Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 24, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; target: Ilhan Omar · Source
0%
of itemized money from Minnesota donors, in the bottom 5% of State House Republicans
0% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Minnesota. Ranks 2291st of 2,335, where 1st is the highest share. 59 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Minnesota, ranked among State House Republicans. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against State House Republicans. 21% of Robbins’s statements criticize a policy, 2.2 times the State House Republican average of 9.3%. 6.0% of Robbins’s statements contain a personal attack, 2.1 times the State House Republican average of 2.9%.
The measures on which Robbins sits furthest from the middle of State House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From Minnesota, 2026
0%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 2291st of 2,335 State House Republicans
Policy criticism
21%
State House Republicans average 9.3% · ranks 99th of 791
Personal attacks
6.0%
State House Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 126th of 791
Bipartisanship
2.3%
State House Republicans average 1.8% · ranks 224th of 791
Policy discussion
43%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 232nd of 791
CSIP ideology
+0.23
More liberal than 70% of State House Republicans · ± 0.03
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Robbins, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Robbins is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Robbins says
Robbins criticizes policies more than 87% of State House Republicans. Policy criticism in 21% of 1,916 statements, against 9.3% for the average State House Republican; 99th of 791.
An AI model reads each of Robbins’s 1,916 statements in the MN 2025–26 session (1,916 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 Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the MN 2025–26 session
0%80%
Robbins
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion815 statements
43%
32%
232nd of 791
Policy criticism400 statements
21%
9%
99th of 791
Credit claiming189 statements
10%
13%
403rd of 791
Personal attacks116 statements
6%
3%
126th of 791
Bipartisanship44 statements
2%
2%
224th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Robbins | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 43% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 21% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 10% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 6% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 2% | 2% |
1,916
statements classified
1,916 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,916 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Robbins; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Robbins does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Robbins used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, close to the peer average. 30 statements, most often aimed at Tim Walz; peers 1.4%.
- “radical”14
- “woke”4
- “extreme”3
- “far left”2
- “communist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Tim Walz8
- Democrats4
- radical left3
- Minnesota2
- socialism2
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 | 81 | 3.7% | 25.9% | 39.5% | 7.4% | 22.2% | 1.2% |
| Feb ’25 | 98 | 2.0% | 21.4% | 34.7% | 2.0% | 10.2% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 97 | 3.1% | 20.6% | 40.2% | 4.1% | 10.3% | 1.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 65 | 3.1% | 16.9% | 33.9% | 0.0% | 10.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 87 | 4.6% | 21.8% | 48.3% | 6.9% | 10.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 104 | 1.9% | 12.5% | 34.6% | 3.9% | 10.6% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 53 | 5.7% | 30.2% | 47.2% | 0.0% | 9.4% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 59 | 1.7% | 27.1% | 35.6% | 0.0% | 3.4% | 8.5% |
| Sep ’25 | 91 | 5.5% | 33.0% | 42.9% | 1.1% | 6.6% | 2.2% |
| Oct ’25 | 100 | 11.0% | 26.0% | 41.0% | 0.0% | 14.0% | 4.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 73 | 4.1% | 27.4% | 37.0% | 1.4% | 13.7% | 1.4% |
| Dec ’25 | 136 | 19.1% | 14.0% | 53.7% | 1.5% | 11.8% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 95 | 8.4% | 8.4% | 67.4% | 3.2% | 8.4% | 1.1% |
| Feb ’26 | 108 | 0.9% | 25.0% | 35.2% | 3.7% | 10.2% | 1.8% |
| Mar ’26 | 152 | 2.6% | 31.6% | 40.1% | 2.6% | 11.2% | 3.3% |
| Apr ’26 | 146 | 6.9% | 18.5% | 50.7% | 0.0% | 4.8% | 0.7% |
| May ’26 | 133 | 12.0% | 18.1% | 34.6% | 3.0% | 8.3% | 1.5% |
| Jun ’26 | 88 | 4.5% | 15.9% | 28.4% | 2.3% | 9.1% | 2.3% |
| Jul ’26 | 47 | 4.3% | 19.1% | 36.2% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 4.3% |
| Aug ’26 | 45 | 6.7% | 11.1% | 60.0% | 2.2% | 4.4% | 2.2% |
| Sep ’26 | 35 | 2.9% | 11.4% | 54.3% | 0.0% | 11.4% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 23 | 8.7% | 8.7% | 56.5% | 0.0% | 4.3% | 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 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%.
In Robbins’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 20, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy criticism; policy discussion; Law; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “radical” aimed at Democrats · 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: Ilhan OmarSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · 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 · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: Tim Walz, Peggy FlanaganSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Peggy FlanaganSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Peggy Flanagan, Tim WalzSource
All 1,916 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: 1,916 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Robbins talks about most: 37% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.55 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 234th of 504).
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 Robbins talks about. The bills Robbins sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Robbins talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MN 2025–26 session
0%40%
Robbins
Peers
Government Operations and Politics299 statements
37%
18%
Crime and Law Enforcement184 statements
23%
11%
Economics and Public Finance145 statements
18%
12%
Health88 statements
11%
10%
Education81 statements
10%
15%
Show the data
| Row | Robbins | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 37% | 18% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 23% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 18% | 12% |
| Health | 11% | 10% |
| Education | 10% | 15% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Robbins’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House 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 40%. Grey ticks are the State House Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | State House Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | State House Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 37% | 18% | 8% | 12% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 23% | 11% | 14% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 18% | 12% | 2% | 2% |
| Health | 11% | 10% | 9% | 10% |
| Education | 10% | 15% | 7% | 9% |
0.55
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 234th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Robbins legislates on exactly the areas Robbins 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 Robbins sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Robbins sits at +0.23 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 70% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.21 to +0.26, which understates the uncertainty; from 216 donors and 771 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”.
+0.23
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.21 to +0.26. From 216 donors and 771 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Robbins, 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 Robbins’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 Robbins sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
State House Republicans2,917 · median +0.4
Minnesota House133 · median −0.4
All State House5,324 · median +0.1
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Robbins |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 30% |
| Minnesota House | 133 | −0.4 | 77% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 61% |
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 Robbins 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 Robbins.
Money
Robbins reported $51.7K in the 2026 cycle, above the State House Republicans’ median of $33.7K. 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.
$51.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 59 itemized donors. State House Republicans’ median $33.7K.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
- Individuals (itemized)96 squares$49.4K
- PACs and other committees4 squares$2,250
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $49.4K | 95.6% |
| PACs and other committees | $2,250 | 4.4% |
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 House Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $52.5K |
| 2022 cycle | $57.5K |
| 2024 cycle | $70.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $51.7K |
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 |
59
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.
- MINN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LEADERSHIP FD PAC$500
- MN BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP PAC$500
- MN CPAS PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE$500
- MINNBANK PAC$250
- RURAL ELECTRIC POLITICAL ACTION COMM$250
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Robbins voted with the majority of Minnesota House Republicans on 98.6% of party-line votes and missed none of 299 roll calls. Minnesota House on average: 97.5% party unity, 100% attendance. Across all roll calls, Robbins voted against the majority of Minnesota House Republicans 6 times.
299 roll calls Robbins could vote on in the MN 2025–26 session, compared with Minnesota 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 Robbins voted with the majority of Minnesota House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
6
votes against the majority of Minnesota House Republicans
Party unity 98.6%, Minnesota House average 97.5%, ranks 79th of 133. 299 roll calls in the MN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Robbins, the thin grey bar the Minnesota House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Robbins
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
100%
67th of 133
Party unity
98.6%
97.5%
79th of 133
Show the data
| Row | Robbins | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 100% |
| Party unity | 98.6% | 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 MN 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2026 | HF 1849 Term limits provided for governor and lieutenant governor, and constitutional amendment proposed. Niska Motion Suspension of Rules | Yea | With majority | fail | D 0–67 · R 64–2Democrats 0 yea, 67 nay; Republicans 64 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 2354 Medical assistance fraud governing provisions added and modified, attorney general provided subpoena and enforcement authority, criminal penalties provided, conforming changes made, and money appropriated. Passage, as amended | Yea | With majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 51–16Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 51 yea, 16 nay | party crossover |
| May 17, 2026 | HF 5149 Law enforcement access to sensitive locations restricted, civil remedies established, concealing identity crime modified, scope of use of force investigations expanded, access to certain information limited. Long motion Suspension of Rules | Nay | With majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 0–63Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 63 nay | close vote |
| May 17, 2026 | SF 4612 Omnibus Health and Human Services supplemental appropriations Repassage, as amended by Conference | Yea | With majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 41–26Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 41 yea, 26 nay | became law · party crossover |
| May 17, 2026 | SF 334 Human Services Systems Modernization Advisory Council and Legislative Commission on Human Services Systems; creation Passage | Yea | With majority | pass | D 67–0 · R 67–0Democrats 67 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 67 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 Robbins most often
- Bjorn OlsonR298 shared votes98%
- Tom SextonR297 shared votes98%
- Jeff DotsethR298 shared votes97%
- Bidal DuranR299 shared votes97%
- Dawn GillmanR299 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Robbins least often
- Jay XiongD288 shared votes46%
- Ned CarrollD290 shared votes48%
- Tina LieblingD296 shared votes48%
- Aisha GomezD296 shared votes48%
- Leigh FinkeD297 shared votes48%
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
Robbins sponsored 72 bills in the MN 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 105 others. 4.2% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Minnesota House average 4.4%; 53rd of 131).
The bills Robbins 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 | 72 | 72 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 105 | 105 | 17 | 7 | 7 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Robbins sponsored, ochre blocks bills Robbins cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
4.2%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Minnesota House average 4.4%. Ranks 53rd of 131.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Robbins, by number of shared bills in the MN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Peggy Scott38
- Natalie Zeleznikar33
- Krista Knudsen29
- Patti Anderson23
- Erica Schwartz23
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 Robbins’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 5142 | Hospital charity care payment program administered by the commissioner of health established, money collected from the hospital surcharge deposited in a charity care account in the special revenue fund, and money appropriated. | Cosponsor | May 13, 2026 | In committee | Health(model) | Author added Bahner May 14, 2026 |
| HR 10 | A house resolution reaffirming the commitment of the Minnesota House of Representatives to strengthening and deepening sister ties between the state of Minnesota and Taiwan; reaffirming support for the Taiwan Relations Act by urging all enterprises in Minnesota to refer to Taiwan as Taiwan; supporti | Cosponsor | May 6, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs(model) | Resolution introduced, referred to Rules and Legislative Administration May 6, 2026 |
| HF 5045 | Photo ID required to register to vote and to vote, SAVE Minnesota Act established, proof of citizenship to vote required, voter identification card created, provisional ballots established, driver's license requirements modified, and money appropriated. | Cosponsor | Apr 20, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics(model) | Introduction and first reading, referred to Elections Finance and Government Operations Apr 20, 2026 |
| HF 5030 | Hennepin County; prior appropriation for a railroad crossing modified. | Sponsor | Apr 20, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Introduction and first reading, referred to Capital Investment Apr 20, 2026 |
| HF 5015 | School safety plans enhanced, student discipline provisions modified, anonymous reporting systems enabled, safe schools revenue increased, school building and cybersecurity grant program modified, reports required, and money appropriated. | Cosponsor | Apr 16, 2026 | In committee | Education(model) | Motion did not prevail Apr 16, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 2 times in 90 days. Robbins’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Robbins’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 Robbins 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 Robbins posted
No images from Robbins’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
204 turns, Mar 16, 2020 to May 18, 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 Robbins is most unusual among State House 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
- d32d0b31-20af-4068-a5bd-42fd0a072ded
- Open States
- ocd-person/d32d0b31-20af-4068-a5bd-42fd0a072ded
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