Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · 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. 13 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. 10% of Gillman’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans (average 32%). 2.9% of Gillman’s statements claim credit, in the bottom quarter of State House Republicans (average 13%).
The measures on which Gillman 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 discussion
10%
State House Republicans average 32% · ranks 693rd of 791
Credit claiming
2.9%
State House Republicans average 13% · ranks 633rd of 791
Out of committee
6.3%
Minnesota House average 4.4% · ranks 37th of 131
Itemized, 2026
$12.7K
State House Republicans’ median $33.7K · ranks 1817th of 2,521
CSIP ideology
+0.25
Right of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04
Peer group: State House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Gillman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gillman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Gillman says
Gillman claims credit less than 79% of State House Republicans. Credit claiming in 2.9% of 957 statements, against 13% for the average State House Republican; 633rd of 791.
An AI model reads each of Gillman’s 957 statements in the MN 2025–26 session (957 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%
Gillman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion100 statements
10%
32%
693rd of 791
Policy criticism37 statements
4%
9%
506th of 791
Credit claiming28 statements
3%
13%
633rd of 791
Personal attacks9 statements
1%
3%
404th of 791
Bipartisanship6 statements
1%
2%
478th of 791
Show the data
| Row | Gillman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 10% | 32% |
| Policy criticism | 4% | 9% |
| Credit claiming | 3% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 3% |
| Bipartisanship | 1% | 2% |
957
statements classified
957 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 957 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Gillman; the thin grey bar is the average State House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Gillman does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Gillman used extreme labels in 0.2% of statements, 15% of the peer average. 2 statements, most often aimed at abortion laws; peers 1.4%.
- “extreme”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- abortion laws1
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 | 73 | 1.4% | 4.1% | 6.9% | 2.7% | 8.2% | 1.4% |
| Feb ’25 | 49 | 2.0% | 2.0% | 8.2% | 0.0% | 4.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 53 | 0.0% | 9.4% | 20.8% | 3.8% | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 61 | 0.0% | 3.3% | 8.2% | 0.0% | 1.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 45 | 0.0% | 4.4% | 15.6% | 0.0% | 4.4% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 45 | 2.2% | 4.4% | 8.9% | 0.0% | 2.2% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 39 | 2.6% | 2.6% | 10.3% | 0.0% | 2.6% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 53 | 0.0% | 3.8% | 3.8% | 1.9% | 1.9% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 36 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 55 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 5.5% | 0.0% | 5.5% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 46 | 0.0% | 6.5% | 4.3% | 0.0% | 2.2% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 43 | 2.3% | 4.7% | 16.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.3% |
| Jan ’26 | 49 | 0.0% | 2.0% | 6.1% | 2.0% | 2.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 26 | 0.0% | 7.7% | 11.5% | 0.0% | 3.9% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 37 | 2.7% | 10.8% | 18.9% | 0.0% | 8.1% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 3 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| May ’26 | 26 | 0.0% | 3.9% | 3.9% | 0.0% | 3.9% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 46 | 2.2% | 2.2% | 2.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 45 | 0.0% | 2.2% | 13.3% | 0.0% | 2.2% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 61 | 0.0% | 4.9% | 27.9% | 0.0% | 3.3% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 33 | 3.0% | 0.0% | 9.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 33 | 3.0% | 0.0% | 12.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 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%. One month is hatched here.
In Gillman’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.
Aug 11, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Education · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Dec 31, 2025 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “extreme” aimed at abortion laws · 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 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 · Taxation · target: Brad TabkeSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Tim WalzSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Tim WalzSource
Posts on X (state legislators)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacksSource
All 957 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: 957 posts on X.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Gillman talks about most: 28% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.49 on a 0–1 scale (State House Republicans average 0.53; 338th 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 Gillman talks about. The bills Gillman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Gillman talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the MN 2025–26 session
0%35%
Gillman
Peers
Government Operations and Politics28 statements
28%
18%
Economics and Public Finance25 statements
25%
12%
Education18 statements
18%
15%
Health12 statements
12%
10%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues11 statements
11%
6%
Show the data
| Row | Gillman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 28% | 18% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 25% | 12% |
| Education | 18% | 15% |
| Health | 12% | 10% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 6% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Gillman’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 35%. 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 | 28% | 18% | 5% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 25% | 12% | 0% | 2% |
| Education | 18% | 15% | 10% | 9% |
| Health | 12% | 10% | 25% | 10% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 11% | 6% | 5% | 4% |
0.49
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
State House Republicans average 0.53. Ranks 338th of 504.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Gillman legislates on exactly the areas Gillman 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 Gillman sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Gillman sits at +0.25 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 67% of State House Republicans. Approximate range +0.21 to +0.29, which understates the uncertainty; from 38 donors and 483 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”.
+0.25
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.21 to +0.29. From 38 donors and 483 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gillman, 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 Gillman’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 Gillman 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 Gillman |
|---|---|---|---|
| State House Republicans | 2917 | +0.4 | 33% |
| Minnesota House | 133 | −0.4 | 83% |
| All State House | 5324 | +0.1 | 63% |
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 Gillman 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 Gillman.
Money
Gillman reported $12.7K in the 2026 cycle, 38% of 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.
$12.7K
itemized in the 2026 cycle
From 13 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)38 squares$4,873
- PACs and other committees60 squares$7,550
- Party committees2 squares$250
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Individuals (itemized) | $4,873 | 38.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $7,550 | 59.6% |
| Party committees | $250 | 2.0% |
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 Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2022 cycle | $12.6K |
| 2024 cycle | $14.2K |
| 2026 cycle | $12.7K |
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 |
13
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.
- OPTOMETRY PAC$1,000
- MN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LEADERSHIP FD$750
- CAMPAIGN FUND OF CANTERBURY PARK$500
- NORTH MIDWEST STATES CARPENTERS PAC$500
- SAINT PAUL TEACHERS PENSION PAC$500
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- LOBBYIST$1,104 4 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Gillman voted with the majority of Minnesota House Republicans on 97.2% of party-line votes and missed none of 300 roll calls. Minnesota House on average: 97.5% party unity, 100% attendance. Across all roll calls, Gillman voted against the majority of Minnesota House Republicans 8 times.
300 roll calls Gillman 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 Gillman 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.
8
votes against the majority of Minnesota House Republicans
Party unity 97.2%, Minnesota House average 97.5%, ranks 89th of 133. 300 roll calls in the MN 2025–26 session.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Gillman, the thin grey bar the Minnesota House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Gillman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
100%
67th of 133
Party unity
97.2%
97.5%
89th of 133
Show the data
| Row | Gillman | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 100% | 100% |
| Party unity | 97.2% | 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 Gillman most often
- Tom SextonR298 shared votes98%
- Joe McDonaldR291 shared votes97%
- Kristin RobbinsR299 shared votes97%
- Jim NashR294 shared votes97%
- Cal WarwasR300 shared votes96%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gillman least often
- Jay XiongD289 shared votes46%
- Amanda Hemmingsen-JaegerD123 shared votes48%
- Tina LieblingD297 shared votes48%
- Aisha GomezD297 shared votes48%
- Leigh FinkeD298 shared votes49%
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
Gillman sponsored 32 bills in the MN 2025–26 session; none became law. Cosponsored 108 others. 6.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Minnesota House average 4.4%; 37th of 131).
The bills Gillman 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 | 32 | 32 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 108 | 108 | 16 | 4 | 3 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Gillman sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gillman cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
6.3%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Minnesota House average 4.4%. Ranks 37th of 131.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gillman, by number of shared bills in the MN 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.
- Natalie Zeleznikar32
- Joe McDonald24
- Bernie Perryman19
- Bianca Virnig18
- Bobbie Harder17
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 Gillman’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 5116 | Hutchinson; Camp Craig Training Facility prior appropriation modified. | Sponsor | May 5, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security(model) | Author added Fischer May 16, 2026 |
| HF 5064 | Coercing a pregnant minor female into seeking or obtaining an abortion prohibited, suspected cases of human trafficking of minors screened and reported, certain information required to be displayed, action for wrongful death resulting from abortion added, and rulemaking required. | Sponsor | Apr 22, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues(model) | Author added Backer Apr 23, 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 4947 | Wright County; Trunk Highway 24 intersection improvements funding provided, bonds issued, and money appropriated. | Cosponsor | Apr 13, 2026 | In committee | Transportation and Public Works(model) | Introduction and first reading, referred to Transportation Finance and Policy Apr 13, 2026 |
| HF 4949 | Sports and events reimbursement program established, and reports required. | Cosponsor | Apr 13, 2026 | In committee | Commerce(model) | Author added Davids May 4, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 1 time in 90 days. Gillman’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.
The lab crawls Gillman’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 Gillman posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 1
pages crawled
1changes 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
- Xdawn_gillman
- Facebookwww.facebook.com/dawn.gillman
- Instagramdawn_gillman
- YouTubewww.youtube.com/@dawngillman
- Emailrep.dawn.gillman@house.mn.gov
Images Gillman posted
No images from Gillman’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
52 turns, Mar 9, 2023 to May 17, 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 Gillman 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
- f4047f6d-971d-41be-bbce-e15dac5829ae
- Open States
- ocd-person/f4047f6d-971d-41be-bbce-e15dac5829ae
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