CSIP score −0.31 (approximate range −0.35 to −0.27, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 52 donors and 346 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 Miller sits among State House Democrats, not how far from the centre.
5 measures against State House Democrats. The policy areas Miller talks about and legislates on agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale, in the top tenth of State House Democrats. Miller reported $282.6K in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of State House Democrats (median $40.4K).
The measures on which Miller sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 91% of State House Democrats · ± 0.04
Talk-to-bills agreement
State House Democrats average 0.54 · ranks 47th of 503
Itemized, 2026
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 191st of 2,082
Out of committee
New Jersey House average 7.2% · ranks 23rd of 80
From New Jersey, 2026
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1308th of 1,983 State House Democrats
Statements
187 posts on X
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Miller, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Miller is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Miller attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State House Democrat. Personal attacks in 0.5% of 187 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 365th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Miller’s 187 statements in the NJ 2026–27 session (187 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the NJ 2026–27 session
| Row | Miller | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 64% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 26% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
statements classified
187 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 187 |
The thick bar is Miller; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Miller does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Miller used extreme labels in 0.5% of statements, below the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 1.0%.
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 NJ 2026–27 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 59.1% | 0.0% | 22.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 60.0% | 16.0% | 36.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 32 | 0.0% | 6.3% | 68.8% | 3.1% | 34.4% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 8.7% | 65.2% | 0.0% | 17.4% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 42.9% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 7.1% |
| Jul ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 4.2% | 79.2% | 4.2% | 29.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 19 | 5.3% | 0.0% | 68.4% | 0.0% | 21.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’26 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
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 NJ 2026–27 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%. 2 months are hatched here.
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.
Oct 3, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Democrats · 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 · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and PoliticsSource
Newest first, the NJ 2026–27 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 187 posts on X.
Education is what Miller talks about most: 20% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 47th of 503).
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 Miller talks about. The bills Miller sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the NJ 2026–27 session
| Row | Miller | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 20% | 15% |
| Energy | 15% | 4% |
| Health | 14% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 10% | 11% |
| Taxation | 10% | 4% |
The thick bar is the share of Miller’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 20% | 15% | 17% | 10% |
| Energy | 15% | 4% | 7% | 3% |
| Health | 14% | 15% | 10% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 10% | 11% | 2% | 2% |
| Taxation | 10% | 4% | 5% | 7% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 47th of 503.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Miller legislates on exactly the areas Miller 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 Miller sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Miller sits at −0.31 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 91% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.35 to −0.27, which understates the uncertainty; from 52 donors and 346 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 −0.35 to −0.27. From 52 donors and 346 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Miller, 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 Miller’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 Miller |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 91% |
| New Jersey House | 80 | −0.6 | 68% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 41% |
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 Miller 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 Miller.
Miller reported $282.6K in the 2026 cycle, 7.0 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 87% of itemized individual money came from New Jersey.
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 House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $44.2K | 15.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $237.1K | 83.9% |
| Party committees | $1,329 | 0.5% |
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2024 cycle | $211.0K |
| 2026 cycle | $282.6K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 87% came from New Jersey.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New Jersey | $38.6K |
| Pennsylvania | $2,647 |
| Florida | $1,548 |
| Massachusetts | $1,000 |
| New York | $400 |
| 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 |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from New Jersey
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 New Jersey. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
No roll-call votes for the NJ 2026–27 session.No roll-call votes are recorded for this official in this time window.
Miller sponsored 166 bills in the NJ 2026–27 session; none became law. Cosponsored 112 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (New Jersey House average 7.2%; 23rd of 80).
The bills Miller sponsored and cosponsored in the NJ 2026–27 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 NJ 2026–27 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 166 | 166 | 18 | 6 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 112 | 112 | 11 | 4 | 0 |
Ink blocks are bills Miller sponsored, ochre blocks bills Miller 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
New Jersey House average 7.2%. Ranks 23rd of 80.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Miller, by number of shared bills in the NJ 2026–27 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 Miller’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| A 5712 | Revises laws concerning heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration contracting. | Sponsor | Oct 22, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Introduced, Referred to Assembly Regulated Professions Committee Oct 22, 2026 |
| A 5612 | Makes FY2027 supplemental appropriation of $400,000 to DHS for NJ 2-1-1 Partnership Operating Aid. | Sponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Introduced, Referred to Assembly Aging and Human Services Committee Oct 15, 2026 |
| A 5599 | Requires Campus Sexual Assault Commission to host certain educational events; requires Office of Secretary of Higher Education to build capacity for coordinated community response to campus sexual assault. | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Reported and Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee Oct 22, 2026 |
| A 5607 | Establishes content and data privacy requirements for chatbot providers. | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Science, Technology, Communications(model) | Reported and Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee Oct 19, 2026 |
| A 5588 | Expands oversight and transparency of funds received by State and local entities due to national opioid settlements. | Sponsor | Oct 5, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance(model) | Introduced, Referred to Assembly Oversight, Reform and Federal Relations Committee Oct 5, 2026 |
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Miller’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Miller’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 Miller posts with a vision model.
Official site
www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislative-roster/463/assemblyman-millerLast crawled Oct 1, 2026
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 Miller’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 Miller is most unusual among State House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
