Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, New York’s 9th district

Serving since Jan 4, 2007119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide C001067FEC H4NY11138

Portrait of Yvette Clarke, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
3.1×
the House Democrat rate of personal attacks

20% of 1,116 statements contain a personal attack (226 statements); the average for House Democrats is 6.6%. Ranks 2nd of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Clarke’s press releases, posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and newsletters and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 57% of Clarke’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats (average 73%). Clarke sits at −1.32 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 91% of House Democrats.

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

Personal attacks

20%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 2nd of 216

Policy discussion

57%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 211th of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.32

More liberal than 91% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

Extreme labels

3.7%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 25th of 216

Bipartisanship

4.6%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 185th of 216

Credit claiming

14%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 185th of 216

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Clarke says

Clarke attacks opponents personally more than 99% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 20% of 1,116 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 2nd of 216.

An AI model reads each of Clarke’s 1,116 statements in the 119th Congress (865 posts on X, 135 press releases, 72 newsletters, 44 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 House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Clarke
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion634 statements
57%
73%
211th of 216
Personal attacks226 statements
20%
7%
2nd of 216
Policy criticism202 statements
18%
28%
171st of 216
Credit claiming153 statements
14%
23%
185th of 216
Bipartisanship51 statements
5%
10%
185th of 216
Show the data
Clarke's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowClarkePeers
Policy discussion57%73%
Personal attacks20%7%
Policy criticism18%28%
Credit claiming14%23%
Bipartisanship5%10%
1,116

statements classified

865 posts on X, 135 press releases, 72 newsletters, 44 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 865 (77.5%)posts on X 865press releases: 135 (12.1%)newsletters: 72 (6.5%)Congressional Record speeches: 44 (3.9%)
Show the data
Clarke's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X865
press releases135
newsletters72
Congressional Record speeches44
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Clarke used extreme labels in 3.7% of statements, 1.9 times the peer average. 41 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”9
  2. “MAGA”7
  3. “fascist”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump5
  2. Republicans4
  3. Trump4
  4. MAGA3
  5. Republican Party3
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: 552025-02: 672025-03: 742025-04: 752025-05: 752025-06: 892025-07: 602025-08: 422025-09: 422025-10: 532025-11: 402025-12: 432026-01: 522026-02: 532026-03: 312026-04: 432026-05: 472026-06: 492026-07: 412026-08: 262026-09: 332026-10: 26peak 89 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 29.2% · Jun ’25 · latest 11.5%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 21.8% of 55Personal attacks, 2025-02: 22.4% of 67Personal attacks, 2025-03: 27.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-04: 26.7% of 75Personal attacks, 2025-05: 25.3% of 75Personal attacks, 2025-06: 29.2% of 89Personal attacks, 2025-07: 13.3% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-08: 19.1% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-09: 7.1% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-10: 20.8% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-11: 20.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-12: 14.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-01: 21.1% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-02: 22.6% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-03: 19.4% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-04: 14.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-05: 12.8% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-06: 20.4% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-07: 12.2% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-08: 19.2% of 26Personal attacks, 2026-09: 18.2% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-10: 11.5% of 26Policy criticismpeak 33.3% · Sep ’25 · latest 3.9%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 14.5% of 55Policy criticism, 2025-02: 20.9% of 67Policy criticism, 2025-03: 17.6% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-04: 20.0% of 75Policy criticism, 2025-05: 21.3% of 75Policy criticism, 2025-06: 12.4% of 89Policy criticism, 2025-07: 28.3% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-08: 14.3% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-09: 33.3% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-10: 22.6% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-11: 27.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-12: 25.6% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-01: 0.0% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-02: 30.2% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-03: 22.6% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-04: 16.3% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-05: 10.6% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-06: 24.5% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-07: 7.3% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 26Policy criticism, 2026-09: 9.1% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-10: 3.9% of 26Policy discussionpeak 78.8% · Jan ’26 · latest 73.1%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 45.5% of 55Policy discussion, 2025-02: 56.7% of 67Policy discussion, 2025-03: 55.4% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-04: 49.3% of 75Policy discussion, 2025-05: 61.3% of 75Policy discussion, 2025-06: 41.6% of 89Policy discussion, 2025-07: 65.0% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-08: 57.1% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-09: 42.9% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-10: 39.6% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-11: 57.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-12: 76.7% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-01: 78.8% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-02: 56.6% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-03: 51.6% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-04: 58.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-05: 66.0% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-06: 57.1% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-07: 56.1% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-08: 65.4% of 26Policy discussion, 2026-09: 66.7% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-10: 73.1% of 26Bipartisanshippeak 14.3% · Jun ’26 · latest 3.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 7.3% of 55Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 3.0% of 67Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 5.4% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 2.7% of 75Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 1.3% of 75Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 2.3% of 89Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 9.5% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 1.9% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 7.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 1.9% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 5.7% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 12.9% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 2.1% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 14.3% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 7.3% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 26Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 0.0% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.9% of 26Credit claimingpeak 31.9% · May ’26 · latest 7.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 18.2% of 55Credit claiming, 2025-02: 17.9% of 67Credit claiming, 2025-03: 10.8% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-04: 5.3% of 75Credit claiming, 2025-05: 8.0% of 75Credit claiming, 2025-06: 5.6% of 89Credit claiming, 2025-07: 15.0% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-08: 16.7% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-09: 11.9% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-10: 9.4% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-11: 15.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-12: 16.3% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-01: 15.4% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-02: 13.2% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-03: 22.6% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-04: 9.3% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-05: 31.9% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-06: 26.5% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-07: 17.1% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-08: 3.9% of 26Credit claiming, 2026-09: 15.2% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-10: 7.7% of 26Extreme labelspeak 11.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 7.7%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.8% of 55Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.4% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-04: 4.0% of 75Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.7% of 75Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.3% of 89Extreme labels, 2025-07: 8.3% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-08: 7.1% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-09: 4.8% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-10: 11.3% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.5% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-12: 4.7% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-01: 5.8% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.9% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.2% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-05: 4.3% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.1% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-07: 2.4% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-08: 3.9% of 26Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-10: 7.7% of 26Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Clarke, 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 ’255521.8%14.5%45.5%7.3%18.2%1.8%
Feb ’256722.4%20.9%56.7%3.0%17.9%0.0%
Mar ’257427.0%17.6%55.4%5.4%10.8%1.4%
Apr ’257526.7%20.0%49.3%2.7%5.3%4.0%
May ’257525.3%21.3%61.3%1.3%8.0%2.7%
Jun ’258929.2%12.4%41.6%2.3%5.6%2.3%
Jul ’256013.3%28.3%65.0%8.3%15.0%8.3%
Aug ’254219.1%14.3%57.1%0.0%16.7%7.1%
Sep ’25427.1%33.3%42.9%9.5%11.9%4.8%
Oct ’255320.8%22.6%39.6%1.9%9.4%11.3%
Nov ’254020.0%27.5%57.5%0.0%15.0%2.5%
Dec ’254314.0%25.6%76.7%7.0%16.3%4.7%
Jan ’265221.1%0.0%78.8%1.9%15.4%5.8%
Feb ’265322.6%30.2%56.6%5.7%13.2%1.9%
Mar ’263119.4%22.6%51.6%12.9%22.6%3.2%
Apr ’264314.0%16.3%58.1%7.0%9.3%0.0%
May ’264712.8%10.6%66.0%2.1%31.9%4.3%
Jun ’264920.4%24.5%57.1%14.3%26.5%4.1%
Jul ’264112.2%7.3%56.1%7.3%17.1%2.4%
Aug ’262619.2%0.0%65.4%0.0%3.9%3.9%
Sep ’263318.2%9.1%66.7%0.0%15.2%0.0%
Oct ’262611.5%3.9%73.1%3.9%7.7%7.7%
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 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 Clarke’s words

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

Bipartisanship

CLARKE, COLLEAGUES INTRODUCE BIPARTISAN, BICAMERAL RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH WORLD MENOPAUSE AWARENESS MONTH AND WORLD MENOPAUSE DAY FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 8, 2026 MEDIA CONTACT: e: jessica.myers@mail.house.gov c: 202.913.0126 WASHINGTON, D.C. — This week, Congresswomen Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY…

Oct 8, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Source

Personal attacks

CLARKE SLAMS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FOR WEAKENING TITLE IX PROTECTIONS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVORS IN WAKE OF CORNELL ASSAULT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 9, 2026 MEDIA CONTACT: e: jessica.myers@mail.house.gov c: 202.913.0126 WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke (NY-09) issued…

Oct 9, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Immigration; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA followers; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 12, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Law; extreme label “fascist” aimed at Trump; target: Trump · 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

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Law · extreme label “fascist” aimed at Trump · target: TrumpSource

  2. Press releases

    CLARKE SLAMS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FOR WEAKENING TITLE IX PROTECTIONS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVORS IN WAKE OF CORNELL ASSAULT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 9, 2026 MEDIA CONTACT: e: jessica.myers@mail.house.gov c: 202.913.0126 WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke (NY-09) issued the following statement: “For nearly two long and painful years, Americans have watched in helpless horror as our neighb…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Economics and Public Finance · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA followers · target: Donald TrumpSource

  3. Press releases

    CLARKE DEMANDS ICE LEAVE NYC FOLLOWING SHOOTING OF NEW YORKER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 9, 2026 MEDIA CONTACT: e: jessica.myers@mail.house.gov c: 202.913.0126 BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Today, Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke (NY-09) issued the following statement: “For nearly two long and painful years, Americans have watched in helpless horror as our neighbors continue to be stolen from their homes and shot in the street…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · Economics and Public Finance · target: Donald TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

All 1,116 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: 865 posts on X, 135 press releases, 72 newsletters, 44 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues is what Clarke talks about most: 29% of policy statements, 2.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 154th of 216).

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

What Clarke talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Clarke
Peers
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues181 statements
29%
13%
Immigration158 statements
25%
11%
Health130 statements
21%
26%
Government Operations and Politics122 statements
19%
20%
Crime and Law Enforcement71 statements
11%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Clarke talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowClarkePeers
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues29%13%
Immigration25%11%
Health21%26%
Government Operations and Politics19%20%
Crime and Law Enforcement11%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Clarke’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for 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 House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onCivil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 29% (House Democrats 13%)29%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 5%)6%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 25% (House Democrats 11%)25%Immigration, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 4%)8%HealthHealth, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 26%)21%Health, legislates on: 27% (House Democrats 16%)27%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 20%)19%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 11%)11%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 11% (House Democrats 9%)11%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 7%)7%
Show the data
Clarke's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues29%13%6%5%
Immigration25%11%8%4%
Health21%26%27%16%
Government Operations and Politics19%20%11%11%
Crime and Law Enforcement11%9%7%7%
0.66

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 154th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Clarke sits at −1.32 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 91% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.34 to −1.30, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,391 donors and 7,408 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”.

−1.32

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.34 to −1.30. From 1,391 donors and 7,408 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Clarke −1.3House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Clarke, 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 Clarke’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 Clarke sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Clarke −1.3All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Clarke's CSIP score of −1.32 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Clarke
House Democrats217−1.09%
All House439+0.35%
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 Clarke 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 Clarke.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Clarke raised $1.3M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 6.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 33% of itemized individual money came from New York.

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
$1.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 347 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $460.5K (35.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $31.5K (2.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $31.5K (2.4%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)PACs and other committees: $789.5K (61.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $6,753 (0.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)36 squares$460.5K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$31.5K
  • PACs and other committees61 squares$789.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$6,753
Show the data
Sources of Clarke's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$460.5K35.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$31.5K2.4%
PACs and other committees$789.5K61.3%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$6,7530.5%
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 House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20202022 cycle: $797.0K$797.0K20222024 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20242026 cycle: $1.3M$1.3M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Clarke's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.2M
2022 cycle$797.0K
2024 cycle$1.1M
2026 cycle$1.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 33% came from New York.

  1. New York$129.6K
  2. California$64.2K
  3. District of Columbia$45.7K
  4. Colorado$19.8K
  5. Maryland$18.3K

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.

0%60%
Clarke
Median
2026
6%
13%
2024
10%
13%
2022
16%
13%
2020
15%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowClarkeMedian
2026 cycle6%13%
2024 cycle10%13%
2022 cycle16%13%
2020 cycle15%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $3,500VTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $562WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $500MNIllinois: $16.2KILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $750MINew York: $129.6KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $16.8KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $1,000INOhio: $750OHPennsylvania: $500PANew Jersey: $9,092NJConnecticut: $1,400CTCalifornia: $64.2KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $19.8KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $1,500MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $16.0KVAMaryland: $18.3KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $500AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $7,500TNNorth Carolina: $250NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $45.7KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $1,000LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $10.7KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $8,750TXFlorida: $18.0KFL
Show the data
Clarke's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$129.6K
California$64.2K
District of Columbia$45.7K
Colorado$19.8K
Maryland$18.3K
Florida$18.0K
Massachusetts$16.8K
Illinois$16.2K
Virginia$16.0K
Georgia$10.7K
New Jersey$9,092
Texas$8,750
Tennessee$7,500
Vermont$3,500
Missouri$1,500
Connecticut$1,400
Indiana$1,000
Louisiana$1,000
Michigan$750
Ohio$750
Washington$562
Minnesota$500
Pennsylvania$500
Arizona$500
North Carolina$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
347

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

33%

from New York

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 25%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 39%39%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 25%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 6.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.7%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.8%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.4%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Clarke's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +0.50: 25% between −1.50 and −1.25, 39% between −1.25 and −1.00, 25% between −1.00 and −0.75, 6.3% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.2525%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0039%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7525%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.506.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.7%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.4%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Clarke’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Clarke’s own score is −1.32.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$59.3K 69 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$36.1K 31 donors
  3. CEO$18.7K 10 donors
  4. RETIRED$18.6K 16 donors
  5. GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$12.3K 11 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  5. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. THEGROUP$13.5K 5 donors
  2. DAVITA$11.0K 4 donors
  3. GENENTECH$6,950 20 donors
  4. CAPITOL COUNSEL$3,500 3 donors
  5. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS$3,000 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Clarke voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 2.4% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Clarke voted against the majority of House Democrats 18 times.

674 roll calls Clarke could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House 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 Clarke voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

18

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 68th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Clarke
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.6%
96.9%
133rd of 217
Party unity
99.3%
96.4%
68th of 217
Show the data
Clarke's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowClarkePeers
Attendance97.6%96.9%
Party unity99.3%96.4%
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 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaAgainst majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
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 Clarke most often

  1. Maxwell FrostD655 shared votes98%
  2. Bonnie Watson ColemanD651 shared votes98%
  3. Becca BalintD650 shared votes98%
  4. Suzanne BonamiciD649 shared votes98%
  5. Diana DeGetteD648 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Clarke least often

  1. Chip RoyR620 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR588 shared votes17%
  3. Eric BurlisonR627 shared votes18%
  4. Andy BiggsR594 shared votes18%
  5. Josh BrecheenR629 shared votes18%
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

Clarke sponsored 24 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 640 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Clarke 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

Sponsored24 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2424Sponsored, In committee: 2424Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored640 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 640640Cosponsored, In committee: 640640Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1212Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Clarke sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2424000
Cosponsored6406401200
How to read the blocks

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

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton140
  2. Rashida Tlaib72
  3. Hank Johnson Jr.66
  4. André Carson58
  5. Shri Thanedar58
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 Clarke’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
H.R. 10875To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10810National Patient Safety Board Act of 2026CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10814To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide further transparency and accountability for the use of content that is generated by artificial intelligence (generative AI) in political advertisements by requiring such advertisements to include a statement within the contents of the advSponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on House Administration. Oct 15, 2026
H.Res. 1627Reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives to preserve and expand pathways to citizenship.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10770To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to temporarily limit the use of rebates under the 340B Program.CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 9, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 71 times in 90 days. Clarke’s official site had 38 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Clarke posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    clarke.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    38

    pages crawled

    71

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    voteyvette.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    30

    pages crawled

    50

    changes 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.

Images Clarke posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A colorful promotional flyer for a congressional app challenge aimed at middle and high school students. It features a portrait of a smiling woman, two QR codes, technology-themed graphics, and contact information. Text appears throughout.
    A colorful promotional flyer for a congressional app challenge aimed at middle and high school students. It features a portrait of a smiling woman, two QR codes, technology-themed graphics, and contact information. Text appears throughout.View post
  • A blue political statement graphic with a small campaign logo at the top and multiple paragraphs of white text about an immigrant family and calls for an investigation and accountability. A yellow symbol appears at the bottom.
    A blue political statement graphic with a small campaign logo at the top and multiple paragraphs of white text about an immigrant family and calls for an investigation and accountability. A yellow symbol appears at the bottom.View post
  • A blue, red, and white election poster with a patriotic background. It lists early voting dates and Election Day, with a small campaign-style logo at the top and colorful lettering near the bottom.
    A blue, red, and white election poster with a patriotic background. It lists early voting dates and Election Day, with a small campaign-style logo at the top and colorful lettering near the bottom.View post
  • A black-and-white photograph of a smiling young child sitting on a bed and raising one arm. Clothing and household items are visible in the room behind them. There is text on the child's shirt.
    A black-and-white photograph of a smiling young child sitting on a bed and raising one arm. Clothing and household items are visible in the room behind them. There is text on the child's shirt.View post
  • A ProPublica news graphic with a headline above an illustration of a voting machine, overlaid with pixelated black lines and set against a red, white, and gray background. Text is present.
    A ProPublica news graphic with a headline above an illustration of a voting machine, overlaid with pixelated black lines and set against a red, white, and gray background. Text is present.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 Clarke is most unusual among 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
C001067
Bioguide
C001067
FEC candidate ids
H4NY11138

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