Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 4, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Education · Source
3.7×
the State Senate Republican rate of bipartisan language
8.5% of 471 statements use bipartisan language (40 statements); the average for State Senate Republicans is 2.3%. Ranks 13th of 354, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Testin’s posts on X and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. Testin sits at +0.80 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 95% of State Senate Republicans. 58% of Testin’s statements discuss policy, 1.5 times the State Senate Republican average of 37%.
The measures on which Testin 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.
Bipartisanship
8.5%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 13th of 354
CSIP ideology
+0.80
More conservative than 95% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
Policy discussion
58%
State Senate Republicans average 37% · ranks 55th of 354
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.63
State Senate Republicans average 0.52 · ranks 44th of 226
Credit claiming
23%
State Senate Republicans average 15% · ranks 89th of 354
Itemized, 2026
$143.8K
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 217th of 936
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Testin, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Testin is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Testin says
Testin attacks opponents personally about as often as the median State Senate Republican. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 471 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 164th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Testin’s 471 statements in the WI 2025–26 session (471 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.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the WI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Testin
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion272 statements
58%
37%
55th of 354
Credit claiming106 statements
23%
15%
89th of 354
Bipartisanship40 statements
8%
2%
13th of 354
Policy criticism20 statements
4%
9%
215th of 354
Personal attacks2 statements
0%
2%
164th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Testin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 58% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 23% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 8% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
471
statements classified
471 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 471 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Testin; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Testin does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Testin used no extreme labels in 471 statements. The peer average is 1.3%.
No extreme labels in this window.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
No targets recorded.
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 WI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 7.1% | 57.1% | 0.0% | 21.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 23 | 0.0% | 8.7% | 56.5% | 8.7% | 17.4% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 25 | 4.0% | 4.0% | 64.0% | 20.0% | 24.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 7.4% | 55.6% | 11.1% | 29.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 57.7% | 19.2% | 38.5% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 3.6% | 60.7% | 14.3% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 57.1% | 0.0% | 7.1% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 66.7% | 5.6% | 11.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 37.5% | 0.0% | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.8% | 16.7% | 37.5% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 45.5% | 13.6% | 31.8% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 18 | 5.6% | 5.6% | 61.1% | 11.1% | 22.2% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 5.3% | 63.2% | 10.5% | 26.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 9.5% | 61.9% | 28.6% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 3.6% | 42.9% | 0.0% | 17.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 26 | 0.0% | 11.5% | 73.1% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 7.4% | 70.4% | 7.4% | 14.8% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 10.7% | 46.4% | 0.0% | 21.4% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 24 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 20.8% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 68.8% | 0.0% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 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) |
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 WI 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%. One month is hatched here.
In Testin’s words
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.
Oct 16, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 19, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Taxation; target: legislative colleague · 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 · policy discussion · Taxation · target: legislative colleagueSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Education · target: Tony EversSource
All 471 statements
Newest first, the WI 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: 471 posts on X.
Policy
Agriculture and Food is what Testin talks about most: 23% of policy statements, 3.7 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 44th 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 Testin talks about. The bills Testin sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Testin talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the WI 2025–26 session
0%35%
Testin
Peers
Agriculture and Food62 statements
23%
6%
Health38 statements
14%
9%
Economics and Public Finance32 statements
12%
12%
Education30 statements
11%
14%
Public Lands and Natural Resources30 statements
11%
2%
Show the data
| Row | Testin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 23% | 6% |
| Health | 14% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 12% | 12% |
| Education | 11% | 14% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 11% | 2% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Testin’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.
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 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food | 23% | 6% | 5% | 3% |
| Health | 14% | 9% | 26% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 12% | 12% | 5% | 3% |
| Education | 11% | 14% | 5% | 10% |
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 11% | 2% | 2% | 3% |
0.63
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 44th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Testin legislates on exactly the areas Testin 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 Testin sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Testin sits at +0.80 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 95% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.77 to +0.84, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,751 donors and 573 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”.
+0.80
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.77 to +0.84. From 1,751 donors and 573 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Testin, 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 Testin’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 Testin sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Wisconsin Senate33 · median +0.6
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Testin |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 94% |
| Wisconsin Senate | 33 | +0.6 | 76% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 97% |
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 Testin 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 Testin.
Money
Testin reported $143.8K in the 2026 cycle, 3.1 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 87% of itemized individual money came from Wisconsin.
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.
$143.8K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 264 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)64 squares$92.0K
- PACs and other committees36 squares$51.8K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $92.0K | 64.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $51.8K | 36.0% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $628.1K |
| 2022 cycle | $46.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $386.6K |
| 2026 cycle | $143.8K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 87% came from Wisconsin.
- Wisconsin$79.9K
- Florida$6,000
- Pennsylvania$2,000
- Illinois$1,250
- Massachusetts$600
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 |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin | $79.9K |
| Florida | $6,000 |
| Pennsylvania | $2,000 |
| Illinois | $1,250 |
| Massachusetts | $600 |
| Minnesota | $420 |
| Michigan | $400 |
| North Carolina | $260 |
| California | $250 |
| Nebraska | $250 |
| Arizona | $250 |
| Kansas | $250 |
| Texas | $50 |
| Iowa | $40 |
| 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 |
| New York | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | 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 |
| 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 |
264
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
87%
from Wisconsin
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 Wisconsin. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$12.3K 19 donors
- REALTOR$9,179 24 donors
- PRESIDENT/CEO$3,750 5 donors
- BUSINESS EXECUTIVE$2,500 4 donors
- BANKER$2,342 13 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AT&T WISCONSIN EMPLOYEE PAC$2,000
- OPERATING ENGINEERS 139 PAC$2,000
- WIANA PAC$2,000
- WISCONSIN ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH PLANS PAC$2,000
- WPVGA PAC$2,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Testin voted with the majority of Wisconsin Senate Republicans on 99.1% of party-line votes and missed none of 191 roll calls. Wisconsin Senate on average: 97.3% party unity, 99.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Testin voted against the majority of Wisconsin Senate Republicans 1 time.
191 roll calls Testin could vote on in the WI 2025–26 session, compared with Wisconsin 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 Testin voted with the majority of Wisconsin Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1
votes against the majority of Wisconsin Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.1%, Wisconsin Senate average 97.3%, ranks 14th of 32. 191 roll calls in the WI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Testin, the thin grey bar the Wisconsin Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Testin
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.8%
15th of 32
Party unity
99.1%
97.3%
14th of 32
Show the data
| Row | Testin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.8% |
| Party unity | 99.1% | 97.3% |
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 WI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2026 | AB 911 Relating to: funding for a battery collection and recycling program and making an appropriation. (FE) CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 18–0Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 18 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Mar 17, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 16–2Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed | |
| Mar 17, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 15–3Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 3 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Mar 17, 2026 | AB 604 Relating to: coverage under the Medical Assistance program for incarcerated individuals. (FE) CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 17–1Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 17 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Mar 17, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–15 · R 17–1Democrats 0 yea, 15 nay; Republicans 17 yea, 1 nay | close vote |
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 Testin most often
- John JaglerR191 shared votes99%
- Cory TomczykR191 shared votes99%
- Jesse JamesR191 shared votes99%
- Julian BradleyR191 shared votes99%
- Dan FeyenR191 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Testin least often
- Chris LarsonD191 shared votes30%
- Kelda RoysD181 shared votes32%
- Dora DrakeD191 shared votes32%
- Bob WirchD191 shared votes33%
- Tim CarpenterD191 shared votes34%
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
WI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Testin sponsored 104 bills in the WI 2025–26 session; 13 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 61% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Wisconsin Senate average 43%; 16th of 33).
The bills Testin sponsored and cosponsored in the WI 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 WI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 104 | 104 | 23 | 16 | 13 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Testin sponsored, ochre blocks bills Testin cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
61%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Wisconsin Senate average 43%. Ranks 16th of 33.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Testin, by number of shared bills in the WI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Cory Tomczyk33
- Dan Feyen31
- Mark Spreitzer29
- Jesse James29
- Howard Marklein29
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 Testin’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 1084 | Relating to: the sale of property under Department of Natural Resources jurisdiction to prevent the spread of avian flu. | Sponsor | Feb 27, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| SB 1077 | Relating to: health insurance coverage of prosthetic limbs and custom orthotic braces. (FE) | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| SB 1047 | Relating to: modifying administrative rules relating to regulation of opioid treatment programs and requiring adjustments to the rates for substance use disorder treatment services with medications for opioid use disorder. (FE) | Sponsor | Feb 24, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| SJR 135 | Relating to: Commemorating the 250th anniversary of one of the first major victories for the Patriots in the Revolutionary War and recognizing the contributions of Irish Americans in the struggle for independence. | Sponsor | Feb 17, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| SJR 133 | Relating to: reaffirming Wisconsin’s commitment to the strengthening and deepening of the sister ties between the State of Wisconsin and Taiwan, reaffirming Wisconsin’s support for the Taiwan Relations Act, supporting Taiwan’s signing of a Bilateral Trade Agreement with the United States, and contin | Sponsor | Feb 12, 2026 | Passed one chamber | International Affairs(model) | Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Testin’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Testin’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 Testin posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 5
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.
Social accounts
Images Testin posted
No images from Testin’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 Testin 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 13416c83-b50d-4578-b721-83ff5c1486ad
- Open States
- ocd-person/13416c83-b50d-4578-b721-83ff5c1486ad
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