Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
77%
of State House Democrats score to the left of Weber on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.43 (approximate range −0.48 to −0.38, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 0 donors and 1,159 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Weber sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
3 measures against the New Hampshire House. Weber sits at −0.43 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 77% of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Weber sits furthest from the middle of the New Hampshire House, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
99.3%
New Hampshire House average 95.3% · ranks 20th of 381 · 9 votes against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.43
More conservative than 77% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05
Attendance
96.5%
New Hampshire House average 89% · ranks 136th of 382 · 557 roll calls
Statements
19
19 posts on X
Roll calls
557
Compared with New Hampshire House
Bills sponsored
2
and 21 cosponsored
Peer group: New Hampshire House. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Weber, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Weber is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Weber says
Weber claims credit less than 95% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 0% of 19 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 729th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Weber’s 19 statements in the NH 2025–26 session (19 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 NH 2025–26 session
0%80%
Weber
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion9 statements
47%
39%
259th of 764
Policy criticism7 statements
37%
10%
16th of 764
Personal attacks2 statements
11%
3%
48th of 764
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
3%
676th of 764
Credit claiming0 statements
0%
14%
729th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Weber | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 47% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 37% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 11% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 0% | 14% |
19
statements classified
19 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 19 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Weber; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Weber does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Weber used no extreme labels in 19 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the NH 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the NH 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%. 22 months are hatched here; 10 of them have no statements.
In Weber’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 2, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Housing and Community Development · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: GOP legislator · 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.
All 19 statements
Newest first, the NH 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: 19 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Weber talks about most: 44% of policy statements, 2.9 times the peer share. Peers give it 15%. Agreement with legislation needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Weber talks about. The bills Weber sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Weber talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NH 2025–26 session
0%57%
Weber
Peers
Health4 statements
44%
15%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues2 statements
22%
10%
Government Operations and Politics2 statements
22%
15%
Economics and Public Finance1 statements
11%
11%
Housing and Community Development1 statements
11%
6%
Show the data
| Row | Weber | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 44% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 22% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 22% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 11% |
| Housing and Community Development | 11% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Weber’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 57%. 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 | 44% | 15% | 52% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 22% | 10% | 4% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 22% | 15% | 37% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 11% | 11% | 0% | 2% |
| Housing and Community Development | 11% | 6% | 4% | 5% |
No agreement score.Needs at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills in the window.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Weber legislates on exactly the areas Weber 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 Weber sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Weber sits at −0.43 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 77% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.48 to −0.38, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 1,159 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”.
−0.43
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.48 to −0.38. From 0 donors and 1,159 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Weber, 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 Weber’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 Weber sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
New Hampshire House382 · median 0.0
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Weber |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 77% |
| New Hampshire House | 382 | 0.0 | 14% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 35% |
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 Weber 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 Weber.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Weber voted with the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 3.4% of 557 roll calls. New Hampshire House on average: 95.3% party unity, 89% attendance. Across all roll calls, Weber voted against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats 9 times.
557 roll calls Weber could vote on in the NH 2025–26 session, compared with New Hampshire 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 Weber voted with the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
9
votes against the majority of New Hampshire House Democrats
Party unity 99.3%, New Hampshire House average 95.3%, ranks 20th of 381. 557 roll calls in the NH 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Weber, the thin grey bar the New Hampshire House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Weber
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.5%
89%
136th of 382
Party unity
99.3%
95.3%
20th of 381
Show the data
| Row | Weber | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.5% | 89% |
| Party unity | 99.3% | 95.3% |
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 NH 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 2026 | HB 2026 relative to the state 10-year transportation improvement plan; relative to toll rate adjustments and periodic toll reviews for the New Hampshire turnpike system to support the 2027-2036 ten-year transportation plan; and relative to reconstruction of the Gregg Mill Road Bridge in the town of New Bost Veto Override | Yea | With majority | pass | D 143–0 · R 148–25 · I 1–0Democrats 143 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 148 yea, 25 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party crossover |
| Aug 19, 2026 | HB 1358 establishing a commission to study transitioning all public schools to public charter schools. Veto Override | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–143 · R 149–23 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 143 nay; Republicans 149 yea, 23 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote · party crossover |
| Aug 19, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–139 · R 161–9 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 139 nay; Republicans 161 yea, 9 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Aug 19, 2026 | Nay | With majority | pass | D 0–142 · R 158–13 · I 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 142 nay; Republicans 158 yea, 13 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Aug 19, 2026 | HB 1726 relative to the sale of surplus state-owned land and establishing a commission to study the sale of state-owned property. Veto Override | Nay | With majority | fail | D 2–135 · R 98–71 · I 1–0Democrats 2 yea, 135 nay; Republicans 98 yea, 71 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 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 Weber most often
- Beth RichardsD316 shared votes99%
- Marjorie SmithD464 shared votes99%
- Peter BixbyD535 shared votes99%
- Suzanne ChretienD519 shared votes98%
- Karen HegnerD385 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Weber least often
- Harry BeanR277 shared votes4.3%
- John LeavittR311 shared votes5.1%
- Kevin VervilleR339 shared votes5.6%
- Vanessa SheehanR505 shared votes6.1%
- Jose CambrilsR431 shared votes6.5%
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
NH 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Weber sponsored 2 bills in the NH 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 21 others.
The bills Weber sponsored and cosponsored in the NH 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 NH 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 21 | 21 | 14 | 5 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Weber sponsored, ochre blocks bills Weber cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
No effectiveness score.Too few sponsored bills to score (at least 5 are needed).
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Weber, by number of shared bills in the NH 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Cindy Rosenwald12
- Rebecca Perkins Kwoka10
- Sue Prentiss9
- David Watters7
- Laura Telerski7
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 Weber’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 650 | relative to use of cannabis products for therapeutic purposes by alternative treatment centers. | Cosponsor | Jan 7, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Pending Motion Interim Study; 03/26/2026; SJ 7 Mar 26, 2026 |
| HB 1794 | directing the department of health and human services to identify the impact of Medicaid changes on New Hampshire residents' access to health care. | Cosponsor | Dec 17, 2025 | In committee | Health(model) | Minority Committee Report: Ought to Pass Mar 4, 2026 |
| HB 1760 | repealing the directive that the department of health and human services seek a waiver to establish pharmacy copayment and premium requirements under the state Medicaid plan and making an appropriation therefor. | Cosponsor | Dec 17, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Health(model) | Inexpedient to Legislate: MA RC 184-153 03/12/2026 HJ 8 P. 82 Mar 13, 2026 |
| HB 1518 | permitting remote participation at county delegation meetings. | Cosponsor | Dec 10, 2025 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Inexpedient to Legislate: MA VV 02/05/2026 HJ 3 P. 17 Feb 5, 2026 |
| HR 42 | honoring the life and legacy of Melissa Hortman. | Cosponsor | Dec 4, 2025 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Ought to Pass: MA RC 308-11 03/05/2026 HJ 6 P. 122 Mar 5, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Weber’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Weber’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 Weber posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/member.aspx?member=376668Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages 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 Weber posted
No images from Weber’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 Weber is most unusual among New Hampshire House, 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
- a6790cd1-6b7a-48f9-b48c-b298929578a4
- Open States
- ocd-person/a6790cd1-6b7a-48f9-b48c-b298929578a4
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