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Landry is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Landry says
Landry claims credit less than 86% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 1.5% of 787 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 664th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Landry’s 787 statements in the LA 2025–26 session (787 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 LA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Landry
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion145 statements
18%
39%
647th of 764
Policy criticism102 statements
13%
10%
245th of 764
Personal attacks52 statements
7%
3%
99th of 764
Bipartisanship16 statements
2%
3%
370th of 764
Credit claiming12 statements
2%
14%
664th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Landry | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 18% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 13% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 7% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 2% | 14% |
787
statements classified
787 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 787 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Landry; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Landry does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Landry used extreme labels in 1.4% of statements, above the peer average. 11 statements; peers 1.0%.
- “extreme”2
- “far right”2
- “communist”1
- “far left”1
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 LA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 48 | 10.4% | 18.8% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 2.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 140 | 15.7% | 17.1% | 22.1% | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.7% |
| Mar ’25 | 264 | 5.3% | 7.2% | 9.8% | 1.5% | 0.8% | 2.6% |
| Apr ’25 | 172 | 1.2% | 18.6% | 23.8% | 2.3% | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| May ’25 | 54 | 7.4% | 11.1% | 20.4% | 1.8% | 5.6% | 1.8% |
| Jun ’25 | 47 | 2.1% | 14.9% | 27.7% | 12.8% | 4.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 38 | 10.5% | 7.9% | 18.4% | 2.6% | 5.3% | 2.6% |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’25 | 4 | — (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 | 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) |
| Jan ’26 | 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) |
| Feb ’26 | 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) |
| Mar ’26 | 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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’26 | 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 ’26 | 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 ’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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| 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) |
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 LA 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%. 15 months are hatched here; 6 of them have no statements.
In Landry’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jan 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · credit claiming · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 5, 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.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: @tigerfan1979Source
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: primetimeselectSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: YousureareSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: dfossierSource
All 787 statements
Newest first, the LA 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: 787 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Landry talks about most: 21% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.56 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 232nd 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 Landry talks about. The bills Landry sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Landry talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the LA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Landry
Peers
Government Operations and Politics30 statements
21%
15%
Health23 statements
16%
15%
Law15 statements
10%
2%
Economics and Public Finance12 statements
8%
11%
Education12 statements
8%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Landry | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 15% |
| Health | 16% | 15% |
| Law | 10% | 2% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 8% | 11% |
| Education | 8% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Landry’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 15% | 8% | 8% |
| Health | 16% | 15% | 9% | 15% |
| Law | 10% | 2% | 5% | 2% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 8% | 11% | 2% | 2% |
| Education | 8% | 15% | 4% | 10% |
0.56
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 232nd of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Landry legislates on exactly the areas Landry 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 Landry sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Landry sits at −0.69 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 61% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.73 to −0.65, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,450 donors and 980 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”.
−0.69
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.73 to −0.65. From 1,450 donors and 980 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Landry, 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 Landry’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 Landry sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Louisiana House103 · median +0.2
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Landry |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 39% |
| Louisiana House | 103 | +0.2 | 4% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 18% |
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 Landry 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 Landry.
Money
Landry reported $25.7K in the 2026 cycle, below the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 98% of itemized individual money came from Louisiana.
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.
$25.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 49 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)63 squares$16.2K
- PACs and other committees37 squares$9,455
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $16.2K | 63.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $9,455 | 36.8% |
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $212.8K |
| 2022 cycle | $299.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $262.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $25.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 98% came from Louisiana.
- Louisiana$15.8K
- District of Columbia$300
- California$55
- Maryland$25
- Pennsylvania$25
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 |
|---|---|
| Louisiana | $15.8K |
| District of Columbia | $300 |
| California | $55 |
| Pennsylvania | $25 |
| Maryland | $25 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
| Florida | No data |
49
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
98%
from Louisiana
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 Louisiana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MATTHEW WILLARD CAMPAIGN$3,205
- CRPPA LOCAL PAC$1,000
- ENTERGY CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- LOUISIANA CHIROPRATIC PAC$1,000
- NEW ORLEANS HOSPITALITY COALITION PAC INC.$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Landry voted with the majority of Louisiana House Democrats on 90% of party-line votes and missed 11% of 2,668 roll calls. Louisiana House on average: 89% party unity, 90.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Landry voted against the majority of Louisiana House Democrats 90 times.
2,668 roll calls Landry could vote on in the LA 2025–26 session, compared with Louisiana 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 Landry voted with the majority of Louisiana House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
90
votes against the majority of Louisiana House Democrats
Party unity 90%, Louisiana House average 89%, ranks 70th of 102. 2,668 roll calls in the LA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Landry, the thin grey bar the Louisiana House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Landry
Peers
Rank
Attendance
89%
90.7%
78th of 102
Party unity
90%
89%
70th of 102
Show the data
| Row | Landry | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 89% | 90.7% |
| Party unity | 90% | 89% |
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 LA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 1, 2026 | SB 237 CHILDREN: Provides relative to child welfare. (8/1/26) (EN NO IMPACT See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1848) | Did not vote | — | pass | D 28–2 · R 68–0Democrats 28 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 68 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 132 SCHOOLS: Provides that each public school board is to install exterior master key boxes to allow for rapid entry, response, and rescue by law enforcement and first responders during a school crisis. (8/1/26) (EN INCREASE GF EX See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1650) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 28–0 · R 65–0Democrats 28 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 65 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 228 LOCAL FINANCE: Constitutional amendment to allow for the use of public funds to replace drinking water utility service lines located on private property. (2/3 - CA13s1(A)) (EN SEE FISC NOTE LF EX) FINAL PASSAGE (#1647) | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 52–13Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 52 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 202 ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT: Provides for the increase of parish board of election supervisor meetings in certain parishes for certain races. (8/1/26) (EN +$192,000 GF EX See Note) FINAL PASSAGE (#1634) | Did not vote | — | pass | D 25–0 · R 68–0Democrats 25 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 68 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 29, 2026 | SB 513 PUBLIC CONTRACTS: Provides for public works project delivery methods. (8/1/26) FINAL PASSAGE (#1644) | Did not vote | — | pass | D 5–20 · R 66–2Democrats 5 yea, 20 nay; Republicans 66 yea, 2 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 Landry most often
- Matt WillardD944 shared votes98%
- Edmond JordanD2,095 shared votes97%
- Ed LarvadainD2,203 shared votes96%
- Tehmi ChassionD2,054 shared votes96%
- Barbara CarpenterD1,803 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Landry least often
- Danny McCormickR2,127 shared votes76%
- Beryl AmedéeR2,265 shared votes77%
- Rodney SchamerhornR2,303 shared votes78%
- Phil TarverR1,684 shared votes79%
- Raymond CrewsR2,180 shared votes80%
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
LA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Landry sponsored 41 bills in the LA 2025–26 session; 14 became law. Cosponsored 91 others. 41% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Louisiana House average 48%; 69th of 101).
The bills Landry sponsored and cosponsored in the LA 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 LA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 41 | 39 | 17 | 15 | 14 |
| Cosponsored | 91 | 79 | 64 | 55 | 48 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Landry sponsored, ochre blocks bills Landry cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
41%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Louisiana House average 48%. Ranks 69th of 101.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Landry, by number of shared bills in the LA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Tehmi Chassion15
- Mike Bayham12
- Aimee Freeman10
- Matt Willard10
- Denise Marcelle9
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 Landry’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 317 | TRANSPORTATION DEPT: Urges and requests that the Department of Transportation and Development to convene a diagnostic review team to evaluate the proposed reactivation of the Norfolk Southern Railway originating at the Alabo Street Wharf | Cosponsor | May 20, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Taken by the Clerk of the House and presented to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Rules of the House. Jun 3, 2026 |
| HR 296 | CRIMINAL/VICTIMS: Extends the time for the creation of the victims' services system pursuant to Act No. 370 of the 2025 Regular Session of the Legislature | Sponsor | May 19, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Read by title, under the rules, referred to the Committee on Administration of Criminal Justice. May 20, 2026 |
| HB 1247 | CRIME/SEX OFFENSES: Creates a statewide Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Coordinator | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | Became law | Health(model) | Signed by the Governor. Becomes Act No. 724. Jun 3, 2026 |
| HCR 50 | CORR FACILITIES/JAILS: Requests certain state and governmental entities to report on opioid abatement and treatment programs in correctional facilities, and to clarify guidance regarding available funding for such programs | Cosponsor | May 11, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Health(model) | Taken by the Clerk of the House and presented to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Rules of the House. May 28, 2026 |
| HCR 11 | MILITARY AFFAIRS: Expresses support for the continued operations of the Louisiana National Guard at Camp Beauregard in Pineville and commends the accomplishments of the Louisiana National Guard Youth Challenge Program | Cosponsor | May 11, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | Taken by the Clerk of the House and presented to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Rules of the House. May 21, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Landry’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Landry’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 Landry posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 27
pages crawled
16changes 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
- Xvotelandry
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/votelandry
- Instagramvotelandry
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/mandie-landry-8764812/
- Emailhse091@legis.la.gov
Images Landry posted
No images from Landry’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 Landry 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
- 6e106343-c9e7-4993-aca8-201210f61d64
- Open States
- ocd-person/6e106343-c9e7-4993-aca8-201210f61d64
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