Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 25, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: flintforoppd · Source
7.2%
of roll calls missed, attendance in the bottom quarter of the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan)
Attendance 92.8%; the average within the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) is 95.5%. Ranks 41st of 49, where 1st has the highest attendance. 1,770 roll calls in the NE 2025–26 session.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls McKinney could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked within the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
At a glance
4 measures against the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). 95% of McKinney’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Nebraska, in the bottom half of Nonpartisan state legislators. McKinney reported $5,123 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom half of Nonpartisan state legislators (median $10.9K).
The measures on which McKinney sits furthest from the middle of the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan), each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Attendance
92.8%
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 95.5% · ranks 41st of 49 · 1,770 roll calls
From Nebraska, 2026
95%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 29th of 40 Nonpartisan state legislators
Itemized, 2026
$5,123
Nonpartisan state legislators’ median $10.9K · ranks 34th of 46
Out of committee
28%
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 37% · ranks 32nd of 47
CSIP ideology
−0.71
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.05
Statements
217
217 posts on X
Peer group: Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is McKinney, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which McKinney is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What McKinney says
McKinney claims credit less than 66% of Nonpartisan state legislators. Credit claiming in 6.5% of 217 statements, against 17% for the average Nonpartisan state legislator; 5th of 6.
An AI model reads each of McKinney’s 217 statements in the NE 2025–26 session (217 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 Nonpartisan state legislators and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the NE 2025–26 session
0%80%
McKinney
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion56 statements
26%
41%
5th of 6
Policy criticism23 statements
11%
16%
5th of 6
Credit claiming14 statements
6%
17%
5th of 6
Bipartisanship4 statements
2%
3%
4th of 6
Personal attacks1 statements
0%
1%
2nd of 6
Show the data
| Row | McKinney | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 26% | 41% |
| Policy criticism | 11% | 16% |
| Credit claiming | 6% | 17% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 1% |
217
statements classified
217 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 217 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is McKinney; the thin grey bar is the average Nonpartisan state legislators. A longer thick bar means McKinney does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
McKinney used extreme labels in 0.5% of statements, close to the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 0.4%.
- “MAGA”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGA1
- Trump1
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 NE 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 5.3% | 26.3% | 0.0% | 21.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 5.3% | 5.3% | 0.0% | 5.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 23 | 0.0% | 17.4% | 21.7% | 0.0% | 8.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 18 | 5.6% | 22.2% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 5.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 11 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 27.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 5 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 41.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 12.5% | 25.0% | 12.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 2 | — (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 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jan ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 5.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’26 | 6 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’26 | 11 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 63.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 4 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’26 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Sep ’26 | 1 | — (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 | 0 | — (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 NE 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%. 10 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.
In McKinney’s words
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.
May 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Trump, MAGA · 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 · target: flintforoppdSource
All 217 statements
Newest first, the NE 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: 217 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what McKinney talks about most: 34% of policy statements, 2.4 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (Nonpartisan state legislators average 0.57; 1st of 4).
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 McKinney talks about. The bills McKinney sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What McKinney talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the NE 2025–26 session
0%39%
McKinney
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement19 statements
34%
14%
Government Operations and Politics11 statements
20%
15%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues9 statements
16%
13%
Economics and Public Finance9 statements
16%
16%
Housing and Community Development8 statements
14%
8%
Show the data
| Row | McKinney | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 34% | 14% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 15% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 16% | 13% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 16% |
| Housing and Community Development | 14% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of McKinney’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Nonpartisan state legislators. 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 39%. Grey ticks are the Nonpartisan state legislators averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Nonpartisan state legislators, talks about | Legislates on | Nonpartisan state legislators, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 34% | 14% | 19% | 7% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 20% | 15% | 12% | 9% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 16% | 13% | 8% | 2% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 16% | 7% | 8% |
| Housing and Community Development | 14% | 8% | 15% | 4% |
0.63
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Nonpartisan state legislators average 0.57. Ranks 1st of 4.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means McKinney legislates on exactly the areas McKinney 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 McKinney sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
McKinney sits at −0.71 on the CSIP scale, left of 0. Approximate range −0.76 to −0.66, which understates the uncertainty; from 45 donors and 649 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”.
−0.71
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.76 to −0.66. From 45 donors and 649 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is McKinney, 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 McKinney’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 McKinney sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Nonpartisan state legislators49 · median +0.2
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan)49 · median +0.2
All Unicameral legislature62 · median 0.0
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of McKinney |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nonpartisan state legislators | 49 | +0.2 | 4% |
| Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) | 49 | +0.2 | 4% |
| All Unicameral legislature | 62 | 0.0 | 11% |
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 McKinney 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 McKinney.
Money
McKinney reported $5,123 in the 2026 cycle, below the Nonpartisan state legislators’ median of $10.9K. State filings report no small-donation total. 95% of itemized individual money came from Nebraska.
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.
$5,123
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 3 itemized donors. Nonpartisan state legislators’ median $10.9K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)36 squares$1,850
- PACs and other committees64 squares$3,273
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $1,850 | 36.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $3,273 | 63.9% |
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 Nonpartisan state legislators’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $61.6K |
| 2022 cycle | $10.7K |
| 2024 cycle | $98.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $5,123 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 95% came from Nebraska.
- Nebraska$1,750
- Kansas$100
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 |
|---|---|
| Nebraska | $1,750 |
| Kansas | $100 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
3
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
95%
from Nebraska
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 Nebraska. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No occupations reported.
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- CARE PAC$1,046
- GREATER OMAHA CHAMBER PAC$296
- NEBRASKA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION PAC$296
- NEBRASKA TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION PAC$296
- NEBRASKA ASSOCIATION OF NURSE ANESTHETISTS PAC$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
McKinney missed 7.2% of 1,770 roll calls. Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average attendance 95.5%.
1,770 roll calls McKinney could vote on in the NE 2025–26 session, compared with Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). 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 McKinney voted with the majority of Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan). The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
1,770
roll calls
No party, so no party-line measures. Attendance 92.8%, ranks 41st of 49.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is McKinney, the thin grey bar the Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
McKinney
Peers
Rank
Attendance
92.8%
95.5%
41st of 49
Party unity
—
—
Show the data
| Row | McKinney | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 92.8% | 95.5% |
| Party unity | — | — |
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 NE 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2026 | LB 929 Provide for managed care organizations to pay the deductible, cost sharing, or similar charges on behalf of medicaid enrollees Fredrickson MO586 failed | Yea | — | fail | O 22–26Others 22 yea, 26 nay | close vote |
| Apr 17, 2026 | Yea | — | fail | O 23–22Others 23 yea, 22 nay | close vote | |
| Apr 10, 2026 | Yea | — | pass | O 49–0Others 49 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Apr 10, 2026 | Yea | — | pass | O 48–1Others 48 yea, 1 nay | became law | |
| Apr 10, 2026 | LB 955 Provide for practice agreements between pharmacists and physician assistants Passed on Final Reading 47-2*-0 | Yea | — | pass | O 47–2Others 47 yea, 2 nay | became law |
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 McKinney most often
- Megan HuntO838 shared votes97%
- Machaela CavanaughO899 shared votes96%
- John CavanaughO1,047 shared votes96%
- Ashlei SpiveyO926 shared votes95%
- George DunganO889 shared votes95%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as McKinney least often
- Dan McKeonO536 shared votes51%
- Rob ClementsO1,126 shared votes59%
- Christy ArmendarizO890 shared votes59%
- Loren LippincottO1,158 shared votes61%
- Brian HardinO1,042 shared votes62%
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
NE 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
McKinney sponsored 72 bills in the NE 2025–26 session; 7 became law. Cosponsored 3 others. 28% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 37%; 32nd of 47).
The bills McKinney sponsored and cosponsored in the NE 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 NE 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 72 | 71 | 20 | 20 | 7 |
| Cosponsored | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills McKinney sponsored, ochre blocks bills McKinney cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
28%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan) average 37%. Ranks 32nd of 47.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with McKinney, by number of shared bills in the NE 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- John Cavanaugh3
- George Dungan2
- Megan Hunt1
- Rick Holdcroft1
- Kathleen Kauth1
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 McKinney’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| LR 498 | Congratulate the Omaha North High Magnet School girls basketball team on earning the 2026 Class A Basketball State Championship runner-up title | Sponsor | Apr 7, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Adopted Apr 17, 2026 |
| LB 962A | Appropriation Bill | Sponsor | Mar 26, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Economics and Public Finance(model) | McKinney MO575 Indefinitely postpone filed Apr 8, 2026 |
| LR 466 | Interim study to examine the prevalence, causes, and impacts of suspension and other exclusionary discipline practices affecting elementary school students | Sponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Referred to Education Committee Mar 30, 2026 |
| LR 484 | Congratulate Imani Skanes on winning the women's long jump at the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics Indoor Track and Field Championships and becoming the first national champion in the history of the College of Saint Mary athletic program | Sponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Adopted Apr 1, 2026 |
| LR 467 | Interim study to examine strategies, policies, and investments that cities, villages, and the State of Nebraska may use to make the state more attractive to young people | Sponsor | Mar 25, 2026 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | Notice of hearing for November 06, 2026 Sep 3, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. McKinney’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls McKinney’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 McKinney posts with a vision model.
Websites
Official site
nebraskalegislature.gov/senators/landing-pages/index.php?District=11Last crawled Oct 1, 2026
1pages crawled
1changes 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 McKinney posted
No images from McKinney’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
2,754 turns, Feb 23, 2021 to Apr 17, 2026
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 McKinney is most unusual among Nebraska Legislature (nonpartisan), 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
- 27784792-d54f-4a64-8408-a4a1ce0c26b1
- Open States
- ocd-person/27784792-d54f-4a64-8408-a4a1ce0c26b1
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