Party unity 43%, the lowest of 149 in the New York House (average 92.9%). 2,019 roll calls in the NY 2025–26 session.
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 Buttenschon voted with the majority of New York House Democrats; it is ranked within the New York House. The count covers every roll call where Buttenschon voted opposite that majority.
6 measures against State House Democrats. Buttenschon sits at −0.02 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 99% of State House Democrats. 54% of the 241 bills Buttenschon sponsored got out of committee, in the top tenth of the New York House.
The measures on which Buttenschon 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.
Party unity
New York House average 92.9% · ranks 149th of 149 · 315 votes against the majority of New York House Democrats
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 99% of State House Democrats · ± 0.01
Out of committee
New York House average 20% · ranks 9th of 148
Credit claiming
State House Democrats average 14% · ranks 66th of 764
From New York, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 195th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1781st of 2,082
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Buttenschon, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Buttenschon is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Buttenschon attacks opponents personally less than 76% of State House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0% of 314 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 584th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Buttenschon’s 314 statements in the NY 2025–26 session (314 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the NY 2025–26 session
| Row | Buttenschon | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 42% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 32% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 2% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
statements classified
314 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 314 |
The thick bar is Buttenschon; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Buttenschon does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Buttenschon used no extreme labels in 314 statements. The peer average is 1.0%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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.
Share of statements per month, the NY 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 37 | 0.0% | 5.4% | 46.0% | 5.4% | 27.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 48 | 0.0% | 2.1% | 58.3% | 4.2% | 37.5% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 50 | 0.0% | 2.0% | 52.0% | 2.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 50 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 36.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 50 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 44 | 0.0% | 4.5% | 38.6% | 0.0% | 38.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’25 | 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) |
| Oct ’25 | 29 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 41.4% | 6.9% | 44.8% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| 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) |
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 NY 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; 12 of them have no statements.
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 10, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Labor and Employment; Commerce · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 31, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Emergency Management · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 16, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Housing and Community Development · Source
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.
Newest first, the NY 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 314 posts on X.
Education is what Buttenschon talks about most: 18% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.55 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 249th 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 Buttenschon talks about. The bills Buttenschon sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the NY 2025–26 session
| Row | Buttenschon | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 18% | 15% |
| Health | 13% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 11% | 5% |
| Commerce | 11% | 3% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 8% | 3% |
The thick bar is the share of Buttenschon’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.
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.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 18% | 15% | 8% | 10% |
| Health | 13% | 15% | 17% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 11% | 5% | 1% | 3% |
| Commerce | 11% | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 8% | 3% | 3% | 1% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 249th of 503.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Buttenschon legislates on exactly the areas Buttenschon 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 Buttenschon sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Buttenschon sits at −0.02 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 99% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.03 to 0.00, which understates the uncertainty; from 440 donors and 1,184 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.03 to 0.00. From 440 donors and 1,184 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Buttenschon, 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 Buttenschon’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Buttenschon |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 99% |
| New York House | 150 | −0.5 | 68% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 47% |
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 Buttenschon 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 Buttenschon.
Buttenschon reported $6,325 in the 2026 cycle, 16% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 100% of itemized individual money came from New York.
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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 5 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $3,125 | 49.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $3,200 | 50.6% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $217.8K |
| 2022 cycle | $272.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $233.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $6,325 |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 100% came from New York.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New York | $3,125 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from New York
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is New York. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Buttenschon voted with the majority of New York House Democrats on 43% of party-line votes and missed 2.3% of 2,019 roll calls. New York House on average: 92.9% party unity, 93.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Buttenschon voted against the majority of New York House Democrats 315 times.
2,019 roll calls Buttenschon could vote on in the NY 2025–26 session, compared with New York 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 Buttenschon voted with the majority of New York House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of New York House Democrats
Party unity 43%, New York House average 92.9%, ranks 149th of 149. 2,019 roll calls in the NY 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Buttenschon, the thin grey bar the New York House average. The scale runs from 40% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Buttenschon | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.7% | 93.9% |
| Party unity | 43% | 92.9% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the NY 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 86–0 · R 43–0Democrats 86 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 5, 2026 | S 10001 Provides for a license to sell liquor at retail for consumption on certain premises Assembly Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 85–2 · R 43–0Democrats 85 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 5, 2026 | S 10655 Relates to the compensation, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment of certain state officers and employees; repealer Assembly Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 86–0 · R 43–0Democrats 86 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 43 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 64–23 · R 30–13Democrats 64 yea, 23 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 66–21 · R 30–13Democrats 66 yea, 21 nay; Republicans 30 yea, 13 nay | became law · party crossover |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Buttenschon most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Buttenschon least often
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.
NY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Buttenschon sponsored 241 bills in the NY 2025–26 session; 2 became law. Cosponsored 392 others. 54% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New York House average 20%; 9th of 148).
The bills Buttenschon sponsored and cosponsored in the NY 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.
Counts for the NY 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 241 | 241 | 129 | 4 | 2 |
| Cosponsored | 392 | 392 | 57 | 41 | 17 |
Ink blocks are bills Buttenschon sponsored, ochre blocks bills Buttenschon cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
New York House average 20%. Ranks 9th of 148.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Buttenschon, by number of shared bills in the NY 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Buttenschon’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| A 11647 | Establishes the 2-1-1 essential community services hotline system | Cosponsor | Jul 29, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | REFERRED TO SOCIAL SERVICES Jul 29, 2026 |
| K 1566 | Commemorating the 58th Anniversary of Stevener's Backhoe Service | Sponsor | Jun 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ADOPTED Jun 2, 2026 |
| K 1567 | Commemorating the 65th Annual Floyd Field Days | Sponsor | Jun 2, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ADOPTED Jun 2, 2026 |
| A 11538 | Extends the expansion of eligibility for World Trade Center death and disability benefits for members of New York's organized militia | Cosponsor | Jun 1, 2026 | Became law | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | SIGNED CHAP.294 Sep 10, 2026 |
| K 1542 | Commemorating the 70th Anniversary of King Pin Lanes of Rome, New York | Sponsor | Jun 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ADOPTED Jun 1, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Buttenschon’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Buttenschon’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 Buttenschon posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Buttenschon’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
410 turns, Feb 27, 2020 to Jun 4, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Buttenschon 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
