CSIP score +0.05 (approximate range +0.03 to +0.06, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 0 donors and 1,167 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Boner sits among State Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. Boner reported $6,500 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans (median $46.2K). 89% of the 9 bills Boner sponsored got out of committee, in the top quarter of the Wyoming Senate.
The measures on which Boner sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 89% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.02
Itemized, 2026
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 802nd of 936
Party unity
Wyoming Senate average 77% · ranks 6th of 31 · 86 votes against the majority of Wyoming Senate Republicans
Attendance
Wyoming Senate average 98.0% · ranks 7th of 31 · 817 roll calls
Out of committee
Wyoming Senate average 76% · ranks 7th of 24
Talk-to-bills agreement
State Senate Republicans average 0.52 · ranks 143rd of 226
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Boner, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Boner is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Boner stresses bipartisanship more than 78% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 3.7% of 54 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 77th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Boner’s 54 statements in the WY 2025–26 session (54 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the WY 2025–26 session
| Row | Boner | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 48% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 24% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 2% |
statements classified
54 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 54 |
The thick bar is Boner; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Boner does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Boner used extreme labels in 3.7% of statements, 2.9 times the peer average. 2 statements; peers 1.3%.
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 WY 2025–26 session
No month in this window has 10 or more statements, too few to chart month by month.
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 WY 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%. 22 months are hatched here; 3 of them have no statements.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Water Resources Development; Transportation and Public Works; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Apr 28, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 17, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Public Lands and Natural Resources; extreme label “extreme” · 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.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Senator CaseSource
Newest first, the WY 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: 54 posts on X.
Government Operations and Politics is what Boner talks about most: 23% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.49 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 143rd of 226).
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 Boner talks about. The bills Boner sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the WY 2025–26 session
| Row | Boner | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 17% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 19% | 6% |
| Energy | 15% | 6% |
| Water Resources Development | 15% | 2% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 6% |
The thick bar is the share of Boner’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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.
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 Republicans averages.
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 17% | 16% | 12% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 19% | 6% | 5% | 2% |
| Energy | 15% | 6% | 8% | 3% |
| Water Resources Development | 15% | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| Agriculture and Food | 12% | 6% | 9% | 3% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 143rd of 226.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Boner legislates on exactly the areas Boner 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 Boner sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Boner sits at +0.05 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 89% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.03 to +0.06, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 1,167 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 +0.06. From 0 donors and 1,167 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Boner, 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 Boner’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 Boner |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 11% |
| Wyoming Senate | 31 | 0.0 | 55% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 49% |
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 Boner 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 Boner.
Boner reported $6,500 in the 2026 cycle, 14% of the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total.
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 0 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| PACs and other committees | $6,500 | 100.0% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $3,250 |
| 2022 cycle | $450 |
| 2024 cycle | $1,750 |
| 2026 cycle | $6,500 |
Itemized contributions by donor state.
No itemized donors with an address.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| 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
No itemized individual money.
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Wyoming. 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.
Boner voted with the majority of Wyoming Senate Republicans on 91.4% of party-line votes and missed 0.5% of 817 roll calls. Wyoming Senate on average: 77% party unity, 98.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Boner voted against the majority of Wyoming Senate Republicans 86 times.
817 roll calls Boner could vote on in the WY 2025–26 session, compared with Wyoming 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 Boner voted with the majority of Wyoming Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Wyoming Senate Republicans
Party unity 91.4%, Wyoming Senate average 77%, ranks 6th of 31. 817 roll calls in the WY 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Boner, the thin grey bar the Wyoming Senate average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Boner | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.5% | 98.0% |
| Party unity | 91.4% | 77% |
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.
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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 Boner most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Boner 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.
WY 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Boner sponsored 9 bills in the WY 2025–26 session; 6 became law. Cosponsored 94 others. 89% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Wyoming Senate average 76%; 7th of 24).
The bills Boner sponsored and cosponsored in the WY 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 WY 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 9 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 6 |
| Cosponsored | 94 | 82 | 50 | 20 | 18 |
Ink blocks are bills Boner sponsored, ochre blocks bills Boner 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
Wyoming Senate average 76%. Ranks 7th of 24.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Boner, by number of shared bills in the WY 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 Boner’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SF 117 | Zoning protest petition-amendments. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Housing and Community Development(model) | H No report prior to CoW Cutoff Mar 3, 2026 |
| SF 110 | Residential property tax revisions. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Taxation(model) | H 3rd Reading:Failed 30-31-1-0-0 Mar 5, 2026 |
| SF 112 | Elimination of license plate replacement cycle. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | S:Died in Committee Returned Bill Pursuant to SR 5-4 Mar 4, 2026 |
| SF 116 | Surface water drainage utilities. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Water Resources Development(model) | S 3rd Reading:Passed 17-14-0-0-0 Feb 24, 2026 |
| HB 180 | Amending local surface water runoff system authority. | Cosponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | Introduced | Water Resources Development(model) | H Did not Consider for Introduction Feb 14, 2026 |
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Boner’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Boner’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 Boner posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
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 Boner’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.
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
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 Boner is most unusual among State Senate 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
