Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 24, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; Health · Source
0.72
agreement between talk and bills (0 to 1), in the top 5% of Senate Democrats
Agreement 0.72 on a 0–1 scale; the average for Senate Democrats is 0.66. Ranks 2nd of 45, where 1st is the closest match.
How closely the mix of policy areas in Blumenthal’s statements matches the mix in the bills Blumenthal sponsors and cosponsors: 1 means the same areas in the same proportions, 0 means no overlap. Ranked among Senate Democrats.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Democrats. 18% of Blumenthal’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Connecticut, in the bottom quarter of Senate Democrats. Blumenthal raised $771.5K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of Senate Democrats (median $2.6M).
The measures on which Blumenthal sits furthest from the middle of Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.72
Senate Democrats average 0.66 · ranks 2nd of 45
From Connecticut, 2026
18%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 37th of 41 Senate Democrats
Raised, 2026
$771.5K
Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M · ranks 37th of 45
Personal attacks
15%
Senate Democrats average 11% · ranks 10th of 45
Policy criticism
34%
Senate Democrats average 37% · ranks 35th of 45
CSIP ideology
−1.22
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01
Peer group: Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Blumenthal, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Blumenthal is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Blumenthal says
Blumenthal attacks opponents personally more than 77% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 15% of 3,946 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 10th of 45.
An AI model reads each of Blumenthal’s 3,946 statements in the 119th Congress (2,904 posts on X, 865 press releases, 177 Congressional Record speeches) 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Blumenthal
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion3,086 statements
78%
78%
26th of 45
Policy criticism1,330 statements
34%
37%
35th of 45
Credit claiming767 statements
19%
26%
32nd of 45
Personal attacks591 statements
15%
11%
10th of 45
Bipartisanship562 statements
14%
18%
28th of 45
Show the data
| Row | Blumenthal | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 78% | 78% |
| Policy criticism | 34% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 19% | 26% |
| Personal attacks | 15% | 11% |
| Bipartisanship | 14% | 18% |
3,946
statements classified
2,904 posts on X, 865 press releases, 177 Congressional Record speeches.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 2,904 |
| press releases | 865 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 177 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Blumenthal; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Blumenthal does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Blumenthal used extreme labels in 1.8% of statements, below the peer average. 70 statements, most often aimed at Trump; peers 2.4%.
- “extreme”20
- “MAGA”10
- “radical”9
- “far right”2
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Trump5
- abortion bans2
- Daniel Rendleman2
- elections2
- Trump Admin2
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 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 152 | 14.5% | 37.5% | 77.6% | 17.1% | 21.1% | 3.3% |
| Feb ’25 | 217 | 23.5% | 34.1% | 77.4% | 16.1% | 16.6% | 2.8% |
| Mar ’25 | 207 | 25.6% | 40.1% | 82.1% | 16.4% | 26.6% | 2.9% |
| Apr ’25 | 158 | 20.9% | 40.5% | 75.3% | 20.3% | 20.3% | 3.2% |
| May ’25 | 248 | 25.4% | 25.0% | 70.2% | 15.7% | 18.1% | 2.4% |
| Jun ’25 | 162 | 11.1% | 32.7% | 79.6% | 12.3% | 24.7% | 1.8% |
| Jul ’25 | 196 | 18.4% | 37.2% | 78.6% | 11.7% | 20.9% | 2.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 182 | 9.9% | 39.6% | 71.4% | 19.2% | 16.5% | 2.2% |
| Sep ’25 | 154 | 14.9% | 40.3% | 73.4% | 22.1% | 19.5% | 3.9% |
| Oct ’25 | 161 | 9.9% | 51.5% | 82.0% | 16.8% | 18.6% | 3.1% |
| Nov ’25 | 158 | 7.0% | 51.3% | 77.8% | 18.4% | 16.5% | 1.9% |
| Dec ’25 | 188 | 5.9% | 28.2% | 81.4% | 13.8% | 17.0% | 1.1% |
| Jan ’26 | 173 | 13.9% | 22.5% | 87.9% | 13.3% | 17.9% | 1.2% |
| Feb ’26 | 150 | 10.7% | 40.7% | 82.7% | 14.0% | 20.7% | 2.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 220 | 13.2% | 49.1% | 75.0% | 9.1% | 19.6% | 2.3% |
| Apr ’26 | 230 | 9.1% | 34.8% | 84.8% | 8.3% | 20.9% | 0.4% |
| May ’26 | 150 | 18.0% | 33.3% | 78.7% | 8.0% | 26.0% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 232 | 14.2% | 40.1% | 67.7% | 13.8% | 17.2% | 0.9% |
| Jul ’26 | 173 | 16.8% | 15.0% | 67.6% | 11.0% | 17.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 155 | 15.5% | 12.3% | 87.7% | 11.6% | 18.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 164 | 11.6% | 13.4% | 82.9% | 14.6% | 18.3% | 0.6% |
| Oct ’26 | 116 | 12.1% | 12.9% | 88.8% | 12.1% | 15.5% | 0.9% |
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 119th Congress, 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 Blumenthal’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 22, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Foreign Trade and International Finance; target: Donald Trump · Source
Extreme label
Senator Blumenthal: Week in Review 9/25/2026-10/2/2026 Slamming Lutnick-Linked Crypto Firm Propping Up Iran’s Shadow Banking System [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ranking Member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI), released a new report detaili…
Oct 2, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement; Finance and Financial Sector; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Law; Science, Technology, Communications; extreme label “radical” aimed at Daniel Rendleman; target: Robert Fleck · 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
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: Donald TrumpSource
Press releases
Blumenthal Investigates Tether's Multimillion-Dollar Payment to Consulting Firm Owned by White House Official Who Previously Led Crypto Policy “Tether’s alleged multimillion-dollar payment to a firm controlled by the White House official primarily responsible for cryptocurrency policy implicates federal ethics, anticorruption, and lobbying laws.” [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Ranking M…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Finance and Financial Sector · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Bo HinesSource
Posts on X
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: WitkoffSource
Posts on X
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: Hegseth, TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource
All 3,946 statements
Newest first, the 119th Congress
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: 2,904 posts on X, 865 press releases, 177 Congressional Record speeches.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Blumenthal talks about most: 37% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 2nd of 45).
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 Blumenthal talks about. The bills Blumenthal sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Blumenthal talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%41%
Blumenthal
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security1,141 statements
37%
21%
Government Operations and Politics783 statements
25%
22%
Health676 statements
22%
27%
International Affairs595 statements
19%
12%
Crime and Law Enforcement398 statements
13%
9%
Show the data
| Row | Blumenthal | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 37% | 21% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 25% | 22% |
| Health | 22% | 27% |
| International Affairs | 19% | 12% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 13% | 9% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Blumenthal’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for 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.
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 41%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 37% | 21% | 15% | 7% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 25% | 22% | 9% | 9% |
| Health | 22% | 27% | 15% | 14% |
| International Affairs | 19% | 12% | 6% | 8% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 13% | 9% | 9% | 6% |
0.72
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 2nd of 45.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Blumenthal legislates on exactly the areas Blumenthal 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 Blumenthal sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Blumenthal sits at −1.22 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 66% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.24 to −1.21, which understates the uncertainty; from 6,245 donors and 4,988 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”.
−1.22
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.24 to −1.21. From 6,245 donors and 4,988 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Blumenthal, 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 Blumenthal’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 Blumenthal sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Democrats45 · median −1.1
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Blumenthal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Democrats | 45 | −1.1 | 33% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 16% |
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 Blumenthal 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 Blumenthal.
Money
Blumenthal raised $771.5K in the 2026 cycle, 29% of the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 34% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 18% of itemized individual money came from Connecticut.
Campaign money from Federal Election Commission 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.
$771.5K
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 205 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)29 squares$222.0K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)15 squares$115.7K
- PACs and other committees14 squares$112.0K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)42 squares$321.8K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $222.0K | 28.8% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $115.7K | 15.0% |
| PACs and other committees | $112.0K | 14.5% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $321.8K | 41.7% |
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. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $1.4M |
| 2022 cycle | $7.3M |
| 2024 cycle | $398.5K |
| 2026 cycle | $771.5K |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 18% came from Connecticut.
- District of Columbia$42.0K
- Connecticut$31.6K
- Virginia$30.8K
- Maryland$26.2K
- Massachusetts$14.8K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Democrats’ median.
0%60%
Blumenthal
Median
2026
34%
35%
2024
38%
35%
2022
8%
35%
2020
39%
35%
Show the data
| Row | Blumenthal | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 34% | 35% |
| 2024 cycle | 38% | 35% |
| 2022 cycle | 8% | 35% |
| 2020 cycle | 39% | 35% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| District of Columbia | $42.0K |
| Connecticut | $31.6K |
| Virginia | $30.8K |
| Maryland | $26.2K |
| Massachusetts | $14.8K |
| Florida | $8,615 |
| California | $8,420 |
| Washington | $8,000 |
| New Jersey | $2,363 |
| New York | $1,781 |
| Ohio | $1,500 |
| Texas | $1,000 |
| Missouri | $600 |
| Oklahoma | $500 |
| Illinois | $441 |
| Pennsylvania | $225 |
| Vermont | $100 |
| Oregon | $60 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| New Hampshire | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Indiana | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Colorado | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | 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 |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
205
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
18%
from Connecticut
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 Connecticut. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 1.3% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 56% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 31% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 3.6% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 4.5% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 1.1% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.6% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 0.8% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 1.4% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Blumenthal’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Blumenthal’s own score is −1.22.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$39.4K 95 donors
- ATTORNEY$34.2K 19 donors
- CONSULTANT$21.5K 10 donors
- PARTNER$10.0K 6 donors
- RETIRED$6,010 8 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. / ENTERPRISE MOBILITY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$9,000
- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$5,050
- 603 PAC$5,000
- AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
- AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES (ACEC/PAC)$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Blumenthal voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 98.6% of party-line votes and missed 1.2% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Blumenthal voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 26 times.
915 roll calls Blumenthal could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Democrats. 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 Blumenthal voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
26
votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Party unity 98.6%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 13th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Blumenthal, the thin grey bar the Senate Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Blumenthal
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.8%
97.0%
12th of 45
Party unity
98.6%
95.3%
13th of 45
Show the data
| Row | Blumenthal | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.8% | 97.0% |
| Party unity | 98.6% | 95.3% |
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 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2026 | S. 4668 A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Nay | Against majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 24, 2026 | H.Con.Res. 89 A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. On the Concurrent Resolution | Yea | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Aug 8, 2026 | H.R. 6500 An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 7, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jul 30, 2026 | S.Res. 817 An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. On the Resolution | Nay | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
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 Blumenthal most often
- Chuck SchumerD900 shared votes98%
- Lisa Blunt RochesterD898 shared votes97%
- Patty MurrayD854 shared votes97%
- Chris Van HollenD890 shared votes97%
- Jeff MerkleyD897 shared votes97%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Blumenthal least often
- Mike LeeR877 shared votes5.3%
- Ron JohnsonR892 shared votes5.5%
- Cynthia LummisR874 shared votes5.8%
- Ted CruzR858 shared votes5.9%
- Rick ScottR902 shared votes6.2%
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
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Blumenthal sponsored 132 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 833 others. 9.1% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 33rd of 45).
The bills Blumenthal sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, 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 119th Congress
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 132 | 132 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 833 | 828 | 119 | 6 | 5 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Blumenthal sponsored, ochre blocks bills Blumenthal cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
9.1%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 33rd of 45.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Blumenthal, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Cory Booker293
- Jeff Merkley259
- Ed Markey257
- Alex Padilla251
- Mazie Hirono238
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 Blumenthal’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S. 5685 | Epstein Wall Street Records Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | Introduced | Finance and Financial Sector | Under authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Oct 15, 2026 |
| S. 5611 | SRBIJA Act | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5618 | Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Law | Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5675 | Nutrition Continuity for Military Families Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.J.Res. 220 | Original Slavery Remembrance Day Resolution | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 76 times in 90 days. Blumenthal’s official site had 43 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Blumenthal posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Blumenthal’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 Blumenthal posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 43
pages crawled
76changes 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
- XSenBlumenthal
- FacebookSenBlumenthal
- Instagramsenblumenthal
- YouTubeSenatorBlumenthal
Images Blumenthal posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A group of people dressed in formal or business attire pose for a selfie at a crowded indoor event in a large banquet hall. Some people wear name badges, and there is text on the badges.View post 
A group of five adults pose together indoors on a parquet floor. Several wear cowboy hats, and the person in the center wears a suit and tie. There is some text in the background.View post 
A man in a suit speaks at a clear lectern on a stage in front of a blue sponsor backdrop. Several chairs are visible along the front of the stage, and the backdrop includes logos and text.View post 
A group of adults and children pose for a photo outdoors on a sunny autumn day, with trees displaying fall colors behind them. No text is visible.View post 
A group of people stand outdoors on a sunny day, holding a large blue union flag and a smaller solidarity sign. Trees and a building are in the background. The flags and sign contain text.View post
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 Blumenthal is most unusual among 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 …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- B001277
- Bioguide
- B001277
- FEC candidate ids
- S0CT00177
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 (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
- Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
- Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; 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.
- ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages 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