14% of 1,893 statements use an extreme label (263 statements); the average for State Senate Democrats is 0.8%. Ranks 2nd of 329, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at Trump.
An AI model reads each of Wiener’s posts on X and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among State Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.
6 measures against State Senate Democrats. 16% of Wiener’s statements contain a personal attack, 6.8 times the State Senate Democrat average of 2.4%. 24% of Wiener’s statements criticize a policy, 2.4 times the State Senate Democrat average of 10%.
The measures on which Wiener 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.
Extreme labels
State Senate Democrats average 0.8% · ranks 2nd of 329
Personal attacks
State Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 14th of 329
Attendance
California Senate average 93.8% · ranks 3rd of 39 · 3,673 roll calls
Policy criticism
State Senate Democrats average 10% · ranks 31st of 329
CSIP ideology
More liberal than 88% of State Senate Democrats · ± 0.03
Policy discussion
State Senate Democrats average 43% · ranks 67th of 329
Peer group: State Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Wiener, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Wiener is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Wiener attacks opponents personally more than 95% of State Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 16% of 1,893 statements, against 2.4% for the average State Senate Democrat; 14th of 329.
An AI model reads each of Wiener’s 1,893 statements in the CA 2025–26 session (1,893 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.
Share of statements carrying each label, the CA 2025–26 session
| Row | Wiener | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 60% | 43% |
| Policy criticism | 24% | 10% |
| Credit claiming | 21% | 16% |
| Personal attacks | 16% | 2% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 3% |
statements classified
1,893 posts on X.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,893 |
The thick bar is Wiener; the thin grey bar is the average State Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Wiener does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Wiener used extreme labels in 14% of statements, 16.7 times the peer average. 263 statements, most often aimed at Trump; peers 0.8%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the CA 2025–26 session
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 84 | 11.9% | 45.2% | 71.4% | 0.0% | 20.2% | 11.9% |
| Feb ’25 | 56 | 25.0% | 30.4% | 55.4% | 0.0% | 10.7% | 14.3% |
| Mar ’25 | 4 | — (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 | 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) |
| Jun ’25 | 97 | 12.4% | 24.7% | 55.7% | 2.1% | 12.4% | 26.8% |
| Jul ’25 | 120 | 20.8% | 27.5% | 53.3% | 2.5% | 17.5% | 15.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 117 | 18.8% | 29.9% | 57.3% | 0.0% | 20.5% | 22.2% |
| Sep ’25 | 128 | 12.5% | 30.5% | 53.9% | 1.6% | 24.2% | 26.6% |
| Oct ’25 | 128 | 18.0% | 22.7% | 43.8% | 0.0% | 21.1% | 21.9% |
| Nov ’25 | 152 | 15.8% | 29.6% | 57.2% | 0.7% | 28.3% | 15.8% |
| Dec ’25 | 93 | 18.3% | 9.7% | 60.2% | 1.1% | 20.4% | 7.5% |
| Jan ’26 | 105 | 19.1% | 2.9% | 68.6% | 0.9% | 20.0% | 3.8% |
| Feb ’26 | 125 | 13.6% | 34.4% | 61.6% | 1.6% | 24.8% | 10.4% |
| Mar ’26 | 96 | 18.8% | 41.7% | 62.5% | 0.0% | 15.6% | 16.7% |
| Apr ’26 | 75 | 21.3% | 17.3% | 64.0% | 0.0% | 21.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 111 | 10.8% | 25.2% | 63.1% | 0.0% | 26.1% | 10.8% |
| Jun ’26 | 119 | 15.1% | 25.2% | 45.4% | 2.5% | 10.9% | 22.7% |
| Jul ’26 | 80 | 10.0% | 16.3% | 76.3% | 0.0% | 26.3% | 5.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 56 | 16.1% | 5.4% | 75.0% | 1.8% | 26.8% | 1.8% |
| Sep ’26 | 71 | 16.9% | 14.1% | 77.5% | 0.0% | 19.7% | 1.4% |
| Oct ’26 | 72 | 19.4% | 8.3% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 18.1% | 4.2% |
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 CA 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%. 3 months are hatched here.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 31, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Science, Technology, Communications; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
Extreme label
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; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Government Operations and Politics; Immigration; extreme label “fascist” aimed at regime · Source
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 · Government Operations and PoliticsSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Housing and Community Development · Energy · Agriculture and Food · Economics and Public Finance · target: Mad KingSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
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: TrumpSource
Newest first, the CA 2025–26 session
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,893 posts on X.
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues is what Wiener talks about most: 17% of policy statements, 2.0 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.61 on a 0–1 scale (State Senate Democrats average 0.56; 81st 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 Wiener talks about. The bills Wiener sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the CA 2025–26 session
| Row | Wiener | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 17% | 8% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 14% |
| Health | 15% | 17% |
| Housing and Community Development | 14% | 7% |
| Immigration | 13% | 4% |
The thick bar is the share of Wiener’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.
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 Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | State Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | State Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 17% | 8% | 9% | 5% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 14% | 4% | 8% |
| Health | 15% | 17% | 9% | 15% |
| Housing and Community Development | 14% | 7% | 8% | 5% |
| Immigration | 13% | 4% | 0% | 1% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State Senate Democrats average 0.56. Ranks 81st of 228.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Wiener legislates on exactly the areas Wiener 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 Wiener sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Wiener sits at −0.99 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 88% of State Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.02 to −0.95, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,875 donors and 1,191 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.02 to −0.95. From 3,875 donors and 1,191 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Wiener, 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 Wiener’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Wiener |
|---|---|---|---|
| State Senate Democrats | 825 | −0.7 | 12% |
| California Senate | 39 | −0.7 | 21% |
| All State Senate | 1909 | +0.1 | 5% |
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 Wiener 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 Wiener.
Wiener reported $66.8K in the 2026 cycle, above the State Senate Democrats’ median of $55.5K. State filings report no small-donation total. 93% of itemized individual money came from California.
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.
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 115 itemized donors. State Senate Democrats’ median $55.5K.
Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $43.0K | 64.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $23.8K | 35.6% |
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.
Itemized contributions, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.8M |
| 2022 cycle | $641.2K |
| 2024 cycle | $1.2M |
| 2026 cycle | $66.8K |
Itemized contributions by donor state. 93% came from California.
State filings report no total for small gifts.
Not reported in state filings.
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| California | $40.2K |
| Pennsylvania | $1,100 |
| Colorado | $1,000 |
| Tennessee | $500 |
| New York | $100 |
| Kentucky | $100 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Missouri | 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 |
| 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 |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
from California
Of itemized individual dollars
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is California. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Wiener voted with the majority of California Senate Democrats on 98.9% of party-line votes and missed 0.6% of 3,673 roll calls. California Senate on average: 98.7% party unity, 93.8% attendance. Across all roll calls, Wiener voted against the majority of California Senate Democrats 28 times.
3,673 roll calls Wiener could vote on in the CA 2025–26 session, compared with California 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 Wiener voted with the majority of California Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of California Senate Democrats
Party unity 98.9%, California Senate average 98.7%, ranks 25th of 39. 3,673 roll calls in the CA 2025–26 session.
The thick bar is Wiener, the thin grey bar the California Senate average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Wiener | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 99.4% | 93.8% |
| Party unity | 98.9% | 98.7% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the CA 2025–26 session
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 29–0 · R 0–4Democrats 29 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 4 nay | became law | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 22–5 · R 0–9Democrats 22 yea, 5 nay; Republicans 0 yea, 9 nay | party crossover | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | Nay | Against majority | pass | D 25–1 · R 4–4Democrats 25 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 4 nay | became law | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | Yea | With majority | pass | D 30–0 · R 10–0Democrats 30 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 10 yea, 0 nay | became law | |
| Aug 31, 2026 | AB 2694 Public postsecondary education: community colleges: statewide baccalaureate degree program. 3rd Reading AB2694 Alvarez et al. By Cabaldon | Yea | With majority | pass | D 27–0 · R 6–1Democrats 27 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 6 yea, 1 nay | became law |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Wiener most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Wiener least often
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.
CA 2025–26 session, loads in batches
Wiener sponsored 51 bills in the CA 2025–26 session; 28 became law. Cosponsored 144 others. 96% of sponsored bills got out of committee (California Senate average 88%; 13th of 39).
The bills Wiener sponsored and cosponsored in the CA 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.
Counts for the CA 2025–26 session
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 51 | 51 | 39 | 30 | 28 |
| Cosponsored | 144 | 143 | 129 | 93 | 82 |
Ink blocks are bills Wiener sponsored, ochre blocks bills Wiener cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
California Senate average 88%. Ranks 13th of 39.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Wiener, by number of shared bills in the CA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
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 Wiener’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| SR 135 | Relative to 40th Infantry Division of the California National Guard. | Cosponsor | Aug 6, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 5352.) Aug 13, 2026 |
| HR 127 | Relative to Transgender History Month. | Cosponsor | Aug 3, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Page 6107.). Aug 10, 2026 |
| SCR 193 | Relative to the Emperor Norton Tunnel. | Sponsor | Aug 3, 2026 | Passed both chambers | Unassigned | Referred to Com. on TRANS. Aug 24, 2026 |
| SCR 187 | Relative to Father's Day. | Cosponsor | Jun 15, 2026 | Became law | Unassigned | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Res. Chapter 143, Statutes of 2026. Jul 2, 2026 |
| SR 116 | Relative to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ+) Pride Month. | Cosponsor | May 26, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Unassigned | Read. Adopted. (Ayes 28. Noes 0. Page 4898.) Jun 22, 2026 |
A site that changed 10 times in 90 days. Wiener’s official site had 22 pages when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Wiener’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 Wiener posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
No images from Wiener’s posts have been described.
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
493 turns, Jan 17, 2020 to Sep 1, 2026
Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.
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 is the measure on which Wiener 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
