Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 17, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance · Source
1.7×
the State Senate Republican rate of policy discussion
63% of 651 statements discuss policy (410 statements); the average for State Senate Republicans is 37%. Ranks 25th of 354, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Wimberger’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 Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. 33% of Wimberger’s statements claim credit, 2.2 times the State Senate Republican average of 15%. 5.8% of Wimberger’s statements use bipartisan language, 2.5 times the State Senate Republican average of 2.3%.
The measures on which Wimberger sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy discussion
63%
State Senate Republicans average 37% · ranks 25th of 354
Credit claiming
33%
State Senate Republicans average 15% · ranks 34th of 354
Bipartisanship
5.8%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 35th of 354
Policy criticism
21%
State Senate Republicans average 9.5% · ranks 49th of 354
CSIP ideology
+0.57
More conservative than 80% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
From Wisconsin, 2026
86%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 635th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Wimberger, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Wimberger is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Wimberger says
Wimberger stresses bipartisanship more than 90% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 5.8% of 651 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 35th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Wimberger’s 651 statements in the WI 2025–26 session (651 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the WI 2025–26 session
0%80%
Wimberger
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion410 statements
63%
37%
25th of 354
Credit claiming218 statements
33%
15%
34th of 354
Policy criticism137 statements
21%
9%
49th of 354
Bipartisanship38 statements
6%
2%
35th of 354
Personal attacks13 statements
2%
2%
117th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Wimberger | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 63% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 33% | 15% |
| Policy criticism | 21% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 6% | 2% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 2% |
651
statements classified
651 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 651 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Wimberger; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Wimberger does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Wimberger used extreme labels in 1.1% of statements, below the peer average. 7 statements, most often aimed at Michael Bloomberg; peers 1.3%.
- “far left”5
- “radical”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Michael Bloomberg2
- Evers Administration1
- Supreme Court1
- Wisconsin Supreme Court1
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the WI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 21 | 0.0% | 38.1% | 61.9% | 4.8% | 42.9% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 31.8% | 50.0% | 4.5% | 31.8% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 33 | 6.1% | 15.2% | 51.5% | 3.0% | 18.2% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 39 | 2.6% | 28.2% | 69.2% | 0.0% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 35 | 8.6% | 20.0% | 57.1% | 5.7% | 40.0% | 2.9% |
| Jun ’25 | 32 | 3.1% | 34.4% | 71.9% | 6.3% | 34.4% | 3.1% |
| Jul ’25 | 31 | 0.0% | 25.8% | 80.7% | 12.9% | 48.4% | 3.2% |
| Aug ’25 | 31 | 3.2% | 12.9% | 58.1% | 0.0% | 32.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 57.1% | 5.7% | 14.3% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 11.1% | 58.3% | 13.9% | 52.8% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 32 | 3.1% | 21.9% | 53.1% | 9.4% | 31.3% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 25 | 4.0% | 20.0% | 68.0% | 0.0% | 24.0% | 4.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 27 | 3.7% | 11.1% | 81.5% | 3.7% | 48.1% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 57.1% | 14.3% | 50.0% | 3.6% |
| Mar ’26 | 30 | 0.0% | 26.7% | 56.7% | 13.3% | 23.3% | 3.3% |
| Apr ’26 | 27 | 3.7% | 18.5% | 81.5% | 3.7% | 37.0% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 29 | 3.5% | 24.1% | 62.1% | 10.3% | 24.1% | 3.5% |
| Jun ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 21.4% | 53.6% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 18.5% | 66.7% | 7.4% | 44.4% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 6.9% | 69.0% | 0.0% | 31.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 29 | 0.0% | 6.9% | 69.0% | 6.9% | 34.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 25 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 52.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 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 WI 2025–26 session, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.
In Wimberger’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.
Sep 21, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Environmental Protection; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “far left” aimed at Evers Administration · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Education · target: Jill UnderlySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Education · Government Operations and Politics · target: UnderlySource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Hannah DuganSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Law · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Hannah DuganSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: UnderlySource
All 651 statements
Newest first, the WI 2025–26 session
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 651 posts on X.
Policy
Education is what Wimberger talks about most: 18% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.60 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 67th of 226).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Wimberger talks about. The bills Wimberger sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Wimberger talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the WI 2025–26 session
0%35%
Wimberger
Peers
Education75 statements
18%
14%
Government Operations and Politics73 statements
18%
17%
Economics and Public Finance66 statements
16%
12%
Crime and Law Enforcement47 statements
12%
12%
Environmental Protection44 statements
11%
2%
Show the data
| Row | Wimberger | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 18% | 14% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 17% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 12% | 12% |
| Environmental Protection | 11% | 2% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Wimberger’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education | 18% | 14% | 8% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 17% | 8% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 12% | 2% | 3% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 12% | 12% | 13% | 10% |
| Environmental Protection | 11% | 2% | 3% | 2% |
0.60
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 67th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Wimberger legislates on exactly the areas Wimberger 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 Wimberger sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Wimberger sits at +0.57 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 80% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.54 to +0.61, which understates the uncertainty; from 752 donors and 533 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”.
+0.57
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.54 to +0.61. From 752 donors and 533 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Wimberger, 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 Wimberger’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 Wimberger sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Wisconsin Senate33 · median +0.6
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Wimberger |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 80% |
| Wisconsin Senate | 33 | +0.6 | 48% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 89% |
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 Wimberger 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 Wimberger.
Money
Wimberger reported $25.3K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 86% of itemized individual money came from Wisconsin.
Campaign money from state campaign-finance filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift total, so these figures add up itemized contributions only.
$25.3K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 39 itemized donors. State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)44 squares$11.1K
- PACs and other committees56 squares$14.3K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $11.1K | 43.8% |
| PACs and other committees | $14.3K | 56.2% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $800.9K |
| 2022 cycle | $69.4K |
| 2024 cycle | $161.7K |
| 2026 cycle | $25.3K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 86% came from Wisconsin.
- Wisconsin$9,574
- Illinois$775
- Florida$500
- Nebraska$250
Small donations
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin | $9,574 |
| Illinois | $775 |
| Florida | $500 |
| Nebraska | $250 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
39
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
86%
from Wisconsin
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Wisconsin. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BUSINESS EXECUTIVE$2,500 5 donors
- BANKER$699 6 donors
- ENGINEER$500 3 donors
- REALTOR$500 5 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- RANW PAC$2,000
- ELI LILLY AND COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- JOHNSON CONTROLS INC PAC$1,000
- LOCAL 215$1,000
- MILWAUKEE POLICE ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Wimberger voted with the majority of Wisconsin Senate Republicans on 99.1% of party-line votes and missed none of 191 roll calls. Wisconsin Senate on average: 97.3% party unity, 99.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Wimberger voted against the majority of Wisconsin Senate Republicans 2 times.
191 roll calls Wimberger could vote on in the WI 2025–26 session, compared with Wisconsin Senate. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Wimberger voted with the majority of Wisconsin Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
2
votes against the majority of Wisconsin Senate Republicans
Party unity 99.1%, Wisconsin Senate average 97.3%, ranks 14th of 32. 191 roll calls in the WI 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Wimberger, the thin grey bar the Wisconsin Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Wimberger
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
99.8%
15th of 32
Party unity
99.1%
97.3%
14th of 32
Show the data
| Row | Wimberger | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 99.8% |
| Party unity | 99.1% | 97.3% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the WI 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2026 | AB 911 Relating to: funding for a battery collection and recycling program and making an appropriation. (FE) CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 18–0Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 18 yea, 0 nay | became law |
| Mar 17, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 16–2Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 16 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover · much discussed | |
| Mar 17, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 15–3Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 15 yea, 3 nay | became law · party crossover | |
| Mar 17, 2026 | AB 604 Relating to: coverage under the Medical Assistance program for incarcerated individuals. (FE) CONCURRENCE | Yea | With majority | pass | D 15–0 · R 17–1Democrats 15 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 17 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Mar 17, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–15 · R 17–1Democrats 0 yea, 15 nay; Republicans 17 yea, 1 nay | close vote |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Wimberger most often
- Romaine QuinnR191 shared votes99%
- Rachael Cabral-GuevaraR191 shared votes99%
- John JaglerR191 shared votes98%
- Cory TomczykR191 shared votes98%
- Jesse JamesR191 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Wimberger least often
- Chris LarsonD191 shared votes30%
- Kelda RoysD181 shared votes30%
- Dora DrakeD191 shared votes32%
- Tim CarpenterD191 shared votes32%
- Bob WirchD191 shared votes33%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
WI 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Wimberger sponsored 68 bills in the WI 2025–26 session; 10 became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 60% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Wisconsin Senate average 43%; 17th of 33).
The bills Wimberger sponsored and cosponsored in the WI 2025–26 session, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the WI 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 68 | 68 | 19 | 14 | 10 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Wimberger sponsored, ochre blocks bills Wimberger cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
60%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Wisconsin Senate average 43%. Ranks 17th of 33.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Wimberger, by number of shared bills in the WI 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Steve Nass32
- Cory Tomczyk29
- Romaine Quinn22
- Jesse James19
- Howard Marklein18
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 Wimberger’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SB 1177 | Relating to: performing risk-limiting audits and eliminating the process for removing excess ballots from the vote count. (FE) | Sponsor | Mar 19, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Fiscal estimate received May 13, 2026 |
| SJR 142 | Relating to: recognizing the life and extraordinary leadership of Bob Harlan. | Sponsor | Mar 17, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| SB 1056 | Relating to: speech-language pathologist licenses issued by the Department of Public Instruction and modifying administrative rules promulgated by the Department of Public Instruction. (FE) | Sponsor | Feb 24, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| SB 1 | Relating to: onetime individual income tax rebates. (FE) | Sponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
| SB 995 | Relating to: funding for individual income tax rebates and making an appropriation. (FE) | Sponsor | Feb 11, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 Mar 23, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 3 times in 90 days. Wimberger’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Wimberger’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 Wimberger posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
3changes in 90 days
- 7
pages 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 Wimberger posted
No images from Wimberger’s posts have been described.
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
State floor speeches
No transcribed state floor speeches are matched to this legislator yet.
Floor speeches
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Wimberger is most unusual among State Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- 86a5289a-d18f-4869-ac53-432022c7f9c7
- Open States
- ocd-person/86a5289a-d18f-4869-ac53-432022c7f9c7
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