Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 7, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Economics and Public Finance; Immigration · Source
4.3×
the State House Republican rate of personal attacks
12% of 628 statements contain a personal attack (78 statements); the average for State House Republicans is 2.9%. Ranks 36th of 791, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Ehardt’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 House Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 2.4% of Ehardt’s statements use an extreme label, 1.7 times the State House Republican average of 1.4%. 88% of Ehardt’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Idaho, in the bottom half of State House Republicans.
The measures on which Ehardt sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Personal attacks
12%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 36th of 791
Party unity
96.5%
Idaho House average 84% · ranks 6th of 64 · 69 votes against the majority of Idaho House Republicans
Attendance
99.4%
Idaho House average 96.8% · ranks 15th of 64 · 916 roll calls
Extreme labels
2.4%
State House Republicans average 1.4% · ranks 165th of 791
From Idaho, 2026
88%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1727th of 2,335 State House Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.31
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Ehardt, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Ehardt is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Ehardt says
Ehardt attacks opponents personally more than 95% of State House Republicans. Personal attacks in 12% of 628 statements, against 2.9% for the average State House Republican; 36th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Ehardt’s 628 statements in the ID 2025–26 session (628 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the ID 2025–26 session
0%80%
Ehardt
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion135 statements
22%
32%
532nd of 791
Personal attacks78 statements
12%
3%
36th of 791
Credit claiming65 statements
10%
13%
393rd of 791
Policy criticism42 statements
7%
9%
384th of 791
Bipartisanship6 statements
1%
2%
412th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Ehardt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 22% | 32% |
| Personal attacks | 12% | 3% |
| Credit claiming | 10% | 13% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
628
statements classified
628 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 628 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Ehardt; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Ehardt does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Ehardt used extreme labels in 2.4% of statements, above the peer average. 15 statements, most often aimed at BLM; peers 1.4%.
- “communist”1
- “far left”1
- “fascist”1
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- BLM1
- D’s1
- far left1
- JebraFaushay1
- RINO1
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 ID 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 30 | 33.3% | 3.3% | 13.3% | 0.0% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 67 | 6.0% | 9.0% | 31.3% | 0.0% | 29.8% | 1.5% |
| Mar ’25 | 31 | 6.5% | 6.5% | 16.1% | 6.5% | 19.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 55 | 10.9% | 5.5% | 18.2% | 1.8% | 12.7% | 3.6% |
| May ’25 | 20 | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 37 | 29.7% | 5.4% | 16.2% | 0.0% | 5.4% | 2.7% |
| Jul ’25 | 54 | 11.1% | 11.1% | 20.4% | 1.8% | 9.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 47 | 10.6% | 2.1% | 12.8% | 0.0% | 6.4% | 10.6% |
| Sep ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 14.8% | 22.2% | 0.0% | 14.8% | 3.7% |
| Oct ’25 | 47 | 8.5% | 8.5% | 10.6% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 34 | 8.8% | 14.7% | 14.7% | 2.9% | 0.0% | 5.9% |
| Dec ’25 | 12 | 25.0% | 8.3% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 16.7% |
| Jan ’26 | 34 | 5.9% | 0.0% | 35.3% | 0.0% | 8.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 15 | 13.3% | 6.7% | 13.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% |
| Mar ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 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) |
| Jun ’26 | 16 | 6.3% | 12.5% | 18.8% | 0.0% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 20 | 20.0% | 5.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 5.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 42 | 23.8% | 7.1% | 52.4% | 0.0% | 4.8% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 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) |
| Oct ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 ID 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%. 3 months are hatched here.
In Ehardt’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.
Aug 31, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: gnosisnlaw, MarieEggleston9, OleBeeM, Riley Gaines · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 9, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; extreme label “extreme” aimed at BLM; target: mayor · 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: gnosisnlaw, MarieEggleston9, OleBeeM, Riley GainesSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · HealthSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · HealthSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: nbjansenSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Matt CalkinsSource
All 628 statements
Newest first, the ID 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: 628 posts on X.
Policy
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues is what Ehardt talks about most: 48% of policy statements, 7.8 times the peer share. Peers give it 6.2%. 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 Ehardt talks about. The bills Ehardt sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Ehardt talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the ID 2025–26 session
0%100%
Ehardt
Peers
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues64 statements
48%
6%
Education30 statements
22%
15%
Law14 statements
10%
3%
Government Operations and Politics13 statements
10%
18%
Health11 statements
8%
10%
Show the data
| Row | Ehardt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 48% | 6% |
| Education | 22% | 15% |
| Law | 10% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 10% | 18% |
| Health | 8% | 10% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Ehardt’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 100%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 48% | 6% | 0% | 4% |
| Education | 22% | 15% | 0% | 9% |
| Law | 10% | 3% | 0% | 3% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 10% | 18% | 0% | 12% |
| Health | 8% | 10% | 0% | 10% |
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 Ehardt legislates on exactly the areas Ehardt 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 Ehardt sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Ehardt sits at +0.31 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 58% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.29 to +0.33, which understates the uncertainty; from 172 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”.
+0.31
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.29 to +0.33. From 172 donors and 1,184 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Ehardt, 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 Ehardt’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 Ehardt sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Idaho House70 · median +0.1
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Ehardt |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 42% |
| Idaho House | 70 | +0.1 | 66% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 68% |
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 Ehardt 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 Ehardt.
Money
Ehardt reported $41.3K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. State filings report no small-donation total. 88% of itemized individual money came from Idaho.
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.
$41.3K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 68 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)55 squares$22.7K
- PACs and other committees38 squares$15.6K
- Party committees7 squares$3,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $22.7K | 55.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $15.6K | 37.7% |
| Party committees | $3,000 | 7.3% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $33.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $46.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $25.1K |
| 2026 cycle | $41.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 88% came from Idaho.
- Idaho$20.0K
- Delaware$1,500
- North Carolina$1,000
- Utah$209
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 |
|---|---|
| Idaho | $20.0K |
| Delaware | $1,500 |
| North Carolina | $1,000 |
| Utah | $209 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Illinois | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Arizona | 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 |
| Florida | No data |
68
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
88%
from Idaho
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 Idaho. 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.
- BONNEVILLE COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE$2,000
- IDAHO SUMMIT PAC$2,000
- IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,500
- AMALGAMATED SUGAR COMPANY PAC$1,000
- CANNON, DAVID$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Ehardt voted with the majority of Idaho House Republicans on 96.5% of party-line votes and missed 0.5% of 916 roll calls. Idaho House on average: 84% party unity, 96.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Ehardt voted against the majority of Idaho House Republicans 69 times.
916 roll calls Ehardt could vote on in the ID 2025–26 session, compared with Idaho 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 Ehardt voted with the majority of Idaho House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
69
votes against the majority of Idaho House Republicans
Party unity 96.5%, Idaho House average 84%, ranks 6th of 64. 916 roll calls in the ID 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Ehardt, the thin grey bar the Idaho House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Ehardt
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.4%
96.8%
15th of 64
Party unity
96.5%
84%
6th of 64
Show the data
| Row | Ehardt | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.4% | 96.8% |
| Party unity | 96.5% | 84% |
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 ID 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 516 EDUCATION – Amends and adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding the prohibition of taxpayer funding of teachers unions. passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–9 · R 38–15Democrats 0 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 38 yea, 15 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 978 APPROPRIATIONS – HEALTH AND WELFARE – PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES – Relates to the appropriation to the Department of Health and Welfare for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended: Ayes 58 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 12, read in full as required – | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 6–3 · R 27–22Democrats 6 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 27 yea, 22 nay | became law · close vote · party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 975 APPROPRIATIONS – Relates to the appropriation and transfer of moneys in the state treasury for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended: Ayes 59 Nays 6 Abs/Excd 5, read in full as required – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 1–8 · R 39–13Democrats 1 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 39 yea, 13 nay | party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 974 APPROPRIATIONS – IDAHO STATE POLICE – Relates to the appropriation to the Idaho State Police for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended: Ayes 58 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 12, read in full as required – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 48–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 48 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | S 1438 APPROPRIATIONS – PUBLIC SCHOOLS – IDAHO DIGITAL LEARNING ACADEMY DIVISION – Relates to the appropriation to the Public Schools Educational Support Program’s Division of the Idaho Digital Learning Academy for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended: Ayes 59 Nays 6 Abs/Excd 5, read in full as required – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–9 · R 33–19Democrats 0 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 33 yea, 19 nay | became law · 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 Ehardt most often
- Jeff EhlersR901 shared votes93%
- Kevin AndrusR444 shared votes92%
- Jason MonksR911 shared votes92%
- Ted HillR882 shared votes92%
- Ron MendiveR901 shared votes91%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Ehardt least often
- Steve BerchD866 shared votes63%
- Brooke GreenD732 shared votes65%
- Chris MathiasD849 shared votes66%
- Monica ChurchD868 shared votes66%
- Ilana RubelD841 shared votes66%
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
ID 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Ehardt sponsored 1 bill in the ID 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others.
The bills Ehardt sponsored and cosponsored in the ID 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 ID 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Ehardt sponsored, ochre blocks bills Ehardt 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 Ehardt, by number of shared bills in the ID 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
No cosponsorship ties in this window.
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 Ehardt’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H 488 | ANNEXATION BY CITIES – Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding costs associated with the annexation of certain property by cities. | Sponsor | Apr 4, 2025 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | Reported Printed; Filed in the Office of the Chief Clerk Apr 4, 2025 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Ehardt’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Ehardt’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 Ehardt posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages 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.
Images Ehardt posted
No images from Ehardt’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 Ehardt is most unusual among State House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- c8c374b3-22b8-4221-a65a-6a4616cb107d
- Open States
- ocd-person/c8c374b3-22b8-4221-a65a-6a4616cb107d
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