2.1% of 5,393 statements claim credit (114 statements); the average for State Senate Republicans is 15%. Ranks 313th of 354, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Lenney’s posts on X and marks whether it claims credit for an accomplishment. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 5.8% of Lenney’s statements contain a personal attack, 2.6 times the State Senate Republican average of 2.3%. 16% of Lenney’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans (average 37%).
The measures on which Lenney 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.
Credit claiming
State Senate Republicans average 15% · ranks 313th of 354
Personal attacks
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 46th of 354
Policy discussion
State Senate Republicans average 37% · ranks 305th of 354
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 89% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
From Idaho, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 749th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Attendance
Idaho Senate average 97.3% · ranks 6th of 35 · 694 roll calls
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Lenney, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Lenney is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Lenney claims credit less than 88% of State Senate Republicans. Credit claiming in 2.1% of 5,393 statements, against 15% for the average State Senate Republican; 313th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Lenney’s 5,393 statements in the ID 2025–26 session (5,393 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 ID 2025–26 session
| Row | Lenney | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 16% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 8% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 6% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 2% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
statements classified
5,393 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 5,393 |
The thick bar is Lenney; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Lenney does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Lenney used extreme labels in 1.2% of statements, close to the peer average. 67 statements, most often aimed at Ada County; peers 1.3%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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 ID 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 405 | 7.6% | 9.9% | 14.6% | 0.5% | 4.0% | 0.3% |
| Feb ’25 | 416 | 4.6% | 10.8% | 19.7% | 0.5% | 3.9% | 2.2% |
| Mar ’25 | 276 | 6.2% | 12.0% | 20.3% | 0.4% | 6.9% | 0.7% |
| Apr ’25 | 210 | 2.9% | 6.7% | 11.4% | 0.5% | 3.3% | 0.9% |
| May ’25 | 217 | 5.5% | 6.0% | 9.7% | 0.0% | 0.5% | 2.8% |
| Jun ’25 | 285 | 7.0% | 5.6% | 10.2% | 0.4% | 0.7% | 1.1% |
| Jul ’25 | 322 | 4.0% | 4.3% | 7.1% | 0.6% | 1.2% | 0.3% |
| Aug ’25 | 316 | 5.1% | 6.3% | 9.8% | 1.3% | 1.3% | 1.3% |
| Sep ’25 | 244 | 6.6% | 5.7% | 7.4% | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.2% |
| Oct ’25 | 307 | 7.5% | 4.6% | 7.2% | 0.3% | 1.0% | 3.3% |
| Nov ’25 | 220 | 3.2% | 10.9% | 12.3% | 0.4% | 1.4% | 2.3% |
| Dec ’25 | 253 | 2.0% | 6.3% | 19.4% | 0.4% | 2.4% | 0.8% |
| Jan ’26 | 298 | 3.7% | 4.0% | 27.5% | 0.0% | 3.0% | 1.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 193 | 4.2% | 21.2% | 21.2% | 0.0% | 1.0% | 1.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 183 | 3.8% | 16.9% | 17.5% | 0.0% | 2.7% | 1.6% |
| Apr ’26 | 79 | 5.1% | 7.6% | 32.9% | 0.0% | 2.5% | 2.5% |
| May ’26 | 102 | 6.9% | 3.9% | 8.8% | 0.0% | 2.9% | 1.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 172 | 9.9% | 12.8% | 13.4% | 1.2% | 1.2% | 1.2% |
| Jul ’26 | 227 | 6.2% | 5.3% | 22.5% | 0.0% | 0.9% | 1.8% |
| Aug ’26 | 225 | 7.1% | 5.8% | 26.7% | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.4% |
| Sep ’26 | 284 | 11.6% | 2.5% | 20.1% | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.4% |
| Oct ’26 | 159 | 5.7% | 2.5% | 22.0% | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.0% |
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%.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Housing and Community Development; Immigration; extreme label “extreme” aimed at immigration · Source
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 6, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; International Affairs; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “woke” aimed at woke left · 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: Ted CruzSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: ProtestiaSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: EWEricksonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Newest first, the ID 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: 5,393 posts on X.
Immigration is what Lenney talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 5.6 times the peer share. Peers give it 4.1%.
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 Lenney talks about. The bills Lenney sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the ID 2025–26 session
| Row | Lenney | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Immigration | 23% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 17% |
| Health | 12% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 10% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 10% | 5% |
The thick bar is the share of Lenney’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.
No sponsored or cosponsored bills with a policy area in this window.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Lenney legislates on exactly the areas Lenney 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 Lenney sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Lenney sits at +0.67 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 89% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.63 to +0.70, which understates the uncertainty; from 207 donors and 549 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 +0.63 to +0.70. From 207 donors and 549 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Lenney, 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 Lenney’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 Lenney |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 88% |
| Idaho Senate | 35 | +0.1 | 83% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 93% |
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 Lenney 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 Lenney.
Lenney reported $15.5K in the 2026 cycle, 33% of the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 69% 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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 42 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $12.2K | 78.7% |
| PACs and other committees | $2,300 | 14.9% |
| Party committees | $1,000 | 6.5% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $13.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $57.8K |
| 2026 cycle | $15.5K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 69% came from Idaho.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Idaho | $8,409 |
| Washington | $1,052 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,000 |
| Texas | $500 |
| California | $200 |
| Arizona | $21 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | 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 |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | 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 |
| 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 |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from Idaho
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Idaho. 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.
Lenney voted with the majority of Idaho Senate Republicans on 91.6% of party-line votes and missed 0.3% of 694 roll calls. Idaho Senate on average: 87% party unity, 97.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Lenney voted against the majority of Idaho Senate Republicans 135 times.
694 roll calls Lenney could vote on in the ID 2025–26 session, compared with Idaho 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 Lenney voted with the majority of Idaho Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Idaho Senate Republicans
Party unity 91.6%, Idaho Senate average 87%, ranks 13th of 35. 694 roll calls in the ID 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Lenney, the thin grey bar the Idaho Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Lenney | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.7% | 97.3% |
| Party unity | 91.6% | 87% |
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the ID 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 974 APPROPRIATIONS – IDAHO STATE POLICE – Relates to the appropriation to the Idaho State Police for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–0 · R 29–0Democrats 4 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 29 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 972 APPROPRIATIONS – HEALTH AND WELFARE – DIVISION OF WELFARE – Relates to the appropriation to the Department of Health and Welfare for fiscal year 2027. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 4–0 · R 21–8Democrats 4 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 21 yea, 8 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 973 APPROPRIATIONS – MILITARY DIVISION – Relates to the appropriation to the Military Division for fiscal year 2026. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 5–0 · R 24–2Democrats 5 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 24 yea, 2 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 959 TAXATION – Amends and adds to existing law to provide for an initiative petition to raise or lower the property tax budgets for fire protection districts and ambulance service districts and to revise provisions regarding certain property tax budget limits. Rules Suspended (2/3 Vote Read in full as required) – Read third time in full – | Yea | With majority | pass | D 4–0 · R 29–0Democrats 4 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 29 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Apr 2, 2026 | H 896 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding compliance with the law. Read third time in full – | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–6 · R 8–21Democrats 0 yea, 6 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 21 nay | party crossover |
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Lenney most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Lenney 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.
ID 2025–26 session, loads in batches
No bills for the ID 2025–26 session.No sponsored or cosponsored bills are recorded for this official in this time window.
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Lenney’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Lenney’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 Lenney 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 Lenney’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 Lenney 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
