Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 6, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development · Source
4.6×
the State Senate Republican rate of personal attacks
10% of 513 statements contain a personal attack (53 statements); the average for State Senate Republicans is 2.3%. Ranks 16th of 354, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Lucero’s posts on X and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. 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. 0% of Lucero’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Minnesota, in the bottom 5% of State Senate Republicans. 7.2% of Lucero’s statements use an extreme label, 5.7 times the State Senate Republican average of 1.3%.
The measures on which Lucero 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.
Personal attacks
10%
State Senate Republicans average 2.3% · ranks 16th of 354
From Minnesota, 2026
0%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 837th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Extreme labels
7.2%
State Senate Republicans average 1.3% · ranks 11th of 354
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.65
State Senate Republicans average 0.52 · ranks 25th of 226
Party unity
100%
Minnesota Senate average 93.0% · ranks 8th of 67 · 30 votes against the majority of Minnesota Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.52
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.05
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Lucero, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Lucero is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Lucero says
Lucero attacks opponents personally more than 95% of State Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 10% of 513 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 16th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Lucero’s 513 statements in the MN 2025–26 session (513 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 MN 2025–26 session
0%80%
Lucero
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion220 statements
43%
37%
145th of 354
Policy criticism100 statements
19%
9%
59th of 354
Personal attacks53 statements
10%
2%
16th of 354
Credit claiming41 statements
8%
15%
231st of 354
Bipartisanship3 statements
1%
2%
237th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Lucero | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 43% | 37% |
| Policy criticism | 19% | 9% |
| Personal attacks | 10% | 2% |
| Credit claiming | 8% | 15% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
513
statements classified
513 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 513 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Lucero; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Lucero does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Lucero used extreme labels in 7.2% of statements, 5.7 times the peer average. 37 statements, most often aimed at MinnesotaDFL; peers 1.3%.
- “communist”11
- “radical”7
- “extreme”4
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MinnesotaDFL5
- Minnesota DFL4
- Tim Walz4
- Democrats3
- Keith Ellison2
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 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 12 | 8.3% | 16.7% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 28 | 14.3% | 17.9% | 35.7% | 0.0% | 10.7% | 7.1% |
| Apr ’25 | 27 | 14.8% | 22.2% | 51.8% | 0.0% | 3.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 33 | 9.1% | 30.3% | 45.5% | 3.0% | 3.0% | 9.1% |
| Jun ’25 | 38 | 10.5% | 21.1% | 42.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5.3% |
| Jul ’25 | 57 | 14.0% | 19.3% | 38.6% | 0.0% | 7.0% | 7.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 20 | 10.0% | 10.0% | 15.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 10.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 29 | 3.5% | 34.5% | 58.6% | 0.0% | 3.5% | 10.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 15 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.7% |
| Nov ’25 | 16 | 25.0% | 18.8% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.3% |
| Dec ’25 | 26 | 15.4% | 23.1% | 38.5% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 3.9% |
| Jan ’26 | 28 | 35.7% | 0.0% | 71.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.6% |
| Feb ’26 | 34 | 2.9% | 14.7% | 26.5% | 0.0% | 20.6% | 8.8% |
| Mar ’26 | 38 | 2.6% | 39.5% | 52.6% | 0.0% | 10.5% | 5.3% |
| Apr ’26 | 33 | 3.0% | 21.2% | 54.5% | 3.0% | 6.1% | 9.1% |
| May ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 50.0% | 10.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 22 | 18.2% | 18.2% | 27.3% | 0.0% | 4.5% | 27.3% |
| Jul ’26 | 8 | — (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 | 11 | 0.0% | 9.1% | 72.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 9.1% |
| Sep ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Oct ’26 | 10 | 10.0% | 10.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 10.0% |
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%. 2 months are hatched here.
In Lucero’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; extreme label “communist” aimed at Ilhan Omar; target: Ilhan Omar · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 12, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; extreme label “radical” aimed at MinnesotaDFL · 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 · extreme label “radical” aimed at MinnesotaDFLSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · extreme label “communist” aimed at Ilhan Omar · target: Ilhan OmarSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Keith EllisonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Nicole MitchellSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: KlobucharSource
All 513 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: 513 posts on X.
Policy
Crime and Law Enforcement is what Lucero talks about most: 21% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 25th 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 Lucero talks about. The bills Lucero sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Lucero talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MN 2025–26 session
0%35%
Lucero
Peers
Crime and Law Enforcement46 statements
21%
12%
Government Operations and Politics40 statements
18%
17%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues38 statements
17%
5%
Education35 statements
16%
14%
Economics and Public Finance31 statements
14%
12%
Show the data
| Row | Lucero | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 21% | 12% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 17% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 17% | 5% |
| Education | 16% | 14% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 12% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Lucero’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 21% | 12% | 9% | 10% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 18% | 17% | 15% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 17% | 5% | 15% | 3% |
| Education | 16% | 14% | 11% | 10% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 14% | 12% | 0% | 3% |
0.65
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 25th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Lucero legislates on exactly the areas Lucero 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 Lucero sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Lucero sits at +0.52 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 74% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.47 to +0.57, which understates the uncertainty; from 68 donors and 420 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”.
+0.52
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.47 to +0.57. From 68 donors and 420 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Lucero, 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 Lucero’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 Lucero sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Minnesota Senate67 · median −0.3
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Lucero |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 74% |
| Minnesota Senate | 67 | −0.3 | 99% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 85% |
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 Lucero 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 Lucero.
Money
Lucero reported $22.4K in the 2026 cycle, below the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. 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.
$22.4K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 22 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)75 squares$16.9K
- PACs and other committees16 squares$3,500
- Party committees9 squares$2,000
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $16.9K | 75.5% |
| PACs and other committees | $3,500 | 15.6% |
| Party committees | $2,000 | 8.9% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $22.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $41.8K |
| 2024 cycle | $29.4K |
| 2026 cycle | $22.4K |
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 |
22
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.
- 30TH SENATE DISTRICT RPM$2,000
- MN REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- MULTI HOUSING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
- IFAPAC MINN$500
- MN MANUFACTURED HOME PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- BUSINESS OWNER$6,000 7 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Lucero voted with the majority of Minnesota Senate Republicans on 100% 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, Lucero voted against the majority of Minnesota Senate Republicans 30 times.
149 roll calls Lucero 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 Lucero voted with the majority of Minnesota Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
30
votes against the majority of Minnesota Senate Republicans
Party unity 100%, Minnesota Senate average 93.0%, ranks 8th of 67. 149 roll calls in the MN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Lucero, the thin grey bar the Minnesota Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Lucero
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
100%
34th of 67
Party unity
100%
93.0%
8th of 67
Show the data
| Row | Lucero | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 100% |
| Party unity | 100% | 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 | Nay | 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 | Nay | Against 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 | Nay | 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 Lucero most often
- Mike HolmstromR97 shared votes99%
- Bill LieskeR147 shared votes95%
- Nathan WesenbergR148 shared votes95%
- Bruce AndersonR51 shared votes94%
- Cal BahrR146 shared votes93%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Lucero least often
- Nicole MitchellD51 shared votes35%
- Susan PhaD142 shared votes36%
- Sandy PappasD142 shared votes36%
- Tou XiongD148 shared votes38%
- Steve CwodzinskiD149 shared votes38%
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
Lucero sponsored 96 bills in the MN 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 127 others. 1.0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Minnesota Senate average 3.1%; 38th of 67).
The bills Lucero 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 | 96 | 96 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 127 | 127 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Lucero sponsored, ochre blocks bills Lucero cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
1.0%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Minnesota Senate average 3.1%. Ranks 38th of 67.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Lucero, by number of shared bills in the MN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Glenn Gruenhagen44
- Steve Drazkowski37
- Nathan Wesenberg36
- Cal Bahr34
- Bill Lieske30
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 Lucero’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 5282 | Retail establishments requirement to accept cash as payment | Sponsor | May 12, 2026 | In committee | Commerce(model) | Referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection May 12, 2026 |
| SF 5284 | Relative homesteads rental licensing requirements prohibition provision | Sponsor | May 12, 2026 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | Referred to Taxes May 12, 2026 |
| SF 5285 | Certain landlord requirements clarification provisions | Sponsor | May 12, 2026 | In committee | Housing and Community Development(model) | Referred to Judiciary and Public Safety May 12, 2026 |
| SF 5247 | Protecting Families and Children Act Establishment | Sponsor | Apr 29, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Referred to Judiciary and Public Safety Apr 29, 2026 |
| SF 5224 | Disorderly house crime expansion provision | Cosponsor | Apr 27, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement(model) | Referred to Judiciary and Public Safety Apr 27, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Lucero’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Lucero’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 Lucero posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes in 90 days
- 21
pages crawled
16changes 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
- XEricLuceroMN
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/EricLuceroMN
- Instagramericluceromn
- LinkedInwww.linkedin.com/in/ericlucero
- Emailsen.eric.lucero@senate.mn
Images Lucero posted
No images from Lucero’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
849 turns, May 13, 2020 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 Lucero 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
- a9040c8f-56d4-4ad9-83f5-e6f1216e7a5e
- Open States
- ocd-person/a9040c8f-56d4-4ad9-83f5-e6f1216e7a5e
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