Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 10, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
$200
in itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom 5% of State House Democrats
The median for State House Democrats is $40.4K. Ranks 2069th of 2,082, where 1st raised the most. 2 itemized donors.
Itemized contributions reported to the state in the 2026 cycle, ranked among State House Democrats. State filings leave small gifts out, and totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. 8.7% of Batista’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom tenth of State House Democrats (average 39%). 50% of Batista’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Rhode Island, in the bottom tenth of State House Democrats.
The measures on which Batista 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.
Itemized, 2026
$200
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 2069th of 2,082
Policy discussion
8.7%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 714th of 764
From Rhode Island, 2026
50%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1824th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Credit claiming
2.3%
State House Democrats average 14% · ranks 637th of 764
Attendance
86%
Rhode Island House average 90.9% · ranks 64th of 74 · 1,359 roll calls
CSIP ideology
−0.82
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.08
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Batista, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Batista is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Batista says
Batista claims credit less than 83% of State House Democrats. Credit claiming in 2.3% of 219 statements, against 14% for the average State House Democrat; 637th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Batista’s 219 statements in the RI 2025–26 session (219 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 RI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Batista
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion19 statements
9%
39%
714th of 764
Credit claiming5 statements
2%
14%
637th of 764
Policy criticism4 statements
2%
10%
616th of 764
Personal attacks3 statements
1%
3%
301st of 764
Bipartisanship1 statements
0%
3%
576th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Batista | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 9% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 2% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 2% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 3% |
219
statements classified
219 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 219 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Batista; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Batista does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Batista used no extreme labels in 219 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 RI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 16.7% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 9 | — (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 ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 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) |
| Aug ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 12 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 8.3% | 8.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 5 | — (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 | 6 | — (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 | 9 | — (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 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 30.8% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 9 | — (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 | 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) |
| Aug ’26 | 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 ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 30 | 10.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 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 RI 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%. 10 months are hatched here.
In Batista’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.
Mar 5, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement · 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: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: zackwaxxSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Joe BidenSource
All 219 statements
Newest first, the RI 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: 219 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Batista talks about most: 26% of policy statements, 3.3 times the peer share. Peers give it 8.0%. 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 Batista talks about. The bills Batista sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Batista talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the RI 2025–26 session
0%35%
Batista
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement5 statements
26%
8%
Education3 statements
16%
15%
Government Operations and Politics3 statements
16%
15%
Immigration3 statements
16%
4%
Families2 statements
11%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Batista | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 26% | 8% |
| Education | 16% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 15% |
| Immigration | 16% | 4% |
| Families | 11% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Batista’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 26% | 8% | 21% | 9% |
| Education | 16% | 15% | 8% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 15% | 7% | 8% |
| Immigration | 16% | 4% | 3% | 1% |
| Families | 11% | 5% | 1% | 3% |
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 Batista legislates on exactly the areas Batista 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 Batista sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Batista sits at −0.82 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 77% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.89 to −0.74, which understates the uncertainty; from 48 donors and 766 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”.
−0.82
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.89 to −0.74. From 48 donors and 766 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Batista, 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 Batista’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 Batista sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Rhode Island House74 · median −0.7
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Batista |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 23% |
| Rhode Island House | 74 | −0.7 | 41% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 11% |
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 Batista 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 Batista.
Money
Batista reported $200 in the 2026 cycle, 0.5% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 50% of itemized individual money came from Rhode Island.
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.
$200
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 2 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)100 squares$200
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $200 | 100.0% |
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 | $14.3K |
| 2022 cycle | $5,500 |
| 2024 cycle | $2,540 |
| 2026 cycle | $200 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 50% came from Rhode Island.
- Rhode Island$100
- Connecticut$100
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 |
|---|---|
| Rhode Island | $100 |
| Connecticut | $100 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
2
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
50%
from Rhode Island
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 Rhode Island. 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.
No committee contributions this cycle.
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Batista voted with the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats on 96.6% of party-line votes and missed 14% of 1,359 roll calls. Rhode Island House on average: 94.0% party unity, 90.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Batista voted against the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats 17 times.
1,359 roll calls Batista could vote on in the RI 2025–26 session, compared with Rhode Island 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 Batista voted with the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
17
votes against the majority of Rhode Island House Democrats
Party unity 96.6%, Rhode Island House average 94.0%, ranks 42nd of 74. 1,359 roll calls in the RI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Batista, the thin grey bar the Rhode Island House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Batista
Peers
Rank
Attendance
86%
90.9%
64th of 74
Party unity
96.6%
94.0%
42nd of 74
Show the data
| Row | Batista | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 86% | 90.9% |
| Party unity | 96.6% | 94.0% |
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 RI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 57–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 57 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | HR 8351 JOINT RESOLUTION CREATING A SPECIAL JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION TO STUDY RHODE ISLAND'S EDUCATION FUNDING FORMULA AND EDUCATION FINANCE SYSTEM PASSAGE OF AMENDMENT | Yea | With majority | pass | D 52–0 · R 9–0 · I 1–0Democrats 52 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 9 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 11, 2026 | SB 3358 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CRANSTON TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION, IMPROVEMENT, RENOVATION AND REPAIR OF FIRE AND PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT BY THE ISSUANCE OF NOT MORE THAN $8,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND NOTES THEREFOR IN CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 57–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 57 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 57–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 57 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 55–0 · R 10–0 · I 1–0Democrats 55 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became law |
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 Batista most often
- Rebecca KislakD1,136 shared votes99%
- Brandon PotterD1,105 shared votes99%
- Mia AckermanD1,102 shared votes99%
- Chris BlazejewskiD706 shared votes99%
- Grace DiazD1,001 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Batista least often
- Sherry RobertsR1,068 shared votes74%
- Bob QuattrocchiR1,018 shared votes75%
- Paul SantucciR1,126 shared votes77%
- David PlaceR1,107 shared votes78%
- Mike ChippendaleR1,147 shared votes78%
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
RI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Batista sponsored 184 bills in the RI 2025–26 session; 15 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 29% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Rhode Island House average 39%; 57th of 74).
The bills Batista sponsored and cosponsored in the RI 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 RI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 184 | 184 | 53 | 15 | 15 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Batista sponsored, ochre blocks bills Batista cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
29%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Rhode Island House average 39%. Ranks 57th of 74.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Batista, by number of shared bills in the RI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- David Morales79
- Brandon Potter74
- Leo Felix70
- Jennifer Stewart69
- Cherie Cruz66
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 Batista’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 8638 | HOUSE RESOLUTION HONORING REPRESENTATIVE DAVID MORALES FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND | Sponsor | Jun 11, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 06/11/2026 House read and passed Jun 11, 2026 |
| HR 8616 | HOUSE RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING "WORLD REFUGEE DAY" AND RECOGNIZING THE WORK OF DORCAS INTERNATIONAL OF PROVIDENCE ON JUNE 20TH OF 2026, IN THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND | Sponsor | Jun 4, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 06/04/2026 House read and passed Jun 4, 2026 |
| HR 8574 | HOUSE RESOLUTION JOYOUSLY CELEBRATING THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE RHODE ISLAND HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ON MAY 19TH, 2026 | Sponsor | May 21, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | 05/21/2026 House read and passed May 21, 2026 |
| HB 8508 | AN ACT RELATING TO TAXATION -- PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION | Sponsor | May 1, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Taxation(model) | 06/08/2026 House read and passed Jun 8, 2026 |
| HB 8336 | AN ACT RELATING TO EDUCATION -- RHODE ISLAND HOPE SCHOLARSHIP PILOT PROGRAM ACT | Sponsor | Mar 20, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | 04/30/2026 Committee recommended measure be held for further study Apr 30, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Batista’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Batista’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 Batista posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
www.rilegislature.gov/representatives/batista/Pages/Biography.aspxLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
Images Batista posted
No images from Batista’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
3 turns, May 26, 2026 to Jun 10, 2026
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Batista 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
- be85e7a9-0455-4e02-92f7-834710d0e401
- Open States
- ocd-person/be85e7a9-0455-4e02-92f7-834710d0e401
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