Skip to content

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

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

Bioguide C001068FEC H6TN09068

Portrait of Steve Cohen, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.7×
the House Democrat rate of personal attacks

18% of 1,457 statements contain a personal attack (262 statements); the average for House Democrats is 6.6%. Ranks 6th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Cohen’s posts on X, press releases, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches 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. 63% of Cohen’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 73%). Cohen raised $785.0K in the 2026 cycle, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (median $2.0M).

The measures on which Cohen 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

18%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 6th of 216

Policy discussion

63%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 194th of 216

Raised, 2026

$785.0K

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 190th of 214

Attendance

94.8%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 187th of 217 · 674 roll calls

From Tennessee, 2026

79%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 42nd of 214 House Democrats

CSIP ideology

−0.87

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Cohen says

Cohen attacks opponents personally more than 97% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 18% of 1,457 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 6th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Cohen’s 1,457 statements in the 119th Congress (890 posts on X, 432 press releases, 69 Congressional Record speeches, 66 newsletters) 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%
Cohen
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion923 statements
63%
73%
194th of 216
Credit claiming407 statements
28%
23%
54th of 216
Policy criticism365 statements
25%
28%
143rd of 216
Personal attacks262 statements
18%
7%
6th of 216
Bipartisanship91 statements
6%
10%
159th of 216
Show the data
Cohen's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowCohenPeers
Policy discussion63%73%
Credit claiming28%23%
Policy criticism25%28%
Personal attacks18%7%
Bipartisanship6%10%
1,457

statements classified

890 posts on X, 432 press releases, 69 Congressional Record speeches, 66 newsletters.

posts on X: 890 (61.1%)posts on X 890press releases: 432 (29.6%)press releases 432Congressional Record speeches: 69 (4.7%)newsletters: 66 (4.5%)
Show the data
Cohen's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X890
press releases432
Congressional Record speeches69
newsletters66
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Cohen used extreme labels in 2.3% of statements, above the peer average. 33 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”11
  2. “MAGA”10
  3. “communist”2
  4. “woke”2
  5. “far right”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans3
  2. MAGA movement2
  3. administration1
  4. davidaxelrod1
  5. Donald Trump1
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: 1152025-02: 1072025-03: 572025-04: 752025-05: 1122025-06: 502025-07: 672025-08: 362025-09: 722025-10: 602025-11: 712025-12: 712026-01: 902026-02: 652026-03: 582026-04: 792026-05: 622026-06: 542026-07: 542026-08: 412026-09: 382026-10: 23peak 115 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 33.3% · Mar ’25 · latest 13.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 19.1% of 115Personal attacks, 2025-02: 26.2% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-03: 33.3% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-04: 28.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2025-05: 17.0% of 112Personal attacks, 2025-06: 10.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-07: 11.9% of 67Personal attacks, 2025-08: 5.6% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-09: 8.3% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-10: 5.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-11: 11.3% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-12: 19.7% of 71Personal attacks, 2026-01: 17.8% of 90Personal attacks, 2026-02: 23.1% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-03: 32.8% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-04: 25.3% of 79Personal attacks, 2026-05: 16.1% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-06: 13.0% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-07: 20.4% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-08: 7.3% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-09: 7.9% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-10: 13.0% of 23Policy criticismpeak 48.6% · Sep ’25 · latest 8.7%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 25.2% of 115Policy criticism, 2025-02: 25.2% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-03: 36.8% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-04: 28.0% of 75Policy criticism, 2025-05: 19.6% of 112Policy criticism, 2025-06: 24.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-07: 23.9% of 67Policy criticism, 2025-08: 25.0% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-09: 48.6% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-10: 35.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-11: 35.2% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-12: 23.9% of 71Policy criticism, 2026-01: 12.2% of 90Policy criticism, 2026-02: 23.1% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-03: 34.5% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-04: 17.7% of 79Policy criticism, 2026-05: 17.7% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-06: 24.1% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-07: 25.9% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-08: 12.2% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-09: 13.2% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-10: 8.7% of 23Policy discussionpeak 85.2% · Jun ’26 · latest 73.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 62.6% of 115Policy discussion, 2025-02: 48.6% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-03: 64.9% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-04: 56.0% of 75Policy discussion, 2025-05: 50.0% of 112Policy discussion, 2025-06: 66.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-07: 59.7% of 67Policy discussion, 2025-08: 63.9% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-09: 75.0% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-10: 60.0% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-11: 60.6% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-12: 54.9% of 71Policy discussion, 2026-01: 65.6% of 90Policy discussion, 2026-02: 61.5% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-03: 67.2% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-04: 77.2% of 79Policy discussion, 2026-05: 77.4% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-06: 85.2% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-07: 79.6% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-08: 56.1% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-09: 52.6% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-10: 73.9% of 23Bipartisanshippeak 17.4% · Jan ’25 · latest 4.3%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 17.4% of 115Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.5% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.0% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 0.0% of 75Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.4% of 112Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 10.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 4.5% of 67Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 11.1% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 11.1% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 8.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 1.4% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 11.3% of 71Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 2.2% of 90Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 4.6% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 1.7% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 79Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 4.8% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 14.8% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 0.0% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 2.4% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 2.6% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 4.3% of 23Credit claimingpeak 57.4% · Jun ’26 · latest 30.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 33.0% of 115Credit claiming, 2025-02: 15.9% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-03: 21.1% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-04: 24.0% of 75Credit claiming, 2025-05: 25.0% of 112Credit claiming, 2025-06: 40.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-07: 25.4% of 67Credit claiming, 2025-08: 38.9% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-09: 38.9% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-10: 23.3% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-11: 31.0% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-12: 23.9% of 71Credit claiming, 2026-01: 21.1% of 90Credit claiming, 2026-02: 40.0% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-03: 20.7% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-04: 31.6% of 79Credit claiming, 2026-05: 25.8% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-06: 57.4% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-07: 20.4% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-08: 24.4% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-09: 13.2% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-10: 30.4% of 23Extreme labelspeak 5.6% · Aug ’25 · latest 4.3%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.3% of 115Extreme labels, 2025-02: 2.8% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-03: 5.3% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 75Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.9% of 112Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2025-08: 5.6% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-09: 4.2% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.8% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 71Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.1% of 90Extreme labels, 2026-02: 4.6% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-04: 3.8% of 79Extreme labels, 2026-05: 3.2% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.6% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-10: 4.3% of 23Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Cohen, 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 ’2511519.1%25.2%62.6%17.4%33.0%4.3%
Feb ’2510726.2%25.2%48.6%6.5%15.9%2.8%
Mar ’255733.3%36.8%64.9%7.0%21.1%5.3%
Apr ’257528.0%28.0%56.0%0.0%24.0%0.0%
May ’2511217.0%19.6%50.0%5.4%25.0%0.9%
Jun ’255010.0%24.0%66.0%10.0%40.0%2.0%
Jul ’256711.9%23.9%59.7%4.5%25.4%3.0%
Aug ’25365.6%25.0%63.9%11.1%38.9%5.6%
Sep ’25728.3%48.6%75.0%11.1%38.9%4.2%
Oct ’25605.0%35.0%60.0%8.3%23.3%0.0%
Nov ’257111.3%35.2%60.6%1.4%31.0%2.8%
Dec ’257119.7%23.9%54.9%11.3%23.9%0.0%
Jan ’269017.8%12.2%65.6%2.2%21.1%1.1%
Feb ’266523.1%23.1%61.5%4.6%40.0%4.6%
Mar ’265832.8%34.5%67.2%1.7%20.7%0.0%
Apr ’267925.3%17.7%77.2%0.0%31.6%3.8%
May ’266216.1%17.7%77.4%4.8%25.8%3.2%
Jun ’265413.0%24.1%85.2%14.8%57.4%0.0%
Jul ’265420.4%25.9%79.6%0.0%20.4%0.0%
Aug ’26417.3%12.2%56.1%2.4%24.4%0.0%
Sep ’26387.9%13.2%52.6%2.6%13.2%2.6%
Oct ’262313.0%8.7%73.9%4.3%30.4%4.3%
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 Cohen’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Congressman Cohen Introduces the Mobile Stroke Units Improve Health Outcomes Act Timely treatment is critical for recovery from stroke WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-9), Congressman Andrew Garbarino (NY-2) and Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (OH-3) today introduced the Mobile Stroke Units Impro…

Oct 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 10, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Trump · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 20, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA Republicans · 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 · target: TrumpSource

  2. 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 Issues · LawSource

  3. Posts on X

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

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

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Eric SchmidtSource

  5. Press releases

    Congressman Cohen Introduces Comprehensive Articles of Impeachment Against President Donald Trump Cites twenty-six high crimes and misdemeanors, including abuses of power and violations of his oath of office WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-9), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an authority on the U.S. Constitution’s impeachment provisions, today introduced 26 Articles of Impeachment against Pres…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Education · Immigration · Law · Economics and Public Finance · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Taxation · target: Donald TrumpSource

All 1,457 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: 890 posts on X, 432 press releases, 69 Congressional Record speeches, 66 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Cohen talks about most: 32% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 60th 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 Cohen talks about. The bills Cohen sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Cohen talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Cohen
Peers
Government Operations and Politics293 statements
32%
20%
Health286 statements
31%
26%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues167 statements
18%
13%
Economics and Public Finance161 statements
17%
20%
Crime and Law Enforcement155 statements
17%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Cohen talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowCohenPeers
Government Operations and Politics32%20%
Health31%26%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues18%13%
Economics and Public Finance17%20%
Crime and Law Enforcement17%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Cohen’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 onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 32% (House Democrats 20%)32%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 9% (House Democrats 11%)9%HealthHealth, talks about: 31% (House Democrats 26%)31%Health, legislates on: 24% (House Democrats 16%)24%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 18% (House Democrats 13%)18%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 3% (House Democrats 5%)3%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 20%)17%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 9%)17%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 7%)7%
Show the data
Cohen's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics32%20%9%11%
Health31%26%24%16%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues18%13%3%5%
Economics and Public Finance17%20%0%1%
Crime and Law Enforcement17%9%7%7%
0.70

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 60th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Cohen sits at −0.87 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 66% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.88 to −0.85, which understates the uncertainty; from 664 donors and 7,384 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

−0.87

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.88 to −0.85. From 664 donors and 7,384 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Cohen −0.9House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Cohen, 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 Cohen’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 Cohen sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Cohen −0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Cohen's CSIP score of −0.87 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Cohen
House Democrats217−1.066%
All House439+0.333%
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 Cohen 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 Cohen.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Cohen raised $785.0K in the 2026 cycle, 40% of the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 5.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 79% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.

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
$785.0K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 206 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): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $322.3K (41.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $19.5K (2.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $19.5K (2.5%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)PACs and other committees: $320.5K (40.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $122.0K (15.5%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)41 squares$322.3K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$19.5K
  • PACs and other committees41 squares$320.5K
  • Party committees$779
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)16 squares$122.0K
Show the data
Sources of Cohen's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$322.3K41.1%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$19.5K2.5%
PACs and other committees$320.5K40.8%
Party committees$7790.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$122.0K15.5%
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: $608.9K$608.9K20202022 cycle: $546.3K$546.3K20222024 cycle: $703.5K$703.5K20242026 cycle: $785.0K$785.0K2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Cohen's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$608.9K
2022 cycle$546.3K
2024 cycle$703.5K
2026 cycle$785.0K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 79% came from Tennessee.

  1. Tennessee$215.9K
  2. New York$14.0K
  3. District of Columbia$12.7K
  4. Virginia$11.8K
  5. Maryland$5,250

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%
Cohen
Median
2026
6%
13%
2024
2%
13%
2022
1%
13%
2020
8%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowCohenMedian
2026 cycle6%13%
2024 cycle2%13%
2022 cycle1%13%
2020 cycle8%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $250ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $14.0KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $250MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: $1,000CTCalifornia: $2,250CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $1,000CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $11.8KVAMaryland: $5,250MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $215.9KTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $12.7KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: $3,000MSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $2,000GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $750TXFlorida: $500FL
Show the data
Cohen's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Tennessee$215.9K
New York$14.0K
District of Columbia$12.7K
Virginia$11.8K
Maryland$5,250
Mississippi$3,000
California$2,250
Georgia$2,000
Connecticut$1,000
Colorado$1,000
Texas$750
Florida$500
Illinois$250
Massachusetts$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
206

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

79%

from Tennessee

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 2.9%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 55%55%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 11%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.3%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 4.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 2.7%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 6.0%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 11%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 2.5%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 1.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Cohen's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.25: 55% between −1.00 and −0.75, 11% between −0.75 and −0.50, 6.0% between +0.25 and +0.50, 11% between +0.50 and +0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.002.9%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7555%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5011%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.3%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.004.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.252.7%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.506.0%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7511%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.002.5%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.251.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Cohen’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Cohen’s own score is −0.87.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$48.9K 52 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$29.1K 17 donors
  3. PHYSICIAN$29.0K 5 donors
  4. LAWYER$16.5K 8 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$15.0K 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. FEDEX CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. SMART TD PAC$10.0K
  4. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SWAPA PAC)$7,500
  5. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL (HONPAC)$7,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. WEST CLINIC$17.5K 3 donors
  2. CROSSROADS STRATEGIES$2,000 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Cohen voted with the majority of House Democrats on 98.0% of party-line votes and missed 5.2% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cohen voted against the majority of House Democrats 14 times.

674 roll calls Cohen 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 Cohen voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

14

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 98.0%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 119th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Cohen
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.8%
96.9%
187th of 217
Party unity
98.0%
96.4%
119th of 217
Show the data
Cohen's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowCohenPeers
Attendance94.8%96.9%
Party unity98.0%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 Cohen most often

  1. Johnny OlszewskiD633 shared votes98%
  2. Frederica WilsonD456 shared votes98%
  3. Melanie StansburyD624 shared votes98%
  4. Alma AdamsD637 shared votes98%
  5. Sarah ElfrethD636 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Cohen least often

  1. Chip RoyR605 shared votes17%
  2. Ralph NormanR567 shared votes17%
  3. Andy BiggsR575 shared votes18%
  4. Eric BurlisonR607 shared votes18%
  5. Keith SelfR624 shared votes19%
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

Cohen sponsored 61 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 703 others. 3.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 108th of 207).

The bills Cohen 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

Sponsored61 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6161Sponsored, In committee: 6161Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored703 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 703703Cosponsored, In committee: 703703Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2525Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Cohen sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6161100
Cosponsored7037032521
How to read the blocks

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

3.3%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 108th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton163
  2. Rashida Tlaib80
  3. Shri Thanedar74
  4. André Carson71
  5. Jan Schakowsky50
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 Cohen’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. 10844Mobile Stroke Units Improve Health Outcomes Act of 2026SponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 19, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026
H.J.Res. 218Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States.SponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10653Police Training and Independent Review Act of 2026SponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 40 times in 90 days. Cohen’s official site had 26 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Cohen posted on Oct 20, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    cohen.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    26

    pages crawled

    40

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    cohenforcongress.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    4

    pages crawled

    5

    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.

Social accounts

Images Cohen posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A blue campaign graphic featuring a large white number and text on the left, with a photograph of a domed government building and an American flag on the right. A human rights organization logo appears near the lower left.
    A blue campaign graphic featuring a large white number and text on the left, with a photograph of a domed government building and an American flag on the right. A human rights organization logo appears near the lower left.View post
  • A political cartoon shows a suited man with raised arms standing in an ornate interior above a large presidential seal. His long red tie appears to extend down to the seal. The drawing includes windows, architectural details, lamps, and arched doorways. There is a cartoonist’s signature and other text.
    A political cartoon shows a suited man with raised arms standing in an ornate interior above a large presidential seal. His long red tie appears to extend down to the seal. The drawing includes windows, architectural details, lamps, and arched doorways. There is a cartoonist’s signature and other text.View post
  • A green-tinted awareness poster shows several people placing their hands together in a supportive gesture. Large text announces a mental health awareness day, with a year at the top.
    A green-tinted awareness poster shows several people placing their hands together in a supportive gesture. Large text announces a mental health awareness day, with a year at the top.View post
  • Three men in suits pose at an indoor event. The man on the right holds a framed certificate, and the older man in the middle holds a cane. A branded backdrop and event furnishings are behind them, with text visible.
    Three men in suits pose at an indoor event. The man on the right holds a framed certificate, and the older man in the middle holds a cane. A branded backdrop and event furnishings are behind them, with text visible.View post
  • A formal community event in a decorated banquet room. People sit at tables facing a small stage, where two men are seated and another speaks at a podium. A large screen displays a portrait and event information. Text is visible on the stage backdrop and screen.
    A formal community event in a decorated banquet room. People sit at tables facing a small stage, where two men are seated and another speaks at a podium. A large screen displays a portrait and event information. Text is visible on the stage backdrop and screen.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 Cohen 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
C001068
Bioguide
C001068
FEC candidate ids
H6TN09068

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