Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 20, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Education · Source
94%
of State Senate Republicans score to the left of Timken on the CSIP scale
CSIP score +0.78 (approximate range +0.75 to +0.82, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 2,325 donors and 53 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Timken sits among State Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Republicans. Timken reported $563.1K in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of State Senate Republicans (median $46.2K). The policy areas Timken talks about and legislates on agree at 0.44 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Republicans.
The measures on which Timken 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.
CSIP ideology
+0.78
More conservative than 94% of State Senate Republicans · ± 0.04
Itemized, 2026
$563.1K
State Senate Republicans’ median $46.2K · ranks 54th of 936
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.44
State Senate Republicans average 0.52 · ranks 180th of 226
Out of committee
68%
Ohio Senate average 55% · ranks 10th of 32
Party unity
100%
Ohio Senate average 97.5% · ranks 12th of 31 · 0 votes against the majority of Ohio Senate Republicans
From Ohio, 2026
93%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 513th of 860 State Senate Republicans
Peer group: State Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Timken, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Timken is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Timken says
Timken stresses bipartisanship less than 87% of State Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 0% of 151 statements, against 2.3% for the average State Senate Republican; 311th of 354.
An AI model reads each of Timken’s 151 statements in the OH 2025–26 session (151 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 OH 2025–26 session
0%80%
Timken
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion29 statements
19%
37%
288th of 354
Credit claiming12 statements
8%
15%
232nd of 354
Personal attacks1 statements
1%
2%
157th of 354
Policy criticism1 statements
1%
9%
297th of 354
Bipartisanship0 statements
0%
2%
311th of 354
Show the data
| Row | Timken | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 19% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 8% | 15% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
| Policy criticism | 1% | 9% |
| Bipartisanship | 0% | 2% |
151
statements classified
151 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 151 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Timken; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Timken does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Timken used no extreme labels in 151 statements. The peer average is 1.3%.
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 OH 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.9% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’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) |
| 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 | 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) |
| May ’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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| Jul ’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) |
| Aug ’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) |
| Sep ’25 | 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 ’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) |
| Nov ’25 | 2 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Dec ’25 | 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) |
| Jan ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 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 ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 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) |
| Jun ’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) |
| 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 | 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 ’26 | 10 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 40.0% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 33.3% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 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 OH 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%. 18 months are hatched here.
In Timken’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.
Oct 10, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Democrats · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Feb 27, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: DemocratsSource
All 151 statements
Newest first, the OH 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: 151 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Timken talks about most: 28% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.44 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Republicans average 0.52; 180th 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 Timken talks about. The bills Timken sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Timken talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the OH 2025–26 session
0%35%
Timken
Peers
Government Operations and Politics8 statements
28%
17%
Armed Forces and National Security4 statements
14%
6%
Crime and Law Enforcement3 statements
10%
12%
Labor and Employment3 statements
10%
3%
Taxation3 statements
10%
7%
Show the data
| Row | Timken | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 28% | 17% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 14% | 6% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 10% | 12% |
| Labor and Employment | 10% | 3% |
| Taxation | 10% | 7% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Timken’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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 28% | 17% | 7% | 12% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 14% | 6% | 4% | 2% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 10% | 12% | 11% | 10% |
| Labor and Employment | 10% | 3% | 1% | 3% |
| Taxation | 10% | 7% | 11% | 10% |
0.44
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Republicans average 0.52. Ranks 180th of 226.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Timken legislates on exactly the areas Timken 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 Timken sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Timken sits at +0.78 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 94% of State Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.75 to +0.82, which understates the uncertainty; from 2,325 donors and 53 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”.
+0.78
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.75 to +0.82. From 2,325 donors and 53 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Timken, 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 Timken’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 Timken sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Republicans1,083 · median +0.4
Ohio Senate32 · median +0.4
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Timken |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Republicans | 1083 | +0.4 | 94% |
| Ohio Senate | 32 | +0.4 | 88% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 97% |
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 Timken 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 Timken.
Money
Timken reported $563.1K in the 2026 cycle, 12.2 times the State Senate Republicans’ median of $46.2K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from Ohio.
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.
$563.1K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 298 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)81 squares$453.6K
- PACs and other committees19 squares$107.8K
- Party committees$1,710
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $453.6K | 80.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $107.8K | 19.1% |
| Party committees | $1,710 | 0.3% |
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, 2026 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | $563.1K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from Ohio.
- Ohio$421.1K
- Louisiana$16.6K
- Tennessee$7,500
- California$3,500
- Florida$2,260
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 |
|---|---|
| Ohio | $421.1K |
| Louisiana | $16.6K |
| Tennessee | $7,500 |
| California | $3,500 |
| Florida | $2,260 |
| Illinois | $1,000 |
| Virginia | $621 |
| Michigan | $500 |
| Arizona | $260 |
| New York | $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 |
| Wisconsin | 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 |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Texas | No data |
298
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
93%
from Ohio
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 Ohio. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- HOMEMAKER$45.2K 17 donors
- RETIRED$31.3K 45 donors
- RETIRED/RETIRED$23.9K 17 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- BEER & WINE PAC$13.5K
- REALTORS PAC OHIO$6,000
- DEALERS INVESTMENT GROUP PAC$4,500
- OHIO TRUCKING ASSOCIATION PAC$4,000
- NISOURCE INC. PAC$2,500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Timken voted with the majority of Ohio Senate Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed none of 238 roll calls. Ohio Senate on average: 97.5% party unity, 100% attendance. Across all roll calls, Timken never voted against the majority of Ohio Senate Republicans.
238 roll calls Timken could vote on in the OH 2025–26 session, compared with Ohio 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 Timken voted with the majority of Ohio Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
0
votes against the majority of Ohio Senate Republicans
Party unity 100%, Ohio Senate average 97.5%, ranks 12th of 31. 238 roll calls in the OH 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Timken, the thin grey bar the Ohio Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Timken
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
100%
17th of 32
Party unity
100%
97.5%
12th of 31
Show the data
| Row | Timken | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 100% |
| Party unity | 100% | 97.5% |
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 OH 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 5–3 · R 22–0 · O 1–0Democrats 5 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 0 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 1–8 · R 22–1 · O 1–0Democrats 1 yea, 8 nay; Republicans 22 yea, 1 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | much discussed | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 9–0 · R 23–0 · O 1–0Democrats 9 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 0 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 7–2 · R 23–0 · O 1–0Democrats 7 yea, 2 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 0 nay; Others 1 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Jun 11, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 0–9 · R 23–0 · O 1–0Democrats 0 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 23 yea, 0 nay; Others 1 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 Timken most often
- Tim SchafferR238 shared votes100%
- Susan ManchesterR237 shared votes100%
- Theresa GavaroneR225 shared votes100%
- Bill ReinekeR238 shared votes100%
- Steve WilsonR206 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Timken least often
- Paula Hicks-HudsonD226 shared votes83%
- Beth ListonD234 shared votes84%
- Kent SmithD228 shared votes84%
- Casey WeinsteinD209 shared votes84%
- Bill DeMoraD233 shared votes85%
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
OH 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Timken sponsored 19 bills in the OH 2025–26 session; 1 became law. Cosponsored 143 others. 68% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Ohio Senate average 55%; 10th of 32).
The bills Timken sponsored and cosponsored in the OH 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 OH 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 19 | 19 | 13 | 2 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 143 | 143 | 136 | 63 | 57 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Timken sponsored, ochre blocks bills Timken cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
68%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Ohio Senate average 55%. Ranks 10th of 32.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Timken, by number of shared bills in the OH 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Bill Reineke50
- Theresa Gavarone50
- Tom Patton48
- Tim Schaffer48
- Jerry Cirino45
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 Timken’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SR 446 | Honoring the YWCA of Alliance on its Centennial. | Sponsor | Oct 7, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Oct 7, 2026 |
| SB 475 | Temporarily reduce motor fuel taxes; levy a temporary tax | Sponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Taxation(model) | Referred to committee Sep 30, 2026 |
| SB 473 | Designate September 25 as Dolly Parton Day | Cosponsor | Sep 28, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to committee Sep 30, 2026 |
| SR 436 | In memory of I. Ray Miller. | Cosponsor | Sep 3, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Sep 3, 2026 |
| SR 422 | In memory of Kenneth R. Cox. | Cosponsor | Jul 27, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Adopted Jul 27, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Timken’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Timken’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 Timken posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
2changes in 90 days
- 3
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 Timken posted
No images from Timken’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
16 turns, May 14, 2025 to Sep 30, 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 Timken 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
- c3b1dc5e-4913-4e2f-b2a8-4db5b3faa1bd
- Open States
- ocd-person/c3b1dc5e-4913-4e2f-b2a8-4db5b3faa1bd
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