Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, Washington

Serving since Jan 3, 2001119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 5, 2030

Bioguide C000127FEC H2WA01054, S8WA00194

Portrait of Maria Cantwell, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
48%
of statements criticize a policy, in the top 5% of Senate Democrats

48% of 1,315 statements criticize a policy (626 statements); the average for Senate Democrats is 37%. Ranks 2nd of 45, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Cantwell’s posts on X, press releases and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. 88% of Cantwell’s statements discuss policy, in the top tenth of Senate Democrats (average 78%). 3.0% of Cantwell’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom tenth of Senate Democrats (average 11%).

The measures on which Cantwell 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.

Policy criticism

48%

Senate Democrats average 37% · ranks 2nd of 45

Attendance

99.7%

Senate Democrats average 97.0% · ranks 2nd of 45 · 915 roll calls

Policy discussion

88%

Senate Democrats average 78% · ranks 3rd of 45

Personal attacks

3.0%

Senate Democrats average 11% · ranks 42nd of 45

Bipartisanship

29%

Senate Democrats average 18% · ranks 4th of 45

CSIP ideology

−1.28

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 Cantwell, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Cantwell is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Cantwell says

Cantwell attacks opponents personally less than 91% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 3.0% of 1,315 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 42nd of 45.

An AI model reads each of Cantwell’s 1,315 statements in the 119th Congress (648 posts on X, 559 press releases, 108 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%
Cantwell
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,158 statements
88%
78%
3rd of 45
Policy criticism626 statements
48%
37%
2nd of 45
Credit claiming502 statements
38%
26%
5th of 45
Bipartisanship386 statements
29%
18%
4th of 45
Personal attacks40 statements
3%
11%
42nd of 45
Show the data
Cantwell's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowCantwellPeers
Policy discussion88%78%
Policy criticism48%37%
Credit claiming38%26%
Bipartisanship29%18%
Personal attacks3%11%
1,315

statements classified

648 posts on X, 559 press releases, 108 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 648 (49.3%)posts on X 648press releases: 559 (42.5%)press releases 559Congressional Record speeches: 108 (8.2%)
Show the data
Cantwell's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X648
press releases559
Congressional Record speeches108
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Cantwell used extreme labels in 1.5% of statements, below the peer average. 20 statements, most often aimed at abortion bans; peers 2.4%.

  1. “extreme”16
  2. “communist”1
  3. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. abortion bans1
  2. electoral system1
  3. English-only instruction1
  4. voter ID1
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

Statements2025-01: 742025-02: 1032025-03: 752025-04: 732025-05: 772025-06: 812025-07: 362025-08: 352025-09: 772025-10: 842025-11: 592025-12: 562026-01: 532026-02: 472026-03: 512026-04: 542026-05: 402026-06: 552026-07: 642026-08: 322026-09: 732026-10: 16peak 103 · Feb ’25Personal attackspeak 11.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 1.4% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-02: 11.7% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-03: 6.7% of 75Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.7% of 73Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.7% of 81Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.8% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-09: 6.5% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-10: 3.6% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.4% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.8% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-02: 2.1% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-03: 2.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.8% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2026-06: 3.6% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 64Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 32Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 16Policy criticismpeak 83.5% · Feb ’25 · latest 18.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 44.6% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-02: 83.5% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-03: 62.7% of 75Policy criticism, 2025-04: 52.0% of 73Policy criticism, 2025-05: 45.5% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-06: 51.8% of 81Policy criticism, 2025-07: 63.9% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-08: 57.1% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-09: 41.6% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-10: 54.8% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-11: 57.6% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-12: 39.3% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-01: 37.7% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-02: 38.3% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-03: 41.2% of 51Policy criticism, 2026-04: 31.5% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-05: 30.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2026-06: 36.4% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-07: 32.8% of 64Policy criticism, 2026-08: 21.9% of 32Policy criticism, 2026-09: 39.7% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-10: 18.8% of 16Policy discussionpeak 100.0% · Aug ’26 · latest 87.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 82.4% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-02: 96.1% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-03: 97.3% of 75Policy discussion, 2025-04: 89.0% of 73Policy discussion, 2025-05: 88.3% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-06: 84.0% of 81Policy discussion, 2025-07: 91.7% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-08: 88.6% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-09: 89.6% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-10: 90.5% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-11: 81.4% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-12: 91.1% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-01: 88.7% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-02: 76.6% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-03: 76.5% of 51Policy discussion, 2026-04: 87.0% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-05: 92.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2026-06: 87.3% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-07: 92.2% of 64Policy discussion, 2026-08: 100.0% of 32Policy discussion, 2026-09: 78.1% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-10: 87.5% of 16Bipartisanshippeak 49.5% · Feb ’25 · latest 25.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 32.4% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 49.5% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 29.3% of 75Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 31.5% of 73Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 16.9% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 27.2% of 81Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 22.2% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 25.7% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 19.5% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 32.1% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 33.9% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 42.9% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 34.0% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 21.3% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 23.5% of 51Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 22.2% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 25.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 29.1% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 20.3% of 64Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 28.1% of 32Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 32.9% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 25.0% of 16Credit claimingpeak 55.3% · Feb ’25 · latest 43.8%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 46.0% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-02: 55.3% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-03: 42.7% of 75Credit claiming, 2025-04: 39.7% of 73Credit claiming, 2025-05: 27.3% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-06: 24.7% of 81Credit claiming, 2025-07: 30.6% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-08: 28.6% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-09: 37.7% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-10: 25.0% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-11: 32.2% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-12: 46.4% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-01: 49.1% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-02: 34.0% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-03: 27.5% of 51Credit claiming, 2026-04: 38.9% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-05: 42.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2026-06: 47.3% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-07: 40.6% of 64Credit claiming, 2026-08: 37.5% of 32Credit claiming, 2026-09: 38.4% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-10: 43.8% of 16Extreme labelspeak 12.5% · Oct ’26 · latest 12.5%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 2.7% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-02: 8.7% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-03: 4.0% of 75Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 73Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.3% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.2% of 81Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-09: 1.3% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-02: 2.1% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 32Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-10: 12.5% of 16Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Cantwell, 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 ’25741.4%44.6%82.4%32.4%46.0%2.7%
Feb ’2510311.7%83.5%96.1%49.5%55.3%8.7%
Mar ’25756.7%62.7%97.3%29.3%42.7%4.0%
Apr ’25732.7%52.0%89.0%31.5%39.7%0.0%
May ’25770.0%45.5%88.3%16.9%27.3%1.3%
Jun ’25813.7%51.8%84.0%27.2%24.7%1.2%
Jul ’25362.8%63.9%91.7%22.2%30.6%0.0%
Aug ’25350.0%57.1%88.6%25.7%28.6%0.0%
Sep ’25776.5%41.6%89.6%19.5%37.7%1.3%
Oct ’25843.6%54.8%90.5%32.1%25.0%0.0%
Nov ’25593.4%57.6%81.4%33.9%32.2%0.0%
Dec ’25561.8%39.3%91.1%42.9%46.4%0.0%
Jan ’26530.0%37.7%88.7%34.0%49.1%0.0%
Feb ’26472.1%38.3%76.6%21.3%34.0%2.1%
Mar ’26512.0%41.2%76.5%23.5%27.5%0.0%
Apr ’26541.8%31.5%87.0%22.2%38.9%0.0%
May ’26400.0%30.0%92.5%25.0%42.5%0.0%
Jun ’26553.6%36.4%87.3%29.1%47.3%0.0%
Jul ’26640.0%32.8%92.2%20.3%40.6%0.0%
Aug ’26320.0%21.9%100.0%28.1%37.5%0.0%
Sep ’26730.0%39.7%78.1%32.9%38.4%0.0%
Oct ’26160.0%18.8%87.5%25.0%43.8%12.5%
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 Cantwell’s words

Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned

Bipartisanship

Average WA Family Has Paid an Additional $5,300 for Goods & Services Since Trump Took Office, Report Finds Recently released data from the Joint Economic Committee shows how much Trump’s policies are costing Americans; Families in WA-01, WA-08, and WA-07 bore the biggest spike in expenses WASHINGTON…

Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Health; Taxation; Armed Forces and National Security · Source

Personal attacks

Cantwell, Colleagues Sound Alarm on Trump Administration Opening the Door to Midterm Election Interference Senators call out DOJ’s quiet removal of long-standing election prosecution manual ahead of 2026 midterms WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the…

Jun 9, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Crime and Law Enforcement; Law; target: Kurt Olsen · Source

Extreme label

Cantwell Joins Bicameral Coalition in Opposing Trump Administration’s Attempt to Undermine Head Start More than 14,000 children in WA rely on Head Start for Pre-K education and other family support services; Administration proposal could undermine quality, worsen student-to-teacher ratios, and reduc…

Oct 9, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Economics and Public Finance; Education; Families; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment; Health; Taxation; extreme label “extreme” aimed at English-only instruction · 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. Press releases

    Cantwell, Colleagues Sound Alarm on Trump Administration Opening the Door to Midterm Election Interference Senators call out DOJ’s quiet removal of long-standing election prosecution manual ahead of 2026 midterms WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Seante Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, joined Sen…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · Law · target: Kurt OlsenSource

  2. Press releases

    Cantwell & Colleagues Urge Sec. Lutnick to Halt Implementation of Trump’s Illegal EO to Undermine Vote-by-Mail Senators direct Dept. of Commerce to explain its involvement with USPS & elections, & to preserve documents for Congressional oversight WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, along with U.S. Senators Alex Padilla…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Howard LutnickSource

  3. Press releases

    Cantwell Demands Investigation into Whether FAA Chief Deliberately Violated Ethics Agreement to Boost Stock Payout Beyond $25 Million—and Lied About it Former Republic Airways CEO Bryan Bedford intentionally held on to his Republic stock until the company completed a lucrative merger, turning his original 16,733 shares into more than 652,470 shares in the new public company WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Maria Cant…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Transportation and Public Works · target: Bryan BedfordSource

  4. Press releases

    Cantwell & Murray Introduce Legislation to Require Refunds of Trump’s Illegal Tariffs Bill cosponsored by 22 Senate Dems instructs the Trump Administration to prioritize small businesses; Legislation would require a full refund of Trump’s illegal tariffs - with interest -- within 180 days WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportat…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Commerce · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource

  5. Press releases

    Cantwell Tells DOJ to Cease Pressure Campaign to Obtain States’ Sensitive Voter Data, Purge Voter Rolls Senators raise alarm on Attorney General Bondi’s attempt to coerce Washington state, Minnesota, and 22 other states into relinquishing their states’ voter registration lists AG Bondi demanded Minnesota release its list as a condition for the removal of ICE and CBP from Minneapolis, while FBI seizes 2020 election re…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Immigration · Science, Technology, Communications · target: Donald TrumpSource

All 1,315 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: 648 posts on X, 559 press releases, 108 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Cantwell talks about most: 29% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 29th 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 Cantwell talks about. The bills Cantwell sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Cantwell talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Cantwell
Peers
Economics and Public Finance335 statements
29%
24%
Health313 statements
27%
27%
Government Operations and Politics263 statements
23%
22%
Science, Technology, Communications221 statements
19%
8%
Commerce174 statements
15%
7%
Show the data
Policy areas Cantwell talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowCantwellPeers
Economics and Public Finance29%24%
Health27%27%
Government Operations and Politics23%22%
Science, Technology, Communications19%8%
Commerce15%7%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Cantwell’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 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 29% (Senate Democrats 24%)29%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Democrats 0%)0%HealthHealth, talks about: 27% (Senate Democrats 27%)27%Health, legislates on: 14% (Senate Democrats 14%)14%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 23% (Senate Democrats 22%)23%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (Senate Democrats 9%)8%Science, Technology,CommunicationsScience, Technology, Communications, talks about: 19% (Senate Democrats 8%)19%Science, Technology, Communications, legislates on: 9% (Senate Democrats 3%)9%CommerceCommerce, talks about: 15% (Senate Democrats 7%)15%Commerce, legislates on: 7% (Senate Democrats 3%)7%
Show the data
Cantwell's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance29%24%0%0%
Health27%27%14%14%
Government Operations and Politics23%22%8%9%
Science, Technology, Communications19%8%9%3%
Commerce15%7%7%3%
0.65

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 29th of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Cantwell sits at −1.28 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 74% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.29 to −1.26, which understates the uncertainty; from 15,070 donors and 4,999 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”.

−1.28

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.29 to −1.26. From 15,070 donors and 4,999 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Cantwell −1.3Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Cantwell, 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 Cantwell’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 Cantwell sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Cantwell −1.3All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Cantwell's CSIP score of −1.28 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Cantwell
Senate Democrats45−1.124%
All Senate98+0.412%
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 Cantwell 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 Cantwell.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Cantwell raised $985.1K in the 2026 cycle, 38% of the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 47% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 67% of itemized individual money came from Washington.

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.

Election cycle
$985.1K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 736 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): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $516.7K (52.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $465.6K (47.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)53 squares$516.7K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)47 squares$465.6K
Show the data
Sources of Cantwell's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$516.7K52.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$465.6K47.4%
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.

2020 cycle: $956.0K$956.0K20202022 cycle: $921.9K$921.9K20222024 cycle: $11.1M$11.1M20242026 cycle: $985.1K$985.1K2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Cantwell's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$956.0K
2022 cycle$921.9K
2024 cycle$11.1M
2026 cycle$985.1K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 67% came from Washington.

  1. Washington$245.3K
  2. California$29.3K
  3. District of Columbia$16.5K
  4. New York$9,185
  5. Maryland$9,180

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%
Cantwell
Median
2026
47%
35%
2024
11%
35%
2022
34%
35%
2020
62%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowCantwellMedian
2026 cycle47%35%
2024 cycle11%35%
2022 cycle34%35%
2020 cycle62%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $2,250AKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $100VTNew Hampshire: $400NHWashington: $245.3KWAIdaho: $3,800IDMontana: $450MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $1,125ILWisconsin: $1,300WIMichigan: $1,285MINew York: $9,185NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $6,850MAOregon: $4,260ORNevada: $4,050NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $500IAIndiana: $1,050INOhio: $850OHPennsylvania: $1,325PANew Jersey: $233NJConnecticut: $1,200CTCalifornia: $29.3KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $4,200CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $90MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $7,435VAMaryland: $9,180MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $4,500AZNew Mexico: $750NMKansas: $1,750KSArkansas: $1,000ARTennessee: $50TNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $16.5KDCOklahoma: $250OKLouisiana: $200LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $1,000GAHawaii: $500HITexas: $515TXFlorida: $2,000FL
Show the data
Cantwell's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Washington$245.3K
California$29.3K
District of Columbia$16.5K
New York$9,185
Maryland$9,180
Virginia$7,435
Massachusetts$6,850
Arizona$4,500
Oregon$4,260
Colorado$4,200
Nevada$4,050
Idaho$3,800
Alaska$2,250
Florida$2,000
Kansas$1,750
Pennsylvania$1,325
Wisconsin$1,300
Michigan$1,285
Connecticut$1,200
Illinois$1,125
Indiana$1,050
Arkansas$1,000
Georgia$1,000
Ohio$850
New Mexico$750
Texas$515
Iowa$500
Hawaii$500
Montana$450
New Hampshire$400
Oklahoma$250
New Jersey$233
Louisiana$200
Vermont$100
Missouri$90
Tennessee$50
MaineNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
736

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

67%

from Washington

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.3%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 29%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 51%51%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 15%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.7%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.3%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Cantwell's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +1.25: 29% between −1.50 and −1.25, 51% between −1.25 and −1.00, 15% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.3%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.2529%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0051%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7515%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.7%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.3%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.250.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Cantwell’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Cantwell’s own score is −1.28.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$169.9K 436 donors
  2. RETIRED$70.9K 188 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$11.9K 14 donors
  4. INVESTOR$8,848 5 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$8,056 5 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (DUKEPAC)$2,500
  2. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$2,000
  3. AG PROCESSING INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, AGPAC$1,000
  4. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000
  5. HY-VEE INC EMPLOYEES' POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$1,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP$6,000 4 donors
  2. APPLE$1,500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Cantwell voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 97.7% of party-line votes and missed 0.2% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cantwell voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 24 times.

915 roll calls Cantwell 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 Cantwell voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

24

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 97.7%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 18th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Cantwell, the thin grey bar the Senate Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Cantwell
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.7%
97.0%
2nd of 45
Party unity
97.7%
95.3%
18th of 45
Show the data
Cantwell's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowCantwellPeers
Attendance99.7%97.0%
Party unity97.7%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

Key votes
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
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty 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
YeaWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose 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
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame 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
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame 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
NayWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose 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 Cantwell most often

  1. Patty MurrayD862 shared votes97%
  2. Tammy BaldwinD910 shared votes97%
  3. Ron WydenD896 shared votes97%
  4. Tina SmithD871 shared votes96%
  5. Brian SchatzD902 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Cantwell least often

  1. Rick ScottR911 shared votes7.0%
  2. Ron JohnsonR902 shared votes7.4%
  3. Mike LeeR885 shared votes8.0%
  4. Ashley MoodyR894 shared votes8.2%
  5. Ted CruzR866 shared votes8.3%
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

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Cantwell sponsored 25 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 254 others. 28% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 3rd of 45).

The bills Cantwell 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

Sponsored25 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2525Sponsored, In committee: 2525Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored254 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 254254Cosponsored, In committee: 252252Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 7777Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Cantwell sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2525400
Cosponsored2542527711
How to read the blocks

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

28%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 3rd of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Cantwell, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Richard Blumenthal48
  2. Amy Klobuchar47
  3. Patty Murray37
  4. Ben Luján36
  5. Jeff Merkley36
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 Cantwell’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
S.Res. 950A resolution designating the week of September 14 through September 18, 2026, as "National Clean Energy Week".CosponsorOct 15, 2026IntroducedEnergyUnder authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026
S.J.Res. 220Original Slavery Remembrance Day ResolutionCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesRead twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 931A resolution recognizing the month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and celebrating the history and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to the United States.CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5265-5266) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 924A resolution designating October 7, 2026, as "Energy Efficiency Day" in celebration of the economic and environmental benefits that have been driven by private sector innovation and Federal energy efficiency policies.CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberEnergySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176-5177) Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 85 times in 90 days. Cantwell’s official site had 39 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Cantwell posted on Oct 12, 2026.

The lab crawls Cantwell’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 Cantwell 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.

Social accounts

Images Cantwell posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A poster with large white lettering over a close-up of a carved, painted wooden artwork. It celebrates Indigenous Peoples’ Day.
    A poster with large white lettering over a close-up of a carved, painted wooden artwork. It celebrates Indigenous Peoples’ Day.View post
  • Two women in light-colored suits pose together indoors in front of framed Indigenous-style artwork. No prominent text is visible.
    Two women in light-colored suits pose together indoors in front of framed Indigenous-style artwork. No prominent text is visible.View post
  • A woman smiles and points toward a large theater marquee above the entrance. The marquee has prominent lettering, and the theater entrance has red doors, illuminated ceiling trim, a poster display, and a ticket booth.
    A woman smiles and points toward a large theater marquee above the entrance. The marquee has prominent lettering, and the theater entrance has red doors, illuminated ceiling trim, a poster display, and a ticket booth.View post
  • Two women talk on a busy outdoor sidewalk, with café seating, pedestrians, and storefronts in the background. Some text is visible on the storefronts.
    Two women talk on a busy outdoor sidewalk, with café seating, pedestrians, and storefronts in the background. Some text is visible on the storefronts.View post
  • Two women shake hands across a counter in a small café or concession area, with a worker standing behind them. Various drinks, equipment, and supplies are visible; there is text on some packaging and signs.
    Two women shake hands across a counter in a small café or concession area, with a worker standing behind them. Various drinks, equipment, and supplies are visible; there is text on some packaging and signs.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.

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 Cantwell 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
C000127
Bioguide
C000127
FEC candidate ids
H2WA01054, S8WA00194

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 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

Back to top