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; credit claiming; Taxation · Source
7.4×
the State Senate Democrat rate of personal attacks
18% of 701 statements contain a personal attack (123 statements); the average for State Senate Democrats is 2.4%. Ranks 6th of 329, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Skoufis’s posts on X and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. The policy areas Skoufis talks about and legislates on agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale, in the top 5% of State Senate Democrats. Skoufis reported $756.0K in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of State Senate Democrats (median $55.5K).
The measures on which Skoufis sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Personal attacks
18%
State Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 6th of 329
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.69
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 11th of 228
Itemized, 2026
$756.0K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 28th of 746
CSIP ideology
−0.29
More conservative than 92% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.02
Extreme labels
2.1%
State Senate Democrats average 0.8% · ranks 45th of 329
Attendance
100%
New York Senate average 94.5% · ranks 10th of 62 · 3,522 roll calls
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Skoufis, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Skoufis is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Skoufis says
Skoufis attacks opponents personally more than 98% of State Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 18% of 701 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 6th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Skoufis’s 701 statements in the NY 2025–26 session (701 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the NY 2025–26 session
0%80%
Skoufis
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion224 statements
32%
43%
235th of 329
Personal attacks123 statements
18%
2%
6th of 329
Policy criticism120 statements
17%
10%
76th of 329
Credit claiming75 statements
11%
16%
196th of 329
Bipartisanship17 statements
2%
3%
163rd of 329
Show the data
| Row | Skoufis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 32% | 43% |
| Personal attacks | 18% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 17% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 11% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
701
statements classified
701 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 701 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Skoufis; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Skoufis does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Skoufis used extreme labels in 2.1% of statements, 2.6 times the peer average. 15 statements, most often aimed at far right; peers 0.8%.
- “fascist”3
- “far right”2
- “MAGA”1
- “communist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- far right2
- Biden1
- Democrat1
- MAGA-led states1
- NRA1
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 NY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 80 | 15.0% | 7.5% | 16.3% | 2.5% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 55 | 30.9% | 9.1% | 20.0% | 1.8% | 7.3% | 3.6% |
| Mar ’25 | 34 | 17.6% | 26.5% | 38.2% | 0.0% | 5.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 26 | 23.1% | 11.5% | 19.2% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 20 | 15.0% | 30.0% | 30.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 19 | 10.5% | 26.3% | 31.6% | 0.0% | 26.3% | 5.3% |
| Jul ’25 | 26 | 19.2% | 30.8% | 34.6% | 7.7% | 7.7% | 3.9% |
| Aug ’25 | 61 | 22.9% | 29.5% | 34.4% | 0.0% | 9.8% | 3.3% |
| Sep ’25 | 53 | 22.6% | 11.3% | 17.0% | 3.8% | 3.8% | 9.4% |
| Oct ’25 | 45 | 35.6% | 20.0% | 28.9% | 2.2% | 2.2% | 8.9% |
| Nov ’25 | 34 | 2.9% | 32.4% | 38.2% | 5.9% | 14.7% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 20 | 15.0% | 0.0% | 35.0% | 0.0% | 15.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 47 | 10.6% | 12.8% | 55.3% | 4.3% | 10.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 15 | 13.3% | 26.7% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 13.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 11 | 27.3% | 18.2% | 18.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 15 | 6.7% | 6.7% | 26.7% | 0.0% | 13.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 21 | 4.8% | 9.5% | 52.4% | 4.8% | 23.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 42 | 11.9% | 28.6% | 40.5% | 4.8% | 11.9% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 16 | 25.0% | 12.5% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 6.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 23 | 8.7% | 8.7% | 39.1% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 14 | 7.1% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 24 | 8.3% | 12.5% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 12.5% | 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 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%.
In Skoufis’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.
Oct 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Al Gross · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 15, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Peter Giunta; target: Peter Giunta · 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: Al GrossSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: LawlerSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: prior mayorsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law EnforcementSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: politic claritySource
All 701 statements
Newest first, the NY 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: 701 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Skoufis talks about most: 27% of policy statements, 1.9 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 11th of 228).
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 Skoufis talks about. The bills Skoufis sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Skoufis talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NY 2025–26 session
0%35%
Skoufis
Peers
Government Operations and Politics61 statements
27%
14%
Health36 statements
16%
17%
Economics and Public Finance34 statements
15%
10%
Commerce27 statements
12%
4%
Education20 statements
9%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Skoufis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 27% | 14% |
| Health | 16% | 17% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 10% |
| Commerce | 12% | 4% |
| Education | 9% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Skoufis’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 27% | 14% | 16% | 8% |
| Health | 16% | 17% | 15% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 15% | 10% | 2% | 3% |
| Commerce | 12% | 4% | 9% | 4% |
| Education | 9% | 15% | 5% | 9% |
0.69
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 11th of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Skoufis legislates on exactly the areas Skoufis 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 Skoufis sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Skoufis sits at −0.29 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 92% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.31 to −0.27, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,805 donors and 1,200 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”.
−0.29
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.31 to −0.27. From 1,805 donors and 1,200 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Skoufis, 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 Skoufis’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 Skoufis sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
New York Senate62 · median −0.5
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Skoufis |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 92% |
| New York Senate | 62 | −0.5 | 61% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 40% |
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 Skoufis 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 Skoufis.
Money
Skoufis reported $756.0K in the 2026 cycle, 13.6 times the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 90% 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.
$756.0K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 375 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)66 squares$500.1K
- PACs and other committees34 squares$255.1K
- Party committees$750
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $500.1K | 66.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $255.1K | 33.7% |
| Party committees | $750 | 0.1% |
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $688.7K |
| 2022 cycle | $1.2M |
| 2024 cycle | $1.3M |
| 2026 cycle | $756.0K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 90% came from New York.
- New York$449.2K
- Maryland$20.0K
- Florida$16.7K
- Connecticut$7,250
- New Jersey$2,171
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 York | $449.2K |
| Maryland | $20.0K |
| Florida | $16.7K |
| Connecticut | $7,250 |
| New Jersey | $2,171 |
| California | $1,753 |
| Arizona | $1,500 |
| North Carolina | $1,500 |
| Virginia | $50 |
| Michigan | $25 |
| Kentucky | $5 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | 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 |
375
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
90%
from New York
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 York. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$111.3K 71 donors
- REAL ESTATE$36.0K 12 donors
- PHYSICIAN$29.5K 28 donors
- CEO$23.6K 7 donors
- PRESIDENT$15.3K 5 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- STATE STREET ASSOCIATES PAC$5,250
- 1199 SEIU NYS PAF$5,000
- ASC PAC$5,000
- BW PAC$5,000
- CAIPA PAC$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NYCBS$44.3K 34 donors
- CEDAR LAKES ESTATE$10.0K 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Skoufis voted with the majority of New York Senate Democrats on 92.6% of party-line votes and missed none of 3,522 roll calls. New York Senate on average: 93.2% party unity, 94.5% attendance. Across all roll calls, Skoufis voted against the majority of New York Senate Democrats 355 times.
3,522 roll calls Skoufis could vote on in the NY 2025–26 session, compared with New York Senate. 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 Skoufis voted with the majority of New York Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
355
votes against the majority of New York Senate Democrats
Party unity 92.6%, New York Senate average 93.2%, ranks 44th of 62. 3,522 roll calls in the NY 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Skoufis, the thin grey bar the New York Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Skoufis
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
94.5%
10th of 62
Party unity
92.6%
93.2%
44th of 62
Show the data
| Row | Skoufis | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 94.5% |
| Party unity | 92.6% | 93.2% |
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 NY 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2026 | R 2355 Establishes a plan setting forth an itemized list of grantees for a certain appropriation for the 2026-27 state fiscal year for additional grants in aid to certain school districts, public libraries Floor Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 38–0 · R 15–7Democrats 38 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 7 nay | party crossover |
| Jun 4, 2026 | A 11538 Extends the expansion of eligibility for World Trade Center death and disability benefits for members of New York's organized militia Floor Vote | Yea | With majority | pass | D 38–0 · R 22–0Democrats 38 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Jun 4, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 38–0 · R 8–14Democrats 38 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 14 nay | party crossover | |
| Jun 4, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 38–0 · R 22–0Democrats 38 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 4, 2026 | S 10223 Authorizes the South End Children's Cafe to file an application for a retroactive real property tax exemption with the city of Albany assessor Floor Vote - Version: A | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 37–1 · R 21–1Democrats 37 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 21 yea, 1 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 Skoufis most often
- Pete HarckhamD3,522 shared votes93%
- Jessica Scarcella-SpantonD3,504 shared votes93%
- Kevin ParkerD2,460 shared votes92%
- Kristen GonzalezD3,376 shared votes92%
- Chris RyanD3,522 shared votes92%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Skoufis least often
- Mark WalczykR3,494 shared votes58%
- George BorrelloR3,473 shared votes68%
- Rob OrttR3,487 shared votes69%
- Tom O'MaraR3,400 shared votes70%
- Dan StecR3,490 shared votes70%
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
NY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Skoufis sponsored 441 bills in the NY 2025–26 session; 24 became law. Cosponsored 618 others. 39% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New York Senate average 44%; 39th of 62).
The bills Skoufis 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.
Bills by stage
Counts for the NY 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 441 | 441 | 105 | 41 | 24 |
| Cosponsored | 618 | 618 | 363 | 30 | 12 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Skoufis sponsored, ochre blocks bills Skoufis cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
39%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
New York Senate average 44%. Ranks 39th of 62.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Skoufis, by number of shared bills in the NY 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Robert Jackson183
- Pete Harckham133
- Lea Webb116
- Joe Addabbo109
- Chris Ryan108
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 Skoufis’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| J 2272 | Congratulating Daniel Casper of Briarcliff, New York, upon the occasion of representing the United States as an Olympic curler in the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games in February 2026 | Sponsor | May 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ADOPTED Jun 4, 2026 |
| J 2273 | Memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim May 2026 as Building Safety Month in the State of New York | Sponsor | May 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | ADOPTED Jun 4, 2026 |
| S 10593 | Relates to certain powers of the attorney general | Sponsor | May 28, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics(model) | REFERRED TO WAYS AND MEANS Jun 5, 2026 |
| S 10563 | Provides notice regarding the timeliness of the receipt by the board of elections of ballots capable of return by mail | Sponsor | May 22, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Government Operations and Politics(model) | REFERRED TO ELECTION LAW Jun 4, 2026 |
| S 10531 | Extends the effectiveness of chapter 435 of the laws of 2014 relating to defining spearguns and allowing recreational spearfishing in New York's marine and coastal waters | Sponsor | May 19, 2026 | In committee | Public Lands and Natural Resources(model) | SUBSTITUTED BY A11372 Jun 4, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Skoufis’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Skoufis’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 Skoufis posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 7
pages crawled
3changes 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 Skoufis posted
No images from Skoufis’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
705 turns, Feb 3, 2020 to Jun 4, 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 Skoufis is most unusual among State Senate 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
- c1f048f2-6e1d-4e1b-b161-d97e2f16c1f8
- Open States
- ocd-person/c1f048f2-6e1d-4e1b-b161-d97e2f16c1f8
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