Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Families; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
1.9×
the State House Democrat rate of policy discussion
75% of 330 statements discuss policy (248 statements); the average for State House Democrats is 39%. Ranks 22nd of 764, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Wicks’s posts on X and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State House Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. Wicks reported $810.7K in the 2026 cycle, in the top 5% of State House Democrats (median $40.4K). 29% of Wicks’s statements claim credit, 2.0 times the State House Democrat average of 14%.
The measures on which Wicks sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy discussion
75%
State House Democrats average 39% · ranks 22nd of 764
Itemized, 2026
$810.7K
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 55th of 2,082
Credit claiming
29%
State House Democrats average 14% · ranks 93rd of 764
Out of committee
97%
California House average 81% · ranks 11th of 79
CSIP ideology
−0.92
More liberal than 86% of State House Democrats · ± 0.05
From California, 2026
78%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1563rd of 1,983 State House Democrats
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Wicks, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Wicks is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Wicks says
Wicks attacks opponents personally less than 76% of State House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0% of 330 statements, against 2.5% for the average State House Democrat; 584th of 764.
An AI model reads each of Wicks’s 330 statements in the CA 2025–26 session (330 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the CA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Wicks
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion248 statements
75%
39%
22nd of 764
Credit claiming97 statements
29%
14%
93rd of 764
Policy criticism55 statements
17%
10%
178th of 764
Bipartisanship12 statements
4%
3%
212th of 764
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
3%
584th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Wicks | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 75% | 39% |
| Credit claiming | 29% | 14% |
| Policy criticism | 17% | 10% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 3% |
330
statements classified
330 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 330 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Wicks; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Wicks does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Wicks used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 31% of the peer average. 1 statement, most often aimed at Trump; peers 1.0%.
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- 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 CA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 35.3% | 76.5% | 11.8% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 41.2% | 94.1% | 0.0% | 58.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 7 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| 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 | 18 | 0.0% | 38.9% | 72.2% | 5.6% | 38.9% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’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) |
| Dec ’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) |
| Jan ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 95.5% | 0.0% | 4.5% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 16 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 56.3% | 0.0% | 43.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 43 | 0.0% | 14.0% | 67.4% | 2.3% | 30.2% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 48 | 0.0% | 10.4% | 87.5% | 6.3% | 18.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 66.7% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 43 | 0.0% | 23.3% | 74.4% | 4.7% | 37.2% | 2.3% |
| Jul ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 46.7% | 86.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 73.7% | 0.0% | 36.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 67.9% | 0.0% | 39.3% | 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 CA 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; 2 of them have no statements.
In Wicks’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.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Housing and Community Development; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Trump · 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.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 330 statements
Newest first, the CA 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: 330 posts on X.
Policy
Housing and Community Development is what Wicks talks about most: 66% of policy statements, 10.7 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 102nd of 503).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Wicks talks about. The bills Wicks sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Wicks talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the CA 2025–26 session
0%73%
Wicks
Peers
Housing and Community Development164 statements
66%
6%
Science, Technology, Communications26 statements
10%
3%
Transportation and Public Works20 statements
8%
5%
Economics and Public Finance19 statements
8%
11%
Commerce18 statements
7%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Wicks | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Housing and Community Development | 66% | 6% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 10% | 3% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 8% | 5% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 8% | 11% |
| Commerce | 7% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Wicks’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
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 73%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Housing and Community Development | 66% | 6% | 20% | 5% |
| Science, Technology, Communications | 10% | 3% | 8% | 1% |
| Transportation and Public Works | 8% | 5% | 7% | 5% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 8% | 11% | 5% | 2% |
| Commerce | 7% | 3% | 4% | 4% |
0.64
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 102nd of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Wicks legislates on exactly the areas Wicks 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 Wicks sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Wicks sits at −0.92 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 86% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.97 to −0.87, which understates the uncertainty; from 441 donors and 1,156 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”.
−0.92
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.97 to −0.87. From 441 donors and 1,156 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Wicks, 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 Wicks’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 Wicks sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
California House79 · median −0.7
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Wicks |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 14% |
| California House | 79 | −0.7 | 24% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 6% |
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 Wicks 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 Wicks.
Money
Wicks reported $810.7K in the 2026 cycle, 20.1 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 78% of itemized individual money came from California.
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.
$810.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 49 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)19 squares$150.8K
- PACs and other committees81 squares$659.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $150.8K | 18.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $659.9K | 81.4% |
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 House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $772.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $581.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $844.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $810.7K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 78% came from California.
- California$117.2K
- Wisconsin$11.8K
- Connecticut$9,422
- Idaho$5,900
- Indiana$2,500
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 |
|---|---|
| California | $117.2K |
| Wisconsin | $11.8K |
| Connecticut | $9,422 |
| Idaho | $5,900 |
| New York | $2,500 |
| Indiana | $2,500 |
| Michigan | $1,000 |
| Illinois | $500 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | 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 |
| Ohio | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | 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 |
49
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
78%
from California
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 California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$21.3K 5 donors
- NO EMPLOYER$9,422 3 donors
- CEO$9,000 6 donors
- ATTORNEY$3,280 3 donors
- NOT EMPLOYED$1,200 3 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- BUILDING A STRONGER FUTURE FOR CALIFORNIA PAC, SPONSORED BY WESTERN STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS$23.6K
- CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (CREPAC) - CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS$23.6K
- CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF LABORERS$17.7K
- CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS$14.8K
- CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PAC AKA CHAMBERPAC$12.9K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NO EMPLOYER$9,422 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Wicks voted with the majority of California House Democrats on 99.6% of party-line votes and missed 6.5% of 4,001 roll calls. California House on average: 97.7% party unity, 92.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Wicks voted against the majority of California House Democrats 4 times.
4,001 roll calls Wicks could vote on in the CA 2025–26 session, compared with California House. 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 Wicks voted with the majority of California House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
4
votes against the majority of California House Democrats
Party unity 99.6%, California House average 97.7%, ranks 42nd of 79. 4,001 roll calls in the CA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Wicks, the thin grey bar the California House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Wicks
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.5%
92.3%
40th of 79
Party unity
99.6%
97.7%
42nd of 79
Show the data
| Row | Wicks | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 93.5% | 92.3% |
| Party unity | 99.6% | 97.7% |
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 CA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2026 | SB 195 Income taxes: exclusions: wildfire loss mitigation payments. SB 195 Budget and Fiscal Review Senate Third Reading By GABRIEL | Yea | With majority | pass | D 60–0 · R 19–0Democrats 60 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 19 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 1, 2026 | SB 1098 Public Utilities Commission: memorandum and balancing accounts. SB 1098 Pérez Senate Third Reading By Petrie-Norris | Yea | With majority | pass | D 50–1 · R 0–14Democrats 50 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 14 nay | became law |
| Sep 1, 2026 | SB 1370 Covered wildfire mitigation projects: consolidated and expedited review. SB 1370 Stern Senate Third Reading By Petrie-Norris | Yea | With majority | pass | D 42–4 · R 16–0Democrats 42 yea, 4 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Sep 1, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 59–0 · R 10–4Democrats 59 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 4 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Sep 1, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 56–0 · R 17–0Democrats 56 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 17 yea, 0 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 Wicks most often
- Jesse GabrielD3,602 shared votes100%
- Marc BermanD3,525 shared votes100%
- Robert RivasD3,724 shared votes100%
- Josh LowenthalD3,692 shared votes100%
- Cecilia Aguiar-CurryD3,690 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Wicks least often
- Carl DeMaioR3,619 shared votes66%
- David TangipaR3,253 shared votes73%
- Stan EllisR3,339 shared votes73%
- Kate SanchezR3,314 shared votes73%
- Natasha JohnsonR2,239 shared votes73%
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
CA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Wicks sponsored 31 bills in the CA 2025–26 session; 22 became law. Cosponsored 353 others. 97% of sponsored bills got out of committee (California House average 81%; 11th of 79).
The bills Wicks sponsored and cosponsored in the CA 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 CA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 31 | 31 | 29 | 23 | 22 |
| Cosponsored | 353 | 353 | 349 | 239 | 227 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Wicks sponsored, ochre blocks bills Wicks cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
97%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
California House average 81%. Ranks 11th of 79.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Wicks, by number of shared bills in the CA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Mark González18
- Sharon Quirk-Silva16
- Jesse Arreguín14
- Matt Haney13
- Rebecca Bauer-Kahan12
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 Wicks’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HR 140 | Relative to Children's Get Offline and Get Outdoors Month. | Sponsor | Aug 19, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Page 6424.). Aug 24, 2026 |
| HR 138 | Relative to National 4-H Week. | Cosponsor | Aug 13, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6275.). Aug 19, 2026 |
| HR 137 | Relative to Diwali. | Cosponsor | Aug 13, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Page 6311.). Aug 20, 2026 |
| HR 135 | Relative to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Awareness Month. | Cosponsor | Aug 6, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6275.). Aug 19, 2026 |
| HR 134 | Relative to California's First-Generation College Celebration Month. | Cosponsor | Aug 6, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Page 6258.). Aug 19, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 56 times in 90 days. Wicks’s official site had 28 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Wicks’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 Wicks posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 28
pages crawled
56changes in 90 days
- 13
pages crawled
15changes 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 Wicks posted
No images from Wicks’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
143 turns, Jan 21, 2020 to Aug 31, 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 Wicks is most unusual among State House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 8230907e-9ae3-4ae9-b52a-c8464a157f64
- Open States
- ocd-person/8230907e-9ae3-4ae9-b52a-c8464a157f64
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