Policy discussion
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics · Source
1.6×
the Democratic governor rate of policy discussion
79% of 719 statements discuss policy (568 statements); the average for Democratic governors is 49%. Ranks 2nd of 21, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Kotek’s posts on X and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Democratic governors and ranked against the same group.
At a glance
6 measures against Democratic governors. 41% of Kotek’s statements claim credit, 1.6 times the Democratic governor average of 26%. 22% of Kotek’s statements criticize a policy, 1.5 times the Democratic governor average of 14%.
The measures on which Kotek sits furthest from the middle of Democratic governors, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Policy discussion
79%
Democratic governors average 49% · ranks 2nd of 21
Credit claiming
41%
Democratic governors average 26% · ranks 2nd of 21
Policy criticism
22%
Democratic governors average 14% · ranks 3rd of 21
Personal attacks
1.1%
Democratic governors average 4.2% · ranks 14th of 21
Bipartisanship
4.2%
Democratic governors average 3.7% · ranks 8th of 21
Extreme labels
1.5%
Democratic governors average 1.7% · ranks 9th of 21
Peer group: Democratic governors. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Kotek, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Kotek is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Kotek says
Kotek attacks opponents personally less than 61% of Democratic governors. Personal attacks in 1.1% of 719 statements, against 4.2% for the average Democratic governor; 14th of 21.
An AI model reads each of Kotek’s 719 statements in the current term (719 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 Democratic governors and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the current term
0%80%
Kotek
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion568 statements
79%
49%
2nd of 21
Credit claiming297 statements
41%
26%
2nd of 21
Policy criticism157 statements
22%
14%
3rd of 21
Bipartisanship30 statements
4%
4%
8th of 21
Personal attacks8 statements
1%
4%
14th of 21
Show the data
| Row | Kotek | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 79% | 49% |
| Credit claiming | 41% | 26% |
| Policy criticism | 22% | 14% |
| Bipartisanship | 4% | 4% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 4% |
719
statements classified
719 posts on X.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 719 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Kotek; the thin grey bar is the average Democratic governors. A longer thick bar means Kotek does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Kotek used extreme labels in 1.5% of statements, close to the peer average. 11 statements, most often aimed at Christine Drazan; peers 1.7%.
- “MAGA”6
- “extreme”5
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Christine Drazan5
- Republicans2
- conditions1
- Donald Trump1
- extremism1
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 current term
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 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) |
| Feb ’25 | 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 ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 19.2% | 73.1% | 3.9% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 26 | 0.0% | 23.1% | 88.5% | 0.0% | 34.6% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 17 | 0.0% | 17.6% | 82.3% | 17.6% | 47.1% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 23.1% | 84.6% | 0.0% | 23.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 30 | 0.0% | 6.7% | 76.7% | 20.0% | 46.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 18 | 0.0% | 5.6% | 94.4% | 22.2% | 55.6% | 5.6% |
| Sep ’25 | 10 | 0.0% | 10.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 30.0% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 61.5% | 92.3% | 0.0% | 30.8% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 16 | 0.0% | 18.8% | 75.0% | 0.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 30 | 0.0% | 3.3% | 70.0% | 6.7% | 60.0% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 10.5% | 84.2% | 10.5% | 57.9% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 32.1% | 85.7% | 0.0% | 32.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 44 | 2.3% | 22.7% | 75.0% | 6.8% | 45.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 47 | 2.1% | 21.3% | 83.0% | 4.3% | 53.2% | 4.3% |
| May ’26 | 44 | 0.0% | 20.4% | 68.2% | 2.3% | 54.5% | 4.5% |
| Jun ’26 | 44 | 0.0% | 27.3% | 70.5% | 2.3% | 52.3% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 39 | 0.0% | 25.6% | 89.7% | 7.7% | 59.0% | 2.6% |
| Aug ’26 | 43 | 0.0% | 27.9% | 79.1% | 0.0% | 37.2% | 2.3% |
| Sep ’26 | 68 | 2.9% | 22.1% | 85.3% | 0.0% | 42.6% | 4.4% |
| Oct ’26 | 137 | 2.9% | 25.6% | 75.2% | 0.7% | 20.4% | 0.7% |
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 current term, 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%. 2 months are hatched here.
In Kotek’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; target: Christine Drazan · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X (governors) · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Trump allies · 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 (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Housing and Community Development · target: Christine DrazanSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Christine DrazanSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Christine DrazanSource
Posts on X (governors)
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Christine DrazanSource
All 719 statements
Newest first, the current term
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: 719 posts on X.
Policy
Health is what Kotek talks about most: 18% of policy statements, below the peer share. Peers give it 21%.
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 Kotek talks about. The bills Kotek sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Kotek talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the current term
0%35%
Kotek
Peers
Health102 statements
18%
21%
Housing and Community Development95 statements
17%
8%
Government Operations and Politics78 statements
14%
17%
Education73 statements
13%
12%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues68 statements
12%
11%
Show the data
| Row | Kotek | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 18% | 21% |
| Housing and Community Development | 17% | 8% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 14% | 17% |
| Education | 13% | 12% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 12% | 11% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Kotek’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Democratic governors. 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 Democratic governors averages.
Governors do not sponsor bills, so there is nothing to compare.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Kotek legislates on exactly the areas Kotek 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 Kotek sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Not placed on the scale.
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”.
No CSIP score.No CSIP score: this official is not matched to a recipient in the current CSIP run (too few roll calls and donors to place them on the scale).
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.
Money
No campaign-finance data.No campaign-finance records are matched to this governor yet.
Votes
No roll-call votes for the current term.Governors do not cast roll-call votes.
Legislation
No bills for the current term.Governors do not sponsor bills.
Online
The lab crawls Kotek’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 Kotek posts with a vision model.
Websites
No websites are tracked for this official.
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 Kotek posted
No images from Kotek’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.
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 Kotek is most unusual among Democratic governors, 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
- gov-OR-tina-kotek
- Governor id
- OR-tina-kotek
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.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- ImagesOct 28, 2026todayImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.
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