Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Labor and Employment · Source
0%
of itemized money from Minnesota donors, in the bottom 5% of State Senate Democrats
0% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Minnesota. Ranks 697th of 714, where 1st is the highest share. 70 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Minnesota, ranked among State Senate Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. The policy areas Seeberger talks about and legislates on agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale, in the top quarter of State Senate Democrats. Seeberger sits at −0.61 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 57% of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Seeberger sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From Minnesota, 2026
0%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 697th of 714 State Senate Democrats
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.64
State Senate Democrats average 0.56 · ranks 52nd of 228
CSIP ideology
−0.61
More conservative than 57% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.09
Out of committee
0.9%
Minnesota Senate average 3.1% · ranks 39th of 67
Itemized, 2026
$66.6K
State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K · ranks 344th of 746
Party unity
96.7%
Minnesota Senate average 93.0% · ranks 36th of 67 · 3 votes against the majority of Minnesota Senate Democrats
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Seeberger, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Seeberger is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Seeberger says
Seeberger attacks opponents personally more than 64% of State Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 1.5% of 136 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 118th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Seeberger’s 136 statements in the MN 2025–26 session (136 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MN 2025–26 session
0%80%
Seeberger
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion70 statements
51%
43%
123rd of 329
Credit claiming33 statements
24%
16%
73rd of 329
Policy criticism10 statements
7%
10%
176th of 329
Bipartisanship7 statements
5%
3%
74th of 329
Personal attacks2 statements
1%
2%
118th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Seeberger | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 51% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 24% | 16% |
| Policy criticism | 7% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 5% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
136
statements classified
136 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 136 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Seeberger; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Seeberger does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Seeberger used no extreme labels in 136 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
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 MN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’25 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’25 | 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) |
| Nov ’25 | 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) |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’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) |
| Mar ’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) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’26 | 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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| Aug ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 32 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 59.4% | 0.0% | 9.4% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 46 | 0.0% | 2.2% | 58.7% | 6.5% | 32.6% | 0.0% |
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 MN 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%. 19 months are hatched here; 6 of them have no statements.
In Seeberger’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 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship; credit claiming · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Mar 12, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Westrom, Anderson, and Limmer · 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.
All 136 statements
Newest first, the MN 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: 136 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Seeberger talks about most: 19% of policy statements, 2.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 52nd of 228).
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 Seeberger talks about. The bills Seeberger sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Seeberger talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MN 2025–26 session
0%35%
Seeberger
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement13 statements
19%
8%
Labor and Employment12 statements
17%
6%
Health10 statements
14%
17%
Government Operations and Politics9 statements
13%
14%
Transportation and Public Works7 statements
10%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Seeberger | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 19% | 8% |
| Labor and Employment | 17% | 6% |
| Health | 14% | 17% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 13% | 14% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 10% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Seeberger’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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.
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 Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 19% | 8% | 18% | 9% |
| Labor and Employment | 17% | 6% | 10% | 6% |
| Health | 14% | 17% | 15% | 15% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 13% | 14% | 4% | 8% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 10% | 5% | 7% | 5% |
0.64
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 52nd of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Seeberger legislates on exactly the areas Seeberger 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 Seeberger sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Seeberger sits at −0.61 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 57% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.70 to −0.53, which understates the uncertainty; from 147 donors and 122 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”.
−0.61
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.70 to −0.53. From 147 donors and 122 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Seeberger, 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 Seeberger’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 Seeberger sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Minnesota Senate67 · median −0.3
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Seeberger |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 56% |
| Minnesota Senate | 67 | −0.3 | 33% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 24% |
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 Seeberger 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 Seeberger.
Money
Seeberger reported $66.6K in the 2026 cycle, above the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 0% of itemized individual money came from Minnesota.
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.
$66.6K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 70 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)61 squares$40.5K
- PACs and other committees38 squares$25.1K
- Party committees1 squares$1,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $40.5K | 60.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $25.1K | 37.7% |
| Party committees | $1,000 | 1.5% |
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $79.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $14.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $66.6K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 0% came from Minnesota.
No itemized donors with an address.
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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Florida | No data |
70
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
0%
from Minnesota
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 Minnesota. 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.
- WROBLEWSKI LUCIA HOUSE COMMITTEE$6,000
- 41ST SENATE DISTRICT DFL$1,000
- BIKE PAC OF MINNESOTA$1,000
- IBEW 110 PAC$1,000
- INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- ATTORNEY$2,500 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Seeberger voted with the majority of Minnesota Senate Democrats on 96.7% of party-line votes and missed none of 149 roll calls. Minnesota Senate on average: 93.0% party unity, 100% attendance. Across all roll calls, Seeberger voted against the majority of Minnesota Senate Democrats 3 times.
149 roll calls Seeberger could vote on in the MN 2025–26 session, compared with Minnesota 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 Seeberger voted with the majority of Minnesota Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
3
votes against the majority of Minnesota Senate Democrats
Party unity 96.7%, Minnesota Senate average 93.0%, ranks 36th of 67. 149 roll calls in the MN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Seeberger, the thin grey bar the Minnesota Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Seeberger
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
100%
34th of 67
Party unity
96.7%
93.0%
36th of 67
Show the data
| Row | Seeberger | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 100% |
| Party unity | 96.7% | 93.0% |
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 MN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2026 | SF 3967 Due date of the pediatric hospital-to-home transition pilot program report modification Third reading Passed as amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 34–0 · R 6–27Democrats 34 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 6 yea, 27 nay | party crossover |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 3629 Program payment withholding provided for credible allegation of fraud, grant management provisions changed, and program integrity reports required. Third reading Passed as amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 34–0 · R 33–0Democrats 34 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 33 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 719 Safe routes to school grant program funding provided, bonds issued, and money appropriated. Third reading Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 34–0 · R 26–7Democrats 34 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 26 yea, 7 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 4492 Read Act modified, early literacy field experiences required for teacher candidates, high school diploma established for veterans, and rulemaking required. Third reading Passed as amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 34–0 · R 33–0Democrats 34 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 33 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 2484 Bonding bill; spending authorized to acquire and better land and buildings and for other improvements of a capital nature, new programs established and existing programs modified, report required, prior appropriations modified and canceled, and money appropriated. Third reading Passed | Yea | With majority | pass | D 34–0 · R 16–17Democrats 34 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 17 nay | became law · party crossover |
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 Seeberger most often
- Nick FrentzD148 shared votes100%
- Rob KupecD148 shared votes100%
- Heather GustafsonD149 shared votes99%
- Matt KleinD149 shared votes99%
- Aric PutnamD147 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Seeberger least often
- Eric LuceroR145 shared votes39%
- Cal BahrR146 shared votes39%
- Nathan WesenbergR148 shared votes41%
- Bruce AndersonR50 shared votes42%
- Bill LieskeR147 shared votes42%
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
MN 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Seeberger sponsored 106 bills in the MN 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 95 others. 0.9% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Minnesota Senate average 3.1%; 39th of 67).
The bills Seeberger sponsored and cosponsored in the MN 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 MN 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 106 | 106 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 95 | 95 | 8 | 3 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Seeberger sponsored, ochre blocks bills Seeberger cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
0.9%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Minnesota Senate average 3.1%. Ranks 39th of 67.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Seeberger, by number of shared bills in the MN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Zach Duckworth20
- Michael Kreun19
- Heather Gustafson19
- Karin Housley19
- Julia Coleman15
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 Seeberger’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SF 5287 | Procedures modification to fill a school board vacancy | Cosponsor | May 12, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Referred to Education Policy May 12, 2026 |
| SF 5193 | Certain individuals and organizations convicted of and benefiting from fraud tax establishment | Cosponsor | Apr 21, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Referred to Taxes Apr 21, 2026 |
| SF 5180 | Acceptance of best evidence requirement to determine subsurface sewage treatment system compliance | Cosponsor | Apr 20, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection(model) | Authors added Johnson Stewart; Seeberger Apr 29, 2026 |
| SF 5120 | Social media and remote computing service providers requirement to report to the attorney general | Sponsor | Apr 14, 2026 | In committee | Science, Technology, Communications(model) | Referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection Apr 14, 2026 |
| SF 5097 | Minnesota State Retirement System probation and telecommunicator retirement subplan establishment | Cosponsor | Apr 13, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment(model) | Referred to State and Local Government Apr 13, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Seeberger’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Seeberger’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 Seeberger posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 0
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 Seeberger posted
No images from Seeberger’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
53 turns, Feb 6, 2023 to May 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 Seeberger is most unusual among State Senate 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 4ca681ca-58ab-4d75-b7ef-8d255f858d62
- Open States
- ocd-person/4ca681ca-58ab-4d75-b7ef-8d255f858d62
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