Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 12, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · bipartisanship · Source
0%
of statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of State Senate Democrats
0% of 341 statements contain a personal attack (0 statements); the average for State Senate Democrats is 2.4%. Ranks 248th of 329, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Villivalam’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 Democrats and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. 2.4% of Villivalam’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom half of State Senate Democrats (average 10%). Villivalam sits at −0.80 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 71% of State Senate Democrats.
The measures on which Villivalam sits furthest from the middle of State Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Party unity
100%
Illinois Senate average 95.3% · ranks 13th of 59 · 0 votes against the majority of Illinois Senate Democrats
Personal attacks
0%
State Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 248th of 329
Policy criticism
2.4%
State Senate Democrats average 10% · ranks 243rd of 329
CSIP ideology
−0.80
More liberal than 71% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.09
Attendance
98.5%
Illinois Senate average 95.4% · ranks 17th of 59 · 1,502 roll calls
Bipartisanship
4.1%
State Senate Democrats average 3.4% · ranks 102nd of 329
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Villivalam, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Villivalam is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Villivalam says
Villivalam attacks opponents personally less than 75% of State Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 0% of 341 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 248th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Villivalam’s 341 statements in the IL 2025–26 session (341 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the IL 2025–26 session
0%80%
Villivalam
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion153 statements
45%
43%
164th of 329
Credit claiming69 statements
20%
16%
109th of 329
Bipartisanship14 statements
4%
3%
102nd of 329
Policy criticism8 statements
2%
10%
243rd of 329
Personal attacks0 statements
0%
2%
248th of 329
Show the data
| Row | Villivalam | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 45% | 43% |
| Credit claiming | 20% | 16% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 3% |
| Policy criticism | 2% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 0% | 2% |
341
statements classified
341 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 341 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Villivalam; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Villivalam does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Villivalam used no extreme labels in 341 statements. The peer average is 0.8%.
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 IL 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 27 | 0.0% | 3.7% | 51.8% | 14.8% | 14.8% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 19 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 52.6% | 5.3% | 26.3% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 47.2% | 0.0% | 19.4% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 22 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 4.5% | 13.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 7.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 14 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 42.9% | 7.1% | 35.7% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 38 | 0.0% | 2.6% | 28.9% | 7.9% | 15.8% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 28 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 42.9% | 3.6% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 45 | 0.0% | 2.2% | 35.6% | 4.4% | 24.4% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 46.2% | 0.0% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 24 | 0.0% | 8.3% | 50.0% | 4.2% | 29.2% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 25.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 12 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 58.3% | 0.0% | 8.3% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’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) |
| 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 | 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 ’26 | 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 ’26 | 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 ’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) |
| Aug ’26 | 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) |
| Sep ’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) |
| Oct ’26 | 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) |
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 IL 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%. 9 months are hatched here; 4 of them have no statements.
In Villivalam’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works · Source
Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Nov 5, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Agriculture and Food · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
No statements in this category in this window.
All 341 statements
Newest first, the IL 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: 341 posts on X.
Policy
Transportation and Public Works is what Villivalam talks about most: 35% of policy statements, 6.5 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.62 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 67th of 228).
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 Villivalam talks about. The bills Villivalam sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Villivalam talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the IL 2025–26 session
0%39%
Villivalam
Peers
Transportation and Public Works54 statements
35%
5%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues23 statements
15%
8%
Education18 statements
12%
15%
Health16 statements
10%
17%
Labor and Employment13 statements
9%
6%
Show the data
| Row | Villivalam | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation and Public Works | 35% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 8% |
| Education | 12% | 15% |
| Health | 10% | 17% |
| Labor and Employment | 9% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Villivalam’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State Senate 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 39%. Grey ticks are the State Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transportation and Public Works | 35% | 5% | 21% | 5% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 15% | 8% | 2% | 5% |
| Education | 12% | 15% | 11% | 9% |
| Health | 10% | 17% | 16% | 15% |
| Labor and Employment | 9% | 6% | 5% | 6% |
0.62
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 67th of 228.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Villivalam legislates on exactly the areas Villivalam 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 Villivalam sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Villivalam sits at −0.80 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 71% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.89 to −0.72, which understates the uncertainty; from 0 donors and 1,103 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”.
−0.80
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.89 to −0.72. From 0 donors and 1,103 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Villivalam, 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 Villivalam’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 Villivalam sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State Senate Democrats825 · median −0.7
Illinois Senate59 · median −0.5
All State Senate1,909 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Villivalam |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 29% |
| Illinois Senate | 59 | −0.5 | 15% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 12% |
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 Villivalam 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 Villivalam.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this official.
Votes
Villivalam voted with the majority of Illinois Senate Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 1.5% of 1,502 roll calls. Illinois Senate on average: 95.3% party unity, 95.4% attendance. Across all roll calls, Villivalam never voted against the majority of Illinois Senate Democrats.
1,502 roll calls Villivalam could vote on in the IL 2025–26 session, compared with Illinois 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 Villivalam voted with the majority of Illinois Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
0
votes against the majority of Illinois Senate Democrats
Party unity 100%, Illinois Senate average 95.3%, ranks 13th of 59. 1,502 roll calls in the IL 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Villivalam, the thin grey bar the Illinois Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Villivalam
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.5%
95.4%
17th of 59
Party unity
100%
95.3%
13th of 59
Show the data
| Row | Villivalam | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.5% | 95.4% |
| Party unity | 100% | 95.3% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
Roll calls the lab flags as key
No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.
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 Villivalam most often
- Celina VillanuevaD1,479 shared votes100%
- Don HarmonD1,446 shared votes100%
- Gregg JohnsonD1,065 shared votes100%
- Omar AquinoD1,231 shared votes100%
- Rob MartwickD1,383 shared votes100%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Villivalam least often
- Andrew ChesneyR1,390 shared votes79%
- Jason PlummerR1,445 shared votes80%
- Neil AndersonR1,416 shared votes80%
- Chapin RoseR1,457 shared votes82%
- Terri BryantR1,454 shared votes83%
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
IL 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Legislation
Villivalam sponsored 135 bills in the IL 2025–26 session; 31 became law. Cosponsored 130 others. 45% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Illinois Senate average 42%; 27th of 59).
The bills Villivalam sponsored and cosponsored in the IL 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 IL 2025–26 session
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 135 | 135 | 54 | 34 | 31 |
| Cosponsored | 130 | 130 | 58 | 42 | 36 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Villivalam sponsored, ochre blocks bills Villivalam cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
45%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Illinois Senate average 42%. Ranks 27th of 59.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Villivalam, by number of shared bills in the IL 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Graciela Guzmán69
- Rachel Ventura48
- Karina Villa47
- Mike Simmons-Gessesse44
- Adriane Johnson44
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 Villivalam’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 828 | MEMORIAL-H. P. MANGROLA | Sponsor | May 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Resolution Adopted Jun 1, 2026 |
| HJR 63 | RECOGNIZE-COCA-COLA COMPANY | Cosponsor | May 4, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Added as Alternate Chief Co-Sponsor Sen. Ram Villivalam May 30, 2026 |
| SR 743 | AAPI HERITAGE MONTH | Sponsor | Apr 28, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Added as Co-Sponsor Sen. Laura M. Murphy May 19, 2026 |
| SB 4189 | $ST BD ED-FAITH BY PLATE | Sponsor | Apr 28, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Added as Co-Sponsor Sen. Javier L. Cervantes May 26, 2026 |
| SR 700 | ASSYRIAN HERITAGE MONTH | Sponsor | Apr 10, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Resolution Adopted Apr 15, 2026 |
Online
A site that has not changed in 90 days. Villivalam’s official site had 0 pages when last crawled.
The lab crawls Villivalam’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 Villivalam posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 0
pages crawled
0changes in 90 days
- 0
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 Villivalam posted
No images from Villivalam’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
605 turns, Feb 25, 2020 to May 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 Villivalam is most unusual among State Senate 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
- d01a10b0-e391-4c65-ba1f-304ee6130f5c
- Open States
- ocd-person/d01a10b0-e391-4c65-ba1f-304ee6130f5c
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