Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics · Source
1.7%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, the lowest of 98 in the Iowa House
1.7% of 59 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Iowa House is 13%. Ranks 98th of 98, where 1st is the highest share.
The share of bills Turek sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Iowa House. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Democrats. Turek missed 36% of 822 roll calls, attendance in the bottom 5% of the Iowa House (average 91.8%). Turek reported $1,520 in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom tenth of State House Democrats (median $40.4K).
The measures on which Turek sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Out of committee
1.7%
Iowa House average 13% · ranks 98th of 98
Attendance
64%
Iowa House average 91.8% · ranks 95th of 98 · 822 roll calls
Itemized, 2026
$1,520
State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 1951st of 2,082
Party unity
91.4%
Iowa House average 96.0% · ranks 84th of 98 · 21 votes against the majority of Iowa House Democrats
Policy criticism
18%
State House Democrats average 10% · ranks 153rd of 764
CSIP ideology
−0.63
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Turek, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Turek is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Turek says
Turek criticizes policies more than 79% of State House Democrats. Policy criticism in 18% of 832 statements, against 10% for the average State House Democrat; 153rd of 764.
An AI model reads each of Turek’s 832 statements in the IA 2025–26 session (832 posts on X) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for State House Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the IA 2025–26 session
0%80%
Turek
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion352 statements
42%
39%
346th of 764
Policy criticism151 statements
18%
10%
153rd of 764
Credit claiming103 statements
12%
14%
373rd of 764
Bipartisanship24 statements
3%
3%
271st of 764
Personal attacks20 statements
2%
3%
230th of 764
Show the data
| Row | Turek | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 42% | 39% |
| Policy criticism | 18% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 12% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 3% | 3% |
| Personal attacks | 2% | 3% |
832
statements classified
832 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 832 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Turek; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Turek does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Turek used extreme labels in 0.5% of statements, below the peer average. 4 statements, most often aimed at abortion ban; peers 1.0%.
- “extreme”3
- “MAGA”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- abortion ban2
- Iowa legislature1
- MAGA Republicans1
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 IA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’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) |
| Feb ’25 | 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 ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Apr ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jun ’25 | 0 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Jul ’25 | 1 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Aug ’25 | 52 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 26.9% | 0.0% | 32.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 49 | 2.0% | 32.6% | 42.9% | 6.1% | 26.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 37 | 0.0% | 35.1% | 51.3% | 0.0% | 16.2% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 24 | 8.3% | 33.3% | 50.0% | 8.3% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 30 | 0.0% | 20.0% | 76.7% | 0.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 32 | 6.3% | 15.6% | 68.8% | 0.0% | 9.4% | 3.1% |
| Feb ’26 | 51 | 2.0% | 21.6% | 23.5% | 0.0% | 19.6% | 2.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 53 | 0.0% | 30.2% | 35.9% | 7.5% | 22.6% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 42 | 0.0% | 21.4% | 52.4% | 0.0% | 11.9% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 45 | 2.2% | 17.8% | 42.2% | 0.0% | 15.6% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 49 | 2.0% | 16.3% | 22.4% | 2.0% | 16.3% | 4.1% |
| Jul ’26 | 48 | 2.1% | 12.5% | 22.9% | 0.0% | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 69 | 1.5% | 8.7% | 37.7% | 7.2% | 2.9% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 106 | 2.8% | 9.4% | 50.9% | 4.7% | 4.7% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 140 | 5.0% | 11.4% | 47.1% | 2.9% | 2.9% | 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 IA 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%. 7 months are hatched here; 4 of them have no statements.
In Turek’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Energy; Foreign Trade and International Finance · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at abortion ban · 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 · Health · Government Operations and Politics · target: Ashley HinsonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: Ashley HinsonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Ashley HinsonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Agriculture and Food · Taxation · target: Ashley HinsonSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
All 832 statements
Newest first, the IA 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: 832 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Turek talks about most: 32% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.52 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 301st of 503).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Turek talks about. The bills Turek sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Turek talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the IA 2025–26 session
0%35%
Turek
Peers
Health113 statements
32%
15%
Agriculture and Food92 statements
26%
5%
Economics and Public Finance75 statements
21%
11%
Government Operations and Politics61 statements
17%
15%
Armed Forces and National Security47 statements
13%
3%
Show the data
| Row | Turek | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 32% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 26% | 5% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 21% | 11% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 17% | 15% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 13% | 3% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Turek’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 32% | 15% | 21% | 15% |
| Agriculture and Food | 26% | 5% | 9% | 3% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 21% | 11% | 2% | 2% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 17% | 15% | 19% | 8% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 13% | 3% | 3% | 1% |
0.52
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 301st of 503.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Turek legislates on exactly the areas Turek 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 Turek sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Turek sits at −0.63 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 51% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.66 to −0.60, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,145 donors and 449 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”.
−0.63
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.66 to −0.60. From 4,145 donors and 449 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Turek, 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 Turek’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 Turek sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Democrats2,392 · median −0.6
Iowa House99 · median +0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Turek |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Democrats | 2392 | −0.6 | 49% |
| Iowa House | 99 | +0.4 | 20% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 22% |
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 Turek 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 Turek.
Money
Turek reported $1,520 in the 2026 cycle, 3.8% of the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 84% of itemized individual money came from Iowa.
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.
$1,520
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 9 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)61 squares$920
- PACs and other committees39 squares$600
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $920 | 60.5% |
| PACs and other committees | $600 | 39.5% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind.
Receipts by cycle
Itemized contributions, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $132.9K |
| 2024 cycle | $422.3K |
| 2026 cycle | $1,520 |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 84% came from Iowa.
- Iowa$775
- District of Columbia$70
- California$50
- North Carolina$25
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 |
|---|---|
| Iowa | $775 |
| District of Columbia | $70 |
| California | $50 |
| North Carolina | $25 |
| 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 |
| Indiana | No data |
| Ohio | 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 |
| 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 |
| South Carolina | 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 |
9
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
84%
from Iowa
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 Iowa. 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.
- IOWA HEALTH PAC$500
- IOWA CHIROPRACTIC SOCIETY PAC$100
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Turek voted with the majority of Iowa House Democrats on 91.4% of party-line votes and missed 36% of 822 roll calls. Iowa House on average: 96.0% party unity, 91.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Turek voted against the majority of Iowa House Democrats 21 times.
822 roll calls Turek could vote on in the IA 2025–26 session, compared with Iowa House. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Turek voted with the majority of Iowa House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
21
votes against the majority of Iowa House Democrats
Party unity 91.4%, Iowa House average 96.0%, ranks 84th of 98. 822 roll calls in the IA 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Turek, the thin grey bar the Iowa House average. The scale runs from 60% to 100% to show the gap.
60%100%
Turek
Peers
Rank
Attendance
64%
91.8%
95th of 98
Party unity
91.4%
96.0%
84th of 98
Show the data
| Row | Turek | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 64% | 91.8% |
| Party unity | 91.4% | 96.0% |
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 IA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2026 | HF 2801 A bill for an act modifying the major economic growth attraction program, and including effective date provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 16–15 · R 59–2Democrats 16 yea, 15 nay; Republicans 59 yea, 2 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 639 A bill for an act creating a specialty business court, and including effective date provisions. Shall amendment H-8456 be adopted? | Nay | With majority | fail | D 0–27 · R 8–50Democrats 0 yea, 27 nay; Republicans 8 yea, 50 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | HF 2770 A bill for an act relating to and making appropriations to the justice system, providing fees, and including applicability provisions. Shall amendment H-8451, to amendment H-8414, be adopted? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 55–3Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 55 yea, 3 nay | became law |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 2480 A bill for an act relating to the taxation and regulation of alternative nicotine products and vapor products, making appropriations, and including effective date provisions. Shall the bill pass? | Yea | With majority | pass | D 14–13 · R 53–5Democrats 14 yea, 13 nay; Republicans 53 yea, 5 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 2, 2026 | SF 2465 A bill for an act relating to agriculture, including by providing for the powers and duties of the department of agriculture and land stewardship, including the promotion and regulation of commodities and products, the regulation of the transportation of agricultural items, the use of agricultural l Shall the bill pass? | Did not vote | — | pass | D 22–3 · R 59–1Democrats 22 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 59 yea, 1 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 Turek most often
- Tracy EhlertD470 shared votes96%
- Brian MeyerD521 shared votes96%
- Bob KressigD511 shared votes96%
- Jennifer KonfrstD510 shared votes95%
- Megan SrinivasD475 shared votes95%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Turek least often
- Mark CisnerosR503 shared votes60%
- Charley ThomsonR526 shared votes61%
- Bill GustoffR439 shared votes63%
- Eddie AndrewsR405 shared votes64%
- Craig WilliamsR492 shared votes64%
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
IA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Turek sponsored 59 bills in the IA 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 0 others. 1.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Iowa House average 13%; 98th of 98).
The bills Turek sponsored and cosponsored in the IA 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 IA 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 59 | 59 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Turek sponsored, ochre blocks bills Turek cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
1.7%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Iowa House average 13%. Ranks 98th of 98.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Turek, by number of shared bills in the IA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Austin Baeth11
- Ross Wilburn11
- Bob Kressig9
- Ken Croken9
- Aime Wichtendahl9
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 Turek’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| HF 2740 | A bill for an act relating to the confidentiality of certain information filed with the secretary of state by foreign persons holding agricultural land. | Sponsor | Mar 17, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | Introduced, referred to State Government. Mar 17, 2026 |
| HF 2734 | A bill for an act providing for the processing and marketing of meat and poultry products, including by prohibiting vertical integration, providing for a health and safety program, and providing for the divestiture of interests in processors by certain retailers, and providing penalties. | Sponsor | Mar 9, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | Introduced, referred to Agriculture. Mar 9, 2026 |
| HF 2732 | A bill for an act providing for water quality practices, including an edge-of-field practice tax credit and cover crop practice tax credit. | Sponsor | Mar 9, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection(model) | Introduced, referred to Ways and Means. Mar 9, 2026 |
| HF 2733 | A bill for an act relating to water quality, including a water quality monitoring network and the water quality initiative, an agricultural best management practices tax credit, an Iowa clean water farm program and property tax credit, and water quality practices loans, making appropriations, and in | Sponsor | Mar 9, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection(model) | Introduced, referred to Ways and Means. Mar 9, 2026 |
| HF 2727 | A bill for an act providing for the reporting of certain information relating to the sale of fertilizers, providing penalties, making penalties applicable, and including effective date provisions. | Sponsor | Feb 26, 2026 | In committee | Agriculture and Food(model) | Introduced, referred to Agriculture. Feb 26, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Turek’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Turek’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 Turek posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 31
pages crawled
55changes 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 Turek posted
No images from Turek’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
6 turns, Feb 19, 2026 to Apr 21, 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 Turek is most unusual among State House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- c9679bfc-5a21-405a-bae1-e2de9a85baf8
- Open States
- ocd-person/c9679bfc-5a21-405a-bae1-e2de9a85baf8
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