Skip to content

Democrat · Virginia House, district 38

Serving since Jan 10, 2024VA 2025–26 session

Portrait of Sam Rasoul, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
100%
of sponsored bills got out of committee, in the top 5% of the Virginia House

100% of 62 sponsored bills got out of committee; the average for the Virginia House is 84%. Ranks 4th of 98, where 1st is the highest share.

The share of bills Rasoul sponsored that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, ranked within the Virginia House. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position as well as effort.

At a glance

6 measures against State House Democrats. 31% of Rasoul’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Virginia, in the bottom tenth of State House Democrats. Rasoul reported $256.8K in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of State House Democrats (median $40.4K).

The measures on which Rasoul sits furthest from the middle of State House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Out of committee

100%

Virginia House average 84% · ranks 4th of 98

From Virginia, 2026

31%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 1879th of 1,983 State House Democrats

Itemized, 2026

$256.8K

State House Democrats’ median $40.4K · ranks 209th of 2,082

Attendance

98.0%

Virginia House average 98.2% · ranks 77th of 98 · 3,859 roll calls

Party unity

96.3%

Virginia House average 96.5% · ranks 71st of 98 · 79 votes against the majority of Virginia House Democrats

CSIP ideology

−0.65

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.04

Peer group: State House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Rasoul, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Rasoul is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Rasoul says

Rasoul criticizes policies more than 70% of State House Democrats. Policy criticism in 14% of 893 statements, against 10% for the average State House Democrat; 226th of 764.

An AI model reads each of Rasoul’s 893 statements in the VA 2025–26 session (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 House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the VA 2025–26 session

0%80%
Rasoul
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion458 statements
51%
39%
205th of 764
Policy criticism126 statements
14%
10%
226th of 764
Credit claiming97 statements
11%
14%
409th of 764
Bipartisanship23 statements
3%
3%
294th of 764
Personal attacks17 statements
2%
3%
260th of 764
Show the data
Rasoul's share of statements in each category against the State House Democrats average.
RowRasoulPeers
Policy discussion51%39%
Policy criticism14%10%
Credit claiming11%14%
Bipartisanship3%3%
Personal attacks2%3%
893

statements classified

893 posts on X.

posts on X: 893 (100.0%)posts on X 893
Show the data
Rasoul's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X893
How to read the bars

The thick bar is Rasoul; the thin grey bar is the average State House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Rasoul does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.

Extreme labels

Rasoul used extreme labels in 1.0% of statements, close to the peer average. 9 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 1.0%.

  1. “extreme”2
  2. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump2
  2. agendas1
  3. authoritarian1
  4. ICE1
  5. Israel1
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 VA 2025–26 session

Statements2025-01: 332025-02: 412025-03: 472025-04: 372025-05: 342025-06: 472025-07: 422025-08: 612025-09: 542025-10: 582025-11: 272025-12: 302026-01: 572026-02: 552026-03: 402026-04: 332026-05: 362026-06: 402026-07: 152026-08: 262026-09: 432026-10: 37peak 61 · Aug ’25Personal attackspeak 12.1% · Apr ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 41Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-06: 4.3% of 47Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.8% of 54Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-01: 7.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-02: 1.8% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-03: 2.5% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-04: 12.1% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-06: 7.5% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 15Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-09: 2.3% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 37Policy criticismpeak 32.7% · Feb ’26 · latest 10.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 6.1% of 33Policy criticism, 2025-02: 17.1% of 41Policy criticism, 2025-03: 14.9% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-04: 5.4% of 37Policy criticism, 2025-05: 14.7% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-06: 12.8% of 47Policy criticism, 2025-07: 23.8% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-08: 11.5% of 61Policy criticism, 2025-09: 16.7% of 54Policy criticism, 2025-10: 6.9% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-11: 7.4% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.0% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-02: 32.7% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-03: 32.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-04: 12.1% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-05: 11.1% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-06: 20.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-07: 13.3% of 15Policy criticism, 2026-08: 3.9% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-09: 4.7% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-10: 10.8% of 37Policy discussionpeak 83.8% · Oct ’26 · latest 83.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 57.6% of 33Policy discussion, 2025-02: 75.6% of 41Policy discussion, 2025-03: 46.8% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-04: 43.2% of 37Policy discussion, 2025-05: 38.2% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-06: 36.2% of 47Policy discussion, 2025-07: 45.2% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-08: 39.3% of 61Policy discussion, 2025-09: 40.7% of 54Policy discussion, 2025-10: 25.9% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-11: 22.2% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-12: 73.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-01: 77.2% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-02: 65.5% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-03: 52.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-04: 63.6% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-05: 33.3% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-06: 40.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-07: 73.3% of 15Policy discussion, 2026-08: 53.8% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-09: 60.5% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-10: 83.8% of 37Bipartisanshippeak 14.7% · May ’25 · latest 2.7%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 9.1% of 33Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 0.0% of 41Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 2.1% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 0.0% of 37Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 14.7% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 0.0% of 47Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 0.0% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 1.6% of 61Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 1.8% of 54Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 3.5% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 0.0% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 3.5% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 9.1% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 0.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 0.0% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 2.5% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 0.0% of 15Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 2.7% of 37Credit claimingpeak 39.4% · Jan ’25 · latest 5.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 39.4% of 33Credit claiming, 2025-02: 39.0% of 41Credit claiming, 2025-03: 14.9% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-04: 27.0% of 37Credit claiming, 2025-05: 2.9% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-06: 0.0% of 47Credit claiming, 2025-07: 4.8% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-08: 6.6% of 61Credit claiming, 2025-09: 5.6% of 54Credit claiming, 2025-10: 12.1% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-11: 14.8% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-12: 0.0% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-01: 14.0% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-02: 12.7% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-03: 10.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-04: 6.1% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-05: 2.8% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-06: 10.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-07: 0.0% of 15Credit claiming, 2026-08: 3.9% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-09: 2.3% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-10: 5.4% of 37Extreme labelspeak 3.7% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.1% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 37Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.3% of 61Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.8% of 54Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.7% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-12: 3.3% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-02: 3.6% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-06: 2.5% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 15Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 37Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Rasoul, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
ColumnStatementsPersonal attacksPolicy criticismPolicy discussionBipartisanshipCredit claimingExtreme labels
Jan ’25330.0%6.1%57.6%9.1%39.4%0.0%
Feb ’25410.0%17.1%75.6%0.0%39.0%0.0%
Mar ’25470.0%14.9%46.8%2.1%14.9%2.1%
Apr ’25370.0%5.4%43.2%0.0%27.0%0.0%
May ’25340.0%14.7%38.2%14.7%2.9%0.0%
Jun ’25474.3%12.8%36.2%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Jul ’25420.0%23.8%45.2%0.0%4.8%0.0%
Aug ’25610.0%11.5%39.3%1.6%6.6%3.3%
Sep ’25541.8%16.7%40.7%1.8%5.6%1.8%
Oct ’25580.0%6.9%25.9%3.5%12.1%0.0%
Nov ’25270.0%7.4%22.2%3.7%14.8%3.7%
Dec ’25300.0%16.7%73.3%0.0%0.0%3.3%
Jan ’26577.0%7.0%77.2%3.5%14.0%0.0%
Feb ’26551.8%32.7%65.5%9.1%12.7%3.6%
Mar ’26402.5%32.5%52.5%0.0%10.0%0.0%
Apr ’263312.1%12.1%63.6%0.0%6.1%0.0%
May ’26360.0%11.1%33.3%0.0%2.8%0.0%
Jun ’26407.5%20.0%40.0%2.5%10.0%2.5%
Jul ’26150.0%13.3%73.3%0.0%0.0%0.0%
Aug ’26260.0%3.9%53.8%0.0%3.9%0.0%
Sep ’26432.3%4.7%60.5%0.0%2.3%0.0%
Oct ’26370.0%10.8%83.8%2.7%5.4%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 VA 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 Rasoul’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.

Oct 25, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement · Source

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; Energy · Source

Extreme label

The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

Jun 8, 2026 · Posts on X (state legislators) · personal attacks; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Donald Trump; target: Bari Weiss · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X (state legislators)

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · target: NetanyahuSource

  2. Posts on X (state legislators)

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · target: Israeli leadersSource

  3. Posts on X (state legislators)

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Donald Trump · target: Bari WeissSource

  4. Posts on X (state legislators)

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · target: WeissSource

  5. Posts on X (state legislators)

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · International Affairs · Government Operations and Politics · target: Cory BookerSource

All 893 statements

Newest first, the VA 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: 893 posts on X.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Education is what Rasoul talks about most: 28% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.60 on a 0–1 scale (State House Democrats average 0.54; 155th of 503).

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 Rasoul talks about. The bills Rasoul sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Rasoul talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the VA 2025–26 session

0%35%
Rasoul
Peers
Education127 statements
28%
15%
Health83 statements
18%
15%
International Affairs68 statements
15%
1%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues44 statements
10%
10%
Armed Forces and National Security43 statements
9%
3%
Show the data
Policy areas Rasoul talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the State House Democrats average.
RowRasoulPeers
Education28%15%
Health18%15%
International Affairs15%1%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues10%10%
Armed Forces and National Security9%3%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Rasoul’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for State House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the State House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onEducationEducation, talks about: 28% (State House Democrats 15%)28%Education, legislates on: 29% (State House Democrats 10%)29%HealthHealth, talks about: 18% (State House Democrats 15%)18%Health, legislates on: 12% (State House Democrats 15%)12%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 15% (State House Democrats 1%)15%International Affairs, legislates on: 0% (State House Democrats 1%)0%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 10% (State House Democrats 10%)10%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 6% (State House Democrats 4%)6%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 9% (State House Democrats 3%)9%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 1% (State House Democrats 1%)1%
Show the data
Rasoul's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutState House Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onState House Democrats, legislates on
Education28%15%29%10%
Health18%15%12%15%
International Affairs15%1%0%1%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues10%10%6%4%
Armed Forces and National Security9%3%1%1%
0.60

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

State House Democrats average 0.54. Ranks 155th of 503.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Rasoul legislates on exactly the areas Rasoul 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 Rasoul sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Rasoul sits at −0.65 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 54% of State House Democrats. Approximate range −0.69 to −0.61, which understates the uncertainty; from 687 donors and 1,185 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”.

−0.65

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.69 to −0.61. From 687 donors and 1,185 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Rasoul −0.6State House Democrats −0.6Virginia House −0.7All State House +0.1

The outlined dot is Rasoul, 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 Rasoul’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 Rasoul sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →State House Democratsmedian −0.6Rasoul −0.6Virginia Housemedian −0.7All State Housemedian +0.1
Show the data
Rasoul's CSIP score of −0.65 placed against State House Democrats, Virginia House, All State House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Rasoul
State House Democrats2392−0.646%
Virginia House99−0.751%
All State House5324+0.121%
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 Rasoul 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 Rasoul.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Rasoul reported $256.8K in the 2026 cycle, 6.4 times the State House Democrats’ median of $40.4K. State filings report no small-donation total. 31% of itemized individual money came from Virginia.

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.

Election cycle
$256.8K

itemized in the 2026 cycle

From 275 itemized donors. State House Democrats’ median $40.4K.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of itemized contributions in the 2026 cycle.

Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)Individuals (itemized): $218.7K (85.2%)PACs and other committees: $15.0K (5.8%)PACs and other committees: $15.0K (5.8%)PACs and other committees: $15.0K (5.8%)PACs and other committees: $15.0K (5.8%)PACs and other committees: $15.0K (5.8%)PACs and other committees: $15.0K (5.8%)Party committees: $23.1K (9.0%)Party committees: $23.1K (9.0%)Party committees: $23.1K (9.0%)Party committees: $23.1K (9.0%)Party committees: $23.1K (9.0%)Party committees: $23.1K (9.0%)Party committees: $23.1K (9.0%)Party committees: $23.1K (9.0%)Party committees: $23.1K (9.0%)
  • Individuals (itemized)85 squares$218.7K
  • PACs and other committees6 squares$15.0K
  • Party committees9 squares$23.1K
Show the data
Sources of Rasoul's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Individuals (itemized)$218.7K85.2%
PACs and other committees$15.0K5.8%
Party committees$23.1K9.0%
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the State House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $43.4K$43.4K20202022 cycle: $150.3K$150.3K20222024 cycle: $437.2K$437.2K20242026 cycle: $256.8K$256.8K2026State House Democrats median $40.4K
Show the data
Rasoul's receipts by cycle against the 2026 State House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$43.4K
2022 cycle$150.3K
2024 cycle$437.2K
2026 cycle$256.8K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 31% came from Virginia.

  1. Virginia$67.2K
  2. California$65.4K
  3. Florida$24.9K
  4. Texas$13.6K
  5. Illinois$6,900

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

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $250VTNew Hampshire: $1,000NHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $2,500MNIllinois: $6,900ILWisconsin: $800WIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $4,500NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $2,850MAOregon: no dataORNevada: $1,000NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $250IAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $1,750OHPennsylvania: $1,250PANew Jersey: $2,500NJConnecticut: $500CTCalifornia: $65.4KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: no dataCONebraska: $4,000NEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: $500KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $67.2KVAMaryland: $250MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $2,500AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $1,000ARTennessee: $2,000TNNorth Carolina: $150NCSouth Carolina: $1,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $4,200DCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $4,000MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $2,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $13.6KTXFlorida: $24.9KFL
Show the data
Rasoul's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Virginia$67.2K
California$65.4K
Florida$24.9K
Texas$13.6K
Illinois$6,900
New York$4,500
District of Columbia$4,200
Nebraska$4,000
Mississippi$4,000
Massachusetts$2,850
Minnesota$2,500
New Jersey$2,500
Arizona$2,500
Tennessee$2,000
Georgia$2,000
Ohio$1,750
Pennsylvania$1,250
New Hampshire$1,000
Nevada$1,000
Arkansas$1,000
South Carolina$1,000
Wisconsin$800
Connecticut$500
Kentucky$500
Vermont$250
Iowa$250
Maryland$250
North Carolina$150
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IndianaNo data
UtahNo data
ColoradoNo data
MissouriNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
275

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

31%

from Virginia

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 Virginia. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$60.1K 88 donors
  2. PHYSICIAN$26.2K 27 donors
  3. SELF EMPLOYED$11.8K 12 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$8,600 13 donors
  5. CEO$6,500 6 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS$22.6K
  2. VIRGINIA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS$12.0K
  3. MID-ATLANTIC LABORERS POLITICAL EDUCATION FUND$2,500
  4. BOTETOURT COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE$500
  5. ROANOKE VALLEY DEMOCRATIC WOMEN$500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

No employers reported.

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Rasoul voted with the majority of Virginia House Democrats on 96.3% of party-line votes and missed 2.0% of 3,859 roll calls. Virginia House on average: 96.5% party unity, 98.2% attendance. Across all roll calls, Rasoul voted against the majority of Virginia House Democrats 79 times.

3,859 roll calls Rasoul could vote on in the VA 2025–26 session, compared with Virginia 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 Rasoul voted with the majority of Virginia House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

79

votes against the majority of Virginia House Democrats

Party unity 96.3%, Virginia House average 96.5%, ranks 71st of 98. 3,859 roll calls in the VA 2025–26 session.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Rasoul, the thin grey bar the Virginia House average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Rasoul
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.0%
98.2%
77th of 98
Party unity
96.3%
96.5%
71st of 98
Show the data
Rasoul's attendance and party unity against Virginia House.
RowRasoulPeers
Attendance98.0%98.2%
Party unity96.3%96.5%
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

Roll calls the lab flags as key

No votes in this window met the key-vote rules.

How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Rasoul most often

  1. Nadarius ClarkD3,031 shared votes99%
  2. Mike JonesD1,559 shared votes99%
  3. Mark SicklesD1,751 shared votes99%
  4. Elizabeth Bennett-ParkerD2,326 shared votes99%
  5. David BulovaD1,756 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Rasoul least often

  1. Karen HamiltonR1,997 shared votes53%
  2. Phil ScottR3,708 shared votes55%
  3. Tim GriffinR3,645 shared votes56%
  4. Eric ZehrR3,742 shared votes57%
  5. Tom GarrettR3,426 shared votes59%
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

VA 2025–26 session, loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Rasoul sponsored 62 bills in the VA 2025–26 session; 22 became law. Cosponsored 418 others. 100% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Virginia House average 84%; 4th of 98).

The bills Rasoul sponsored and cosponsored in the VA 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 VA 2025–26 session

Sponsored62 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6262Sponsored, In committee: 6262Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 6060Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 2828Sponsored, Became law: 2222Cosponsored418 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 418418Cosponsored, In committee: 411411Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 362362Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 182182Cosponsored, Became law: 7979IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Rasoul sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6262602822
Cosponsored41841136218279
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Rasoul sponsored, ochre blocks bills Rasoul cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

100%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Virginia House average 84%. Ranks 4th of 98.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Rasoul, by number of shared bills in the VA 2025–26 session; the square shows their party.

  1. Nadarius Clark192
  2. Karen Keys-Gamarra153
  3. Marty Martinez151
  4. Josh Cole138
  5. Patrick Hope124
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 Rasoul’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
HR 2179Commending Grady James, Ph.D.CosponsorJun 22, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedBill text as passed House (HR2179ER) Jun 30, 2026
HR 2164Commending the National Black Caucus of State Legislators.CosponsorJun 21, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedBill text as passed House (HR2164ER) Jun 30, 2026
HR 2172Celebrating the life of Dawann Anthony Steagall, Jr.CosponsorJun 21, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedBill text as passed House (HR2172ER) Jun 30, 2026
HR 2138Commending Kay Dunkley, Ed.D.SponsorJun 18, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedBill text as passed House (HR2138ER) Jun 30, 2026
HR 2126Commending Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP.CosponsorJun 17, 2026Passed one chamberUnassignedBill text as passed House (HR2126ER) Jun 30, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 3 times in 90 days. Rasoul’s official site had 1 page when last crawled on Oct 1, 2026.

The lab crawls Rasoul’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 Rasoul posts with a vision model.

Websites

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.

Images Rasoul posted

No images from Rasoul’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

460 turns, Jan 14, 2020 to Apr 22, 2026

Floor speeches

Transcribed from chamber video or captions by the lab. They are not classified for kinds of statement.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

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 Rasoul is most unusual among State House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
6ab67007-e48a-4048-bb7b-20a608a88f77
Open States
ocd-person/6ab67007-e48a-4048-bb7b-20a608a88f77

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

Back to top