Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Education; Economics and Public Finance · Source
2.4×
the State House Republican rate of policy criticism
23% of 361 statements criticize a policy (82 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 9.3%. Ranks 81st of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Inganamort’s posts on X and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. Inganamort reported $144.3K in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of State House Republicans (median $33.7K). 49% of Inganamort’s statements discuss policy, 1.5 times the State House Republican average of 32%.
The measures on which Inganamort sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy criticism
23%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 81st of 791
Itemized, 2026
$144.3K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 349th of 2,521
Policy discussion
49%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 149th of 791
Out of committee
1.0%
New Jersey House average 7.2% · ranks 64th of 80
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.62
State House Republicans average 0.53 · ranks 110th of 504
CSIP ideology
+0.27
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Inganamort, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Inganamort is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Inganamort says
Inganamort attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Republican. Personal attacks in 1.1% of 361 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 386th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Inganamort’s 361 statements in the NJ 2026–27 session (361 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the NJ 2026–27 session
0%80%
Inganamort
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion176 statements
49%
32%
149th of 791
Policy criticism82 statements
23%
9%
81st of 791
Credit claiming23 statements
6%
13%
507th of 791
Bipartisanship9 statements
2%
2%
207th of 791
Personal attacks4 statements
1%
3%
386th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Inganamort | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 49% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 23% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 6% | 13% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
361
statements classified
361 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 361 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Inganamort; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Inganamort does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Inganamort used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, below the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at Climate Superfund; peers 1.4%.
- “extreme”2
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Climate Superfund2
- Democratic Majority1
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the NJ 2026–27 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’26 | 36 | 0.0% | 11.1% | 47.2% | 2.8% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 44 | 4.5% | 13.6% | 27.3% | 2.3% | 6.8% | 2.3% |
| Mar ’26 | 27 | 3.7% | 25.9% | 59.3% | 3.7% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 46 | 0.0% | 39.1% | 69.6% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 47 | 2.1% | 27.7% | 34.0% | 0.0% | 6.4% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 41 | 0.0% | 39.0% | 41.5% | 4.9% | 4.9% | 2.4% |
| Jul ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 26.7% | 56.7% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 26 | 0.0% | 19.2% | 61.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.9% |
| Sep ’26 | 41 | 0.0% | 7.3% | 46.3% | 2.4% | 12.2% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 8.7% | 60.9% | 0.0% | 8.7% | 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 NJ 2026–27 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.
In Inganamort’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 5, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Education; Taxation · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 31, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Environmental Protection; Law; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Climate Superfund · 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 · Education · TaxationSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Nass, SchwartzSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Rep LaMonicaSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: RepMenendezSource
All 361 statements
Newest first, the NJ 2026–27 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 361 posts on X.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what Inganamort talks about most: 27% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.62 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 110th of 504).
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 Inganamort talks about. The bills Inganamort sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Inganamort talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NJ 2026–27 session
0%35%
Inganamort
Peers
Economics and Public Finance47 statements
27%
12%
Government Operations and Politics37 statements
21%
18%
Education30 statements
17%
15%
Taxation22 statements
13%
8%
Commerce15 statements
9%
4%
Show the data
| Row | Inganamort | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 27% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 18% |
| Education | 17% | 15% |
| Taxation | 13% | 8% |
| Commerce | 9% | 4% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Inganamort’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 27% | 12% | 1% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 21% | 18% | 12% | 12% |
| Education | 17% | 15% | 9% | 9% |
| Taxation | 13% | 8% | 15% | 11% |
| Commerce | 9% | 4% | 4% | 3% |
0.62
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 110th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Inganamort legislates on exactly the areas Inganamort 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 Inganamort sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Inganamort sits at +0.27 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 64% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.24 to +0.30, which understates the uncertainty; from 90 donors and 331 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”.
+0.27
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.24 to +0.30. From 90 donors and 331 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Inganamort, 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 Inganamort’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 Inganamort sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
New Jersey House80 · median −0.6
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Inganamort |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 36% |
| New Jersey House | 80 | −0.6 | 93% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 65% |
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 Inganamort 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 Inganamort.
Money
Inganamort reported $144.3K in the 2026 cycle, 4.3 times the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 90% of itemized individual money came from New Jersey.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
$144.3K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 47 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)29 squares$41.2K
- PACs and other committees55 squares$79.6K
- Party committees16 squares$23.5K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $41.2K | 28.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $79.6K | 55.2% |
| Party committees | $23.5K | 16.3% |
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1,000 |
| 2024 cycle | $144.9K |
| 2026 cycle | $144.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 90% came from New Jersey.
- New Jersey$37.2K
- Florida$1,500
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New Jersey | $37.2K |
| Florida | $1,500 |
| 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 |
| Pennsylvania | 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 |
47
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
90%
from New Jersey
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is New Jersey. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$13.8K 16 donors
- MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATOR/EXECUTIVE$11.2K 10 donors
- BUSINESS OWNER$6,550 8 donors
- CONSULTANT$2,500 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- OPERATING ENGINEERS PAC$25.0K
- NEW JERSEY REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE$17.3K
- LOCAL 102 PAC$13.1K
- AMERICA'S ELECTRIC CO-OP$3,000
- NEW JOBS$3,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the NJ 2026–27 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Legislation
Inganamort sponsored 194 bills in the NJ 2026–27 session; none became law. Cosponsored 255 others. 1.0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New Jersey House average 7.2%; 64th of 80).
The bills Inganamort sponsored and cosponsored in the NJ 2026–27 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the NJ 2026–27 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 194 | 194 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 255 | 254 | 16 | 6 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Inganamort sponsored, ochre blocks bills Inganamort cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
1.0%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
New Jersey House average 7.2%. Ranks 64th of 80.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Inganamort, by number of shared bills in the NJ 2026–27 session; the square shows their party.
- Dawn Fantasia357
- Gerry Scharfenberger108
- Vicky Flynn98
- Bob Auth89
- Aura Dunn87
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 Inganamort’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| A 5688 | Allows deer depredation permit holders to harvest antlers, venison, and hide from deer. | Sponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | Introduced, Referred to Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee Oct 19, 2026 |
| ACR 158 | Proposes constitutional amendment to align income cap for senior and individual with disability property tax deduction with federal poverty guidelines beginning in 2027 and eliminate cap on certain benefits to qualify for deduction. | Sponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Introduced, Referred to Assembly Aging and Human Services Committee Oct 19, 2026 |
| AR 159 | Acknowledges historical lynchings of Sicilians in New Orleans and recognizes Italian-American Heritage Month. | Cosponsor | Oct 19, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Introduced, Referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee Oct 19, 2026 |
| A 5626 | Provides gross income tax credit to certain active members of volunteer emergency service organizations. | Sponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Introduced, Referred to Assembly Public Safety and Preparedness Committee Oct 15, 2026 |
| A 5587 | "Emergency Crop Loss Relief Act of 2026"; appropriates $60 million. | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | Introduced, Referred to Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee Oct 5, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Inganamort’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Inganamort’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 Inganamort posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislative-roster/475/assemblyman-inganamortLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 3
pages crawled
1changes 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 Inganamort posted
No images from Inganamort’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 Inganamort is most unusual among State House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 9228b053-be5e-4490-aadc-ece59b7421fd
- Open States
- ocd-person/9228b053-be5e-4490-aadc-ece59b7421fd
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