Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 20, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; target: Trump · Source
12%
of itemized money from Delaware donors, the lowest of 41 Senate Democrats
12% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Delaware. Ranks 41st of 41, where 1st is the highest share. 1,203 itemized donors.
Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Delaware, ranked among Senate Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Democrats. Coons sits at −0.85 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 94% of Senate Democrats. 3.1% of Coons’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom tenth of Senate Democrats (median 35%).
The measures on which Coons sits furthest from the middle of Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
From Delaware, 2026
12%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 41st of 41 Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
−0.85
More conservative than 94% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.01
Small donations, 2026
3.1%
Senate Democrats’ median 35% · ranks 43rd of 45
Attendance
94.3%
Senate Democrats average 97.0% · ranks 40th of 45 · 915 roll calls
Out of committee
21%
Senate Democrats average 14% · ranks 7th of 45
Party unity
94.0%
Senate Democrats average 95.3% · ranks 33rd of 45 · 51 votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Peer group: Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Coons, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Coons is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Coons says
Coons claims credit less than 71% of Senate Democrats. Credit claiming in 19% of 1,945 statements, against 26% for the average Senate Democrat; 33rd of 45.
An AI model reads each of Coons’s 1,945 statements in the 119th Congress (1,450 posts on X, 396 press releases, 82 Congressional Record speeches, 17 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Coons
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,467 statements
75%
78%
31st of 45
Policy criticism756 statements
39%
37%
16th of 45
Bipartisanship376 statements
19%
18%
15th of 45
Credit claiming364 statements
19%
26%
33rd of 45
Personal attacks173 statements
9%
11%
27th of 45
Show the data
| Row | Coons | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 75% | 78% |
| Policy criticism | 39% | 37% |
| Bipartisanship | 19% | 18% |
| Credit claiming | 19% | 26% |
| Personal attacks | 9% | 11% |
1,945
statements classified
1,450 posts on X, 396 press releases, 82 Congressional Record speeches, 17 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,450 |
| press releases | 396 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 82 |
| newsletters | 17 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Coons; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Coons does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Coons used extreme labels in 1.1% of statements, below the peer average. 21 statements, most often aimed at Trump; peers 2.4%.
- “extreme”7
- “radical”4
- “far right”2
- “MAGA”1
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Trump2
- AmeriCorps cuts1
- Democrats1
- Donald Trump1
- far-right groups1
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 | 130 | 11.5% | 31.5% | 66.9% | 18.5% | 24.6% | 2.3% |
| Feb ’25 | 155 | 11.0% | 52.3% | 76.8% | 16.1% | 14.8% | 0.7% |
| Mar ’25 | 130 | 12.3% | 33.1% | 69.2% | 19.2% | 18.5% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 130 | 8.5% | 37.7% | 75.4% | 25.4% | 18.5% | 0.8% |
| May ’25 | 109 | 8.3% | 41.3% | 70.6% | 22.9% | 18.4% | 0.9% |
| Jun ’25 | 110 | 6.4% | 45.5% | 84.5% | 15.4% | 12.7% | 1.8% |
| Jul ’25 | 117 | 6.0% | 52.1% | 73.5% | 13.7% | 12.0% | 0.9% |
| Aug ’25 | 61 | 3.3% | 50.8% | 72.1% | 13.1% | 18.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 88 | 9.1% | 50.0% | 68.2% | 18.2% | 9.1% | 2.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 75 | 9.3% | 48.0% | 76.0% | 20.0% | 18.7% | 0.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 62 | 12.9% | 40.3% | 72.6% | 21.0% | 19.4% | 6.5% |
| Dec ’25 | 46 | 2.2% | 28.3% | 71.7% | 28.3% | 28.3% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 85 | 9.4% | 18.8% | 83.5% | 20.0% | 18.8% | 3.5% |
| Feb ’26 | 90 | 5.6% | 37.8% | 65.6% | 13.3% | 13.3% | 1.1% |
| Mar ’26 | 95 | 4.2% | 53.7% | 82.1% | 20.0% | 24.2% | 1.1% |
| Apr ’26 | 80 | 10.0% | 35.0% | 81.3% | 13.8% | 13.8% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 44 | 9.1% | 45.5% | 77.3% | 40.9% | 43.2% | 2.3% |
| Jun ’26 | 85 | 11.8% | 40.0% | 70.6% | 12.9% | 16.5% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 59 | 10.2% | 20.3% | 78.0% | 25.4% | 20.3% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 49 | 8.2% | 20.4% | 87.8% | 28.6% | 32.6% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 85 | 8.2% | 21.2% | 83.5% | 24.7% | 27.1% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 60 | 15.0% | 23.3% | 85.0% | 13.3% | 15.0% | 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 Coons’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
Dear Delaware: What’s AI Got to Do With It? [Image] Meet Chris<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenCoons&crop=14598.8185355.6319937.7575457&report_id=Meet+Chris&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.coons.senate.gov%2fabout&redir_log=804673234125241> Services<https://outreach.senat…
Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Science, Technology, Communications; Energy; Water Resources Development; Labor and Employment; Armed Forces and National Security; Commerce; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Transportation and Public Works
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
May 20, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Environmental Protection; Water Resources Development; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Make America Healthy Again · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource
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
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 · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Donald TrumpSource
All 1,945 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: 1,450 posts on X, 396 press releases, 82 Congressional Record speeches, 17 newsletters.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Coons talks about most: 29% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 19th of 45).
Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Coons talks about. The bills Coons sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Coons talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Coons
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security432 statements
29%
21%
International Affairs416 statements
28%
12%
Economics and Public Finance325 statements
22%
24%
Health317 statements
22%
27%
Government Operations and Politics273 statements
19%
22%
Show the data
| Row | Coons | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 29% | 21% |
| International Affairs | 28% | 12% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 22% | 24% |
| Health | 22% | 27% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 22% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Coons’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 29% | 21% | 5% | 7% |
| International Affairs | 28% | 12% | 16% | 8% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 22% | 24% | 0% | 0% |
| Health | 22% | 27% | 11% | 14% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 19% | 22% | 6% | 9% |
0.67
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 19th of 45.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Coons legislates on exactly the areas Coons 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 Coons sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Coons sits at −0.85 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 94% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.86 to −0.84, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,685 donors and 4,860 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”.
−0.85
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.86 to −0.84. From 5,685 donors and 4,860 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Coons, 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 Coons’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 Coons sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Democrats45 · median −1.1
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Coons |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Democrats | 45 | −1.1 | 93% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 44% |
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 Coons 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 Coons.
Money
Coons raised $5.0M in the 2026 cycle, 1.9 times the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 3.1% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 12% of itemized individual money came from Delaware.
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.
$5.0M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 1,203 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)43 squares$2.1M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$69.6K
- PACs and other committees33 squares$1.6M
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)23 squares$1.1M
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $2.1M | 43.1% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $69.6K | 1.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $1.6M | 33.0% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $1.1M | 22.5% |
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $6.1M |
| 2022 cycle | $979.3K |
| 2024 cycle | $1.7M |
| 2026 cycle | $5.0M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 12% came from Delaware.
- California$415.3K
- New York$413.1K
- Delaware$225.0K
- Pennsylvania$133.8K
- Maryland$127.1K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Democrats’ median.
0%60%
Coons
Median
2026
3%
35%
2024
5%
35%
2022
11%
35%
2020
7%
35%
Show the data
| Row | Coons | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 3% | 35% |
| 2024 cycle | 5% | 35% |
| 2022 cycle | 11% | 35% |
| 2020 cycle | 7% | 35% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| California | $415.3K |
| New York | $413.1K |
| Delaware | $225.0K |
| Pennsylvania | $133.8K |
| Maryland | $127.1K |
| Virginia | $102.0K |
| District of Columbia | $95.6K |
| Massachusetts | $80.0K |
| Florida | $66.1K |
| New Jersey | $45.1K |
| Texas | $39.1K |
| Connecticut | $36.9K |
| Washington | $15.5K |
| Illinois | $15.5K |
| Arkansas | $11.0K |
| Georgia | $10.6K |
| Colorado | $10.0K |
| New Mexico | $10.0K |
| Indiana | $8,690 |
| Nebraska | $7,000 |
| Ohio | $5,001 |
| Arizona | $3,700 |
| Wisconsin | $3,000 |
| Missouri | $3,000 |
| Alabama | $2,500 |
| Michigan | $2,310 |
| Utah | $2,000 |
| Tennessee | $2,000 |
| Kentucky | $1,500 |
| New Hampshire | $1,400 |
| Hawaii | $1,100 |
| West Virginia | $1,099 |
| Alaska | $1,000 |
| Minnesota | $1,000 |
| Rhode Island | $1,000 |
| North Carolina | $1,000 |
| South Carolina | $1,000 |
| Louisiana | $1,000 |
| Oregon | $850 |
| Iowa | $625 |
| Vermont | $534 |
| South Dakota | $500 |
| Maine | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
1,203
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
12%
from Delaware
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 Delaware. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.4% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 16% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 49% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 8.2% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 8.6% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 8.4% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 4.6% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 3.2% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.8% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.2% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Coons’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Coons’s own score is −0.85.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- ATTORNEY$265.7K 159 donors
- NOT EMPLOYED$246.7K 298 donors
- CEO$156.8K 50 donors
- RETIRED$151.1K 92 donors
- PARTNER$71.6K 34 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- A NEW DIRECTION PAC$10.0K
- ADVANCING DEMOCRACY AND MOBILIZATION PAC$10.0K
- ALSOPAC$10.0K
- AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP$88.0K 36 donors
- APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$50.0K 19 donors
- LOCKHEED MARTIN$32.5K 31 donors
- CAPITAL GROUP$23.8K 6 donors
- LEIDOS$20.8K 34 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Coons voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 94.0% of party-line votes and missed 5.7% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Coons voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 51 times.
915 roll calls Coons could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Democrats. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Coons voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
51
votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Party unity 94.0%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 33rd of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Coons, the thin grey bar the Senate Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Coons
Peers
Rank
Attendance
94.3%
97.0%
40th of 45
Party unity
94.0%
95.3%
33rd of 45
Show the data
| Row | Coons | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 94.3% | 97.0% |
| Party unity | 94.0% | 95.3% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.
Key votes
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2026 | S. 4668 A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | 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 | Yea | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Aug 8, 2026 | H.R. 6500 An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 7, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jul 30, 2026 | S.Res. 817 An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. On the Resolution | Nay | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Coons most often
- Amy KlobucharD851 shared votes95%
- Tammy BaldwinD861 shared votes95%
- Maria CantwellD861 shared votes95%
- Jack ReedD856 shared votes94%
- Tammy DuckworthD804 shared votes94%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Coons least often
- Rick ScottR861 shared votes10%
- Mike LeeR838 shared votes11%
- Ron JohnsonR852 shared votes11%
- Ted CruzR819 shared votes11%
- Ashley MoodyR846 shared votes11%
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
Coons sponsored 66 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 592 others. 21% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 7th of 45).
The bills Coons 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 | 66 | 66 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| Cosponsored | 592 | 591 | 102 | 2 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Coons sponsored, ochre blocks bills Coons cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
21%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 7th of 45.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Coons, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Cory Booker123
- Jeanne Shaheen122
- Richard Blumenthal118
- Amy Klobuchar117
- Richard Durbin116
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 Coons’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. 5686 | No Public Executions in America Act | Cosponsor | Oct 15, 2026 | Introduced | Armed Forces and National Security | Under authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Oct 15, 2026 |
| S. 5637 | STRATA Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5656 | Domestic Violence SAFE Notice Act | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement | Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5676 | Strengthening Civics Education Act | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Education | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 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 |
Online
A site that changed 74 times in 90 days. Coons’s official site had 34 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Coons posted on Oct 20, 2026.
The lab crawls Coons’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 Coons posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 34
pages crawled
74changes in 90 days
- 7
pages crawled
20changes 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
- XChrisCoons
- Facebooksenatorchriscoons
- Instagramsenatorchriscoons
- YouTubesenatorchriscoons
- Emailenewsletters@coons.senate.gov
Images Coons posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A cropped news headline on a white background, with a smaller subheading beneath it.View post 
A formal letter on United States Senate letterhead, dated October 19, 2026. It is addressed to a SpaceX legal department representative and discusses restrictions on Ukrainian access to Starlink and Starshield services. The page includes paragraphs of body text and numbered footnotes with citations.View post 
A photographed page from a formal letter or document, containing paragraphs, a numbered list of questions, and footnotes with citations. The page has text throughout.View post 
A scanned page from a formal government letter containing questions and requests for records about SpaceX, Starlink, and Ukraine, followed by a closing and four handwritten signatures with printed names and titles. A footnote appears at the bottom.View post 
A photograph of a printed letter on United States Senate letterhead, addressed to the U.S. president. The letter discusses Russia, Ukraine, sanctions, and U.S. foreign policy. Text is visible throughout.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 Coons is most unusual among Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.
The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.
A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- C001088
- Bioguide
- C001088
- FEC candidate ids
- S0DE00092
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
Freshness of this profile’s data
- What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
- Roll calls (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
- Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
- Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
- ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.
How the measures work
- What politicians say
- Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
- Extreme labels
- A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
- Policy areas and agreement
- Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
- Ideology (CSIP)
- Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
- Campaign money
- Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
- Votes and key votes
- Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
- Peers and ranks
- Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab