2.3% of 516 statements contain a personal attack (12 statements); the average for Republican governors is 0.9%. Ranks 2nd of 22, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Landry’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 Republican governors and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against Republican governors. Landry sits at +1.06 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 86% of Republican governors. 2.9% of Landry’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom half of Republican governors (average 4.4%).
The measures on which Landry sits furthest from the middle of Republican governors, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Personal attacks
Republican governors average 0.9% · ranks 2nd of 22
CSIP ideology
More conservative than 86% of Republican governors · ± 0.07
Policy criticism
Republican governors average 4.4% · ranks 15th of 22
Policy discussion
Republican governors average 40% · ranks 15th of 22
Bipartisanship
Republican governors average 2.7% · ranks 15th of 22
Credit claiming
Republican governors average 29% · ranks 13th of 22
Peer group: Republican governors. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Landry, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Landry is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Landry stresses bipartisanship less than 63% of Republican governors. Bipartisanship in 0.8% of 516 statements, against 2.7% for the average Republican governor; 15th of 22.
An AI model reads each of Landry’s 516 statements in the current term (516 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 Republican governors and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the current term
| Row | Landry | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 32% | 40% |
| Credit claiming | 27% | 29% |
| Policy criticism | 3% | 4% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 1% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
statements classified
516 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 516 |
The thick bar is Landry; the thin grey bar is the average Republican governors. A longer thick bar means Landry does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Landry used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, close to the peer average. 8 statements, most often aimed at MAHA movement; peers 1.7%.
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 current term
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 47 | 2.1% | 4.3% | 23.4% | 0.0% | 12.8% | 4.3% |
| Feb ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 14.8% | 0.0% | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 31.4% | 0.0% | 22.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 44 | 0.0% | 6.8% | 29.5% | 2.3% | 27.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 35 | 2.9% | 2.9% | 31.4% | 0.0% | 31.4% | 2.9% |
| Jun ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 3.9% | 23.1% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 3.9% |
| Jul ’25 | 33 | 3.0% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 0.0% | 42.4% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 28.6% | 4.8% | 33.3% | 4.8% |
| Sep ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 35.3% | 0.0% | 29.4% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 26 | 15.4% | 7.7% | 23.1% | 0.0% | 19.2% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 9 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 47.1% | 5.9% | 29.4% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 32 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 43.8% | 0.0% | 40.6% | 3.1% |
| Feb ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 5.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 12 | 8.3% | 8.3% | 8.3% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 21.4% | 0.0% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 21 | 9.5% | 0.0% | 23.8% | 0.0% | 23.8% | 4.8% |
| Jun ’26 | 18 | 5.6% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 20 | 5.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 5.0% | 5.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 38.5% | 0.0% | 46.2% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 56.3% | 0.0% | 43.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 30.8% | 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 current term, 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%. One month is hatched here.
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.
Jul 24, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Emergency Management; Economics and Public Finance; Transportation and Public Works; target: Mitch Landrieu · Source
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 6, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 17, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · credit claiming; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Julia Letlow · 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 (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Emergency Management · Economics and Public Finance · Transportation and Public Works · target: Mitch LandrieuSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: FlemingSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: certain news outletsSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: DC swampSource
Newest first, the current term
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 516 posts on X.
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Landry talks about most: 14% of policy statements, above the peer share. Peers give it 11%.
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 Landry talks about. The bills Landry sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the current term
| Row | Landry | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 14% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 19% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 11% | 5% |
| Education | 11% | 18% |
| Energy | 10% | 7% |
The thick bar is the share of Landry’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Republican governors. 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 Republican governors averages.
Governors do not sponsor bills, so there is nothing to compare.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Landry legislates on exactly the areas Landry 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 Landry sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Landry sits at +1.06 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 86% of Republican governors. Approximate range +0.99 to +1.13, which understates the uncertainty; from 13,243 donors and no 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 +0.99 to +1.13. From 13,243 donors and no roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Landry, 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 Landry’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 Landry |
|---|---|---|---|
| Republican governors | 25 | +0.7 | 84% |
| Governors | 48 | +0.4 | 92% |
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 Landry 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 Landry.
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this governor yet.
No roll-call votes for the current term.Governors do not cast roll-call votes.
No bills for the current term.Governors do not sponsor bills.
The lab crawls Landry’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 Landry posts with a vision model.
No websites are tracked for this official.
“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 Landry’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.
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 Landry is most unusual among Republican governors, 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
