Policy criticism
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance · Source
89%
of Senate Republicans score to the right of Cassidy on the CSIP scale
CSIP score +0.70 (approximate range +0.69 to +0.71, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 9,977 donors and 4,198 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Cassidy sits among Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Republicans. Cassidy missed 5.5% of 915 roll calls, attendance in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans (average 97.1%). 2.4% of Cassidy’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans (median 17%).
The measures on which Cassidy sits furthest from the middle of Senate Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
+0.70
More liberal than 89% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01
Attendance
94.5%
Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 47th of 53 · 915 roll calls
Small donations, 2026
2.4%
Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 43rd of 51
Party unity
97.8%
Senate Republicans average 98.4% · ranks 44th of 53 · 24 votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Credit claiming
42%
Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 12th of 52
Policy criticism
21%
Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 13th of 52
Peer group: Senate Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Cassidy, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Cassidy is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Cassidy says
Cassidy attacks opponents personally about as often as the median Senate Republican. Personal attacks in 0.7% of 2,603 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 30th of 52.
An AI model reads each of Cassidy’s 2,603 statements in the 119th Congress (1,923 posts on X, 486 press releases, 194 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Cassidy
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,878 statements
72%
70%
26th of 52
Credit claiming1,081 statements
42%
36%
12th of 52
Policy criticism541 statements
21%
17%
13th of 52
Bipartisanship310 statements
12%
13%
25th of 52
Personal attacks17 statements
1%
2%
30th of 52
Show the data
| Row | Cassidy | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 72% | 70% |
| Credit claiming | 42% | 36% |
| Policy criticism | 21% | 17% |
| Bipartisanship | 12% | 13% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 2% |
2,603
statements classified
1,923 posts on X, 486 press releases, 194 Congressional Record speeches.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,923 |
| press releases | 486 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 194 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Cassidy; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means Cassidy does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Cassidy used extreme labels in 2.1% of statements, below the peer average. 54 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.
- “radical”30
- “extreme”6
- “far left”6
- “woke”3
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Democrats12
- transparency4
- leftwing base2
- Senate Democrats2
- America1
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 156 | 2.6% | 23.1% | 75.6% | 17.3% | 51.3% | 3.2% |
| Feb ’25 | 117 | 0.0% | 26.5% | 76.1% | 16.2% | 44.4% | 1.7% |
| Mar ’25 | 177 | 0.6% | 21.5% | 64.4% | 13.0% | 40.1% | 1.1% |
| Apr ’25 | 155 | 0.0% | 22.6% | 72.9% | 15.5% | 38.7% | 0.7% |
| May ’25 | 136 | 0.0% | 16.9% | 68.4% | 15.4% | 43.4% | 1.5% |
| Jun ’25 | 140 | 0.0% | 25.7% | 68.6% | 15.0% | 37.9% | 0.7% |
| Jul ’25 | 115 | 0.0% | 17.4% | 77.4% | 11.3% | 53.9% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 131 | 0.8% | 13.0% | 78.6% | 6.1% | 62.6% | 2.3% |
| Sep ’25 | 178 | 0.6% | 19.7% | 72.5% | 8.4% | 43.3% | 4.5% |
| Oct ’25 | 164 | 0.6% | 30.5% | 62.8% | 7.9% | 28.1% | 6.1% |
| Nov ’25 | 159 | 0.6% | 25.8% | 61.6% | 14.5% | 29.6% | 3.1% |
| Dec ’25 | 120 | 3.3% | 25.8% | 80.8% | 14.2% | 50.0% | 0.8% |
| Jan ’26 | 100 | 1.0% | 13.0% | 90.0% | 4.0% | 49.0% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 95 | 1.1% | 20.0% | 67.4% | 5.3% | 49.5% | 3.2% |
| Mar ’26 | 121 | 0.0% | 15.7% | 67.8% | 8.3% | 47.1% | 7.4% |
| Apr ’26 | 114 | 0.9% | 7.9% | 75.4% | 4.4% | 48.3% | 0.9% |
| May ’26 | 77 | 0.0% | 16.9% | 74.0% | 9.1% | 39.0% | 1.3% |
| Jun ’26 | 67 | 0.0% | 25.4% | 62.7% | 17.9% | 29.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 67 | 0.0% | 14.9% | 59.7% | 10.4% | 22.4% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 68 | 1.5% | 32.4% | 73.5% | 23.5% | 22.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 58 | 0.0% | 19.0% | 81.0% | 19.0% | 34.5% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 88 | 0.0% | 17.1% | 88.6% | 10.2% | 27.3% | 0.0% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 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 Cassidy’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Aug 18, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Economics and Public Finance; target: providers · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 14, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Health; extreme label “extreme” aimed at health care providers · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Economics and Public Finance · target: providersSource
Press releases
ICYMI: Cassidy Pens Op-Ed Calling to Ban Congressional Stock Trading, Restore Faith in Congress WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) penned an op-ed in the Daily Wire highlighting his Stop Insider Trading Act, which would ban members of Congress and their families from trading individual stocks. Cassidy called attention to the conflict of interest that arises when lawmakers, who have access to nonpubl…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Finance and Financial Sector · target: Nancy PelosiSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Health · target: Margaret CarpenterSource
Congressional Record
Mr. President, this past Friday, thousands of Americans, young and old, marched peacefully to call attention to the sanctity and inherent value of each life. Their advocacy and passion drive our work on Capitol Hill to protect women and unborn children. I am a doctor, and I learned in medical school that a child's life begins in the womb. Abortion ends that life. Medically, morally, there is no difference in the valu…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Health · Law · Immigration · Families · Crime and Law Enforcement · Transportation and Public Works · Government Operations and PoliticsSource
Congressional Record
Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Mullin's legislation, the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act. Mr. President, I am a doctor, and people become desperate because of their illness, and they want just one more chance for themselves, their child, whomever. The folks who are most desperate are the parents for their child, and we all know that, because if someone dies when they are 70, it can be tragic, but they…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Health · Families · Science, Technology, CommunicationsSource
All 2,603 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: 1,923 posts on X, 486 press releases, 194 Congressional Record speeches.
Policy
Health is what Cassidy talks about most: 30% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 25th of 52).
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 Cassidy talks about. The bills Cassidy sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Cassidy talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Cassidy
Peers
Health563 statements
30%
15%
Economics and Public Finance436 statements
23%
17%
Education223 statements
12%
8%
Government Operations and Politics204 statements
11%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security201 statements
11%
25%
Show the data
| Row | Cassidy | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 30% | 15% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 17% |
| Education | 12% | 8% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 19% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 11% | 25% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Cassidy’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Republicans, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Republicans, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 30% | 15% | 16% | 11% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 17% | 1% | 1% |
| Education | 12% | 8% | 8% | 4% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 11% | 19% | 7% | 11% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 11% | 25% | 8% | 8% |
0.66
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 25th of 52.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Cassidy legislates on exactly the areas Cassidy 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 Cassidy sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Cassidy sits at +0.70 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 89% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.69 to +0.71, which understates the uncertainty; from 9,977 donors and 4,198 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”.
+0.70
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.69 to +0.71. From 9,977 donors and 4,198 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Cassidy, 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 Cassidy’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 Cassidy sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Republicans51 · median +1.0
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Cassidy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Republicans | 51 | +1.0 | 10% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 53% |
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 Cassidy 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 Cassidy.
Money
Cassidy raised $5.6M in the 2026 cycle, 1.8 times the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 2.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 15% of itemized individual money came from Louisiana.
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.
$5.6M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 1,233 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)38 squares$2.1M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$51.5K
- PACs and other committees31 squares$1.7M
- Party committees1 squares$62.0K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)29 squares$1.7M
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $2.1M | 37.7% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $51.5K | 0.9% |
| PACs and other committees | $1.7M | 30.8% |
| Party committees | $62.0K | 1.1% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $1.7M | 29.5% |
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $7.4M |
| 2022 cycle | $2.5M |
| 2024 cycle | $4.1M |
| 2026 cycle | $5.6M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 15% came from Louisiana.
- New York$582.5K
- Louisiana$569.1K
- California$434.0K
- Florida$294.2K
- Texas$273.1K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Republicans’ median.
0%60%
Cassidy
Median
2026
2%
17%
2024
5%
17%
2022
10%
17%
2020
12%
17%
Show the data
| Row | Cassidy | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 2% | 17% |
| 2024 cycle | 5% | 17% |
| 2022 cycle | 10% | 17% |
| 2020 cycle | 12% | 17% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New York | $582.5K |
| Louisiana | $569.1K |
| California | $434.0K |
| Florida | $294.2K |
| Texas | $273.1K |
| Virginia | $200.6K |
| Illinois | $162.9K |
| New Jersey | $126.3K |
| Massachusetts | $125.9K |
| District of Columbia | $88.8K |
| Connecticut | $88.2K |
| Nevada | $74.0K |
| Arkansas | $70.6K |
| Pennsylvania | $67.5K |
| Alabama | $67.2K |
| Arizona | $66.2K |
| Georgia | $60.0K |
| Missouri | $57.0K |
| Wisconsin | $55.8K |
| Minnesota | $53.2K |
| Maryland | $51.3K |
| Michigan | $43.9K |
| Ohio | $35.5K |
| South Carolina | $26.9K |
| Colorado | $26.4K |
| Indiana | $26.2K |
| Oregon | $25.5K |
| Utah | $18.9K |
| Tennessee | $18.0K |
| Idaho | $16.0K |
| New Hampshire | $15.2K |
| Washington | $14.8K |
| Vermont | $14.1K |
| Iowa | $13.4K |
| Wyoming | $12.2K |
| North Carolina | $10.9K |
| Hawaii | $4,589 |
| Kansas | $4,000 |
| Kentucky | $3,300 |
| Mississippi | $3,250 |
| Oklahoma | $3,170 |
| Nebraska | $1,000 |
| Delaware | $1,000 |
| New Mexico | $8 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
1,233
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
15%
from Louisiana
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 Louisiana. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 0.6% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 2.0% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 3.3% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 6.0% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 7.3% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 13% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 16% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 27% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 24% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 0.9% |
| CSIP +1.25 to +1.50 | 0.0% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Cassidy’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Cassidy’s own score is +0.70.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- RETIRED$730.5K 261 donors
- CEO$300.8K 74 donors
- ATTORNEY$192.7K 88 donors
- EXECUTIVE$151.8K 39 donors
- PHYSICIAN$146.6K 75 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- NRSC$62.0K
- LUMEXA IMAGING PAC$15.0K
- ENTERGY CORPORATION EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ENPAC)$13.0K
- TRUCKING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS INC.$11.7K
- DATAVANT PAC$10.5K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- GALLIANO MARINE SERVICE LLC$59.4K 5 donors
- APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$40.2K 9 donors
- APOLLO$35.5K 13 donors
- NEW YORK CANCER & BLOOD SPECIALISTS$32.5K 25 donors
- FULL SAIL UNIVERSITY$30.5K 5 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Cassidy voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 97.8% of party-line votes and missed 5.5% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cassidy voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 24 times.
915 roll calls Cassidy could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Republicans. 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 Cassidy voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
24
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 97.8%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 44th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Cassidy, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Cassidy
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.5%
97.1%
47th of 53
Party unity
97.8%
98.4%
44th of 53
Show the data
| Row | Cassidy | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 94.5% | 97.1% |
| Party unity | 97.8% | 98.4% |
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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2026 | S. 4668 A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 24, 2026 | H.Con.Res. 89 A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. On the Concurrent Resolution | Nay | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Aug 8, 2026 | H.R. 6500 An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Nay | Against majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 7, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jul 30, 2026 | S.Res. 817 An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. On the Resolution | Yea | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cassidy most often
- Markwayne MullinR644 shared votes99%
- Joni ErnstR844 shared votes98%
- James LankfordR859 shared votes98%
- Pete RickettsR858 shared votes98%
- Jon HustedR857 shared votes98%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Cassidy least often
- Ed MarkeyD858 shared votes4.4%
- Elizabeth WarrenD853 shared votes4.7%
- Christopher MurphyD843 shared votes4.7%
- Bernie SandersI810 shared votes4.9%
- Chris Van HollenD851 shared votes5.4%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Cassidy sponsored 122 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 344 others. 16% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 32nd of 51).
The bills Cassidy sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 122 | 122 | 14 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 344 | 337 | 58 | 7 | 7 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Cassidy sponsored, ochre blocks bills Cassidy cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
16%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 32nd of 51.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Cassidy, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Marsha Blackburn74
- Ted Budd59
- Rick Scott56
- James Lankford55
- James Risch54
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 Cassidy’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S. 5659 | Literacy Improvement for Transformation Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Education | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 933 | A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 2026 as "National Dyslexia Awareness Month". | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Education | Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 936 | A resolution designating October 8, 2026, as "National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day". | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Energy | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5268) Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5586 | Ensuring Accurate Payments to Specialty Pharmacies Act | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Health | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Sep 29, 2026 |
| S.Res. 926 | A resolution designating September 2026 as "National Literacy Month". | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Education | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186) Sep 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 98 times in 90 days. Cassidy’s official site had 21 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Cassidy posted on Oct 16, 2026.
The lab crawls Cassidy’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 Cassidy posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 21
pages crawled
98changes in 90 days
- 18
pages crawled
25changes 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
- XSenBillCassidy
- FacebookSenBillCassidy
- Instagramsenbillcassidy
- YouTubeSenatorBillCassidy
Images Cassidy posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
An older man carries a cardboard donation box toward an open vehicle trunk outside a blue building. Other people and a white van are visible in the background. The box has printed text.View post 
Two older men greet each other and shake hands in an indoor hallway. A third person is partly visible in the background. There is no prominent text.View post 
A red-haired woman wearing a red T-shirt stands in a purple-walled room, speaking with a partially visible person in a light blue shirt. A security camera is mounted near the ceiling. Text appears on the woman's shirt.View post 
A framed painting displayed in a gallery shows a man lying in a hospital bed while an older man in a suit sits beside him. A small wall label with text is mounted beside the painting, above a glass-topped wooden cabinet.View post 
A dark rectangular museum placard is mounted on a light-colored wall. It contains a title, artist credit, and several paragraphs describing an artwork. The edge of another display is visible at the bottom.View post
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Cassidy is most unusual among Senate Republicans, 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
- C001075
- Bioguide
- C001075
- FEC candidate ids
- H8LA00017, S4LA00107
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