Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, North Dakota

Serving since Jan 3, 2019119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 5, 2030

Bioguide C001096FEC H0ND01026, H6ND00074, S8ND00120

Portrait of Kevin Cramer, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
54%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, the highest of 51 Senate Republicans

54% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for Senate Republicans is 17%. Ranks 1st of 51, where 1st is the highest share. $1.3M raised in all.

Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among Senate Republicans. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 2.9% of Cramer’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from North Dakota, in the bottom tenth of Senate Republicans. 9.7% of the 31 bills Cramer sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans.

The measures on which Cramer 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.

Small donations, 2026

54%

Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 1st of 51

From North Dakota, 2026

2.9%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 47th of 50 Senate Republicans

Out of committee

9.7%

Senate Republicans average 22% · ranks 43rd of 51

Attendance

96.5%

Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 40th of 53 · 915 roll calls

Raised, 2026

$1.3M

Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 39th of 51

CSIP ideology

+0.84

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Cramer says

Cramer attacks opponents personally less than 65% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.4% of 2,020 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 35th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Cramer’s 2,020 statements in the 119th Congress (1,468 posts on X, 438 press releases, 72 newsletters, 42 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%
Cramer
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,524 statements
75%
70%
18th of 52
Credit claiming730 statements
36%
36%
28th of 52
Policy criticism325 statements
16%
17%
29th of 52
Bipartisanship286 statements
14%
13%
19th of 52
Personal attacks8 statements
0%
2%
35th of 52
Show the data
Cramer's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowCramerPeers
Policy discussion75%70%
Credit claiming36%36%
Policy criticism16%17%
Bipartisanship14%13%
Personal attacks0%2%
2,020

statements classified

1,468 posts on X, 438 press releases, 72 newsletters, 42 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,468 (72.7%)posts on X 1,468press releases: 438 (21.7%)press releases 438newsletters: 72 (3.6%)Congressional Record speeches: 42 (2.1%)
Show the data
Cramer's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,468
press releases438
newsletters72
Congressional Record speeches42
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Cramer used extreme labels in 0.9% of statements, 31% of the peer average. 18 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “extreme”7
  2. “radical”6
  3. “woke”2
  4. “far left”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats2
  2. activist judges1
  3. activists1
  4. California waivers1
  5. climate agenda1
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: 1412025-02: 952025-03: 952025-04: 732025-05: 1072025-06: 882025-07: 742025-08: 622025-09: 842025-10: 832025-11: 612025-12: 832026-01: 832026-02: 1032026-03: 1372026-04: 1062026-05: 1012026-06: 1072026-07: 1172026-08: 662026-09: 972026-10: 57peak 141 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 4.9% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 141Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 95Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 95Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 73Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-09: 1.2% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.2% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-11: 4.9% of 61Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2026-02: 1.0% of 103Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.7% of 137Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 106Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 101Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 107Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.9% of 117Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 97Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 57Policy criticismpeak 35.8% · Feb ’25 · latest 8.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 22.7% of 141Policy criticism, 2025-02: 35.8% of 95Policy criticism, 2025-03: 27.4% of 95Policy criticism, 2025-04: 15.1% of 73Policy criticism, 2025-05: 22.4% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-06: 17.1% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-07: 18.9% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-08: 12.9% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-09: 9.5% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-10: 15.7% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-11: 14.8% of 61Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.9% of 83Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.2% of 83Policy criticism, 2026-02: 17.5% of 103Policy criticism, 2026-03: 14.6% of 137Policy criticism, 2026-04: 7.5% of 106Policy criticism, 2026-05: 13.9% of 101Policy criticism, 2026-06: 15.9% of 107Policy criticism, 2026-07: 10.3% of 117Policy criticism, 2026-08: 7.6% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-09: 12.4% of 97Policy criticism, 2026-10: 8.8% of 57Policy discussionpeak 88.8% · May ’25 · latest 80.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 74.5% of 141Policy discussion, 2025-02: 84.2% of 95Policy discussion, 2025-03: 83.2% of 95Policy discussion, 2025-04: 74.0% of 73Policy discussion, 2025-05: 88.8% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-06: 75.0% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-07: 79.7% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-08: 72.6% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-09: 71.4% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-10: 74.7% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-11: 65.6% of 61Policy discussion, 2025-12: 79.5% of 83Policy discussion, 2026-01: 66.3% of 83Policy discussion, 2026-02: 65.0% of 103Policy discussion, 2026-03: 72.3% of 137Policy discussion, 2026-04: 79.3% of 106Policy discussion, 2026-05: 70.3% of 101Policy discussion, 2026-06: 71.0% of 107Policy discussion, 2026-07: 68.4% of 117Policy discussion, 2026-08: 86.4% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-09: 80.4% of 97Policy discussion, 2026-10: 80.7% of 57Bipartisanshippeak 28.4% · Jul ’25 · latest 3.5%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 18.4% of 141Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 17.9% of 95Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 13.7% of 95Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 15.1% of 73Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 27.1% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 19.3% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 28.4% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 17.7% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 10.7% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 20.5% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 16.4% of 61Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 8.4% of 83Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 10.8% of 83Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 16.5% of 103Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 16.1% of 137Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.5% of 106Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 10.9% of 101Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 9.3% of 107Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 11.1% of 117Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 4.5% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 3.1% of 97Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.5% of 57Credit claimingpeak 51.6% · Aug ’25 · latest 26.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 36.2% of 141Credit claiming, 2025-02: 48.4% of 95Credit claiming, 2025-03: 33.7% of 95Credit claiming, 2025-04: 39.7% of 73Credit claiming, 2025-05: 43.0% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-06: 34.1% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-07: 47.3% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-08: 51.6% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-09: 32.1% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-10: 34.9% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-11: 27.9% of 61Credit claiming, 2025-12: 42.2% of 83Credit claiming, 2026-01: 32.5% of 83Credit claiming, 2026-02: 35.9% of 103Credit claiming, 2026-03: 33.6% of 137Credit claiming, 2026-04: 31.1% of 106Credit claiming, 2026-05: 29.7% of 101Credit claiming, 2026-06: 35.5% of 107Credit claiming, 2026-07: 35.0% of 117Credit claiming, 2026-08: 40.9% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-09: 27.8% of 97Credit claiming, 2026-10: 26.3% of 57Extreme labelspeak 5.3% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.7% of 141Extreme labels, 2025-02: 4.2% of 95Extreme labels, 2025-03: 5.3% of 95Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 73Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.9% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.3% of 61Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.2% of 83Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 103Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 137Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 106Extreme labels, 2026-05: 1.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 107Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 117Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 97Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 57Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Cramer, 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 ’251410.0%22.7%74.5%18.4%36.2%0.7%
Feb ’25950.0%35.8%84.2%17.9%48.4%4.2%
Mar ’25950.0%27.4%83.2%13.7%33.7%5.3%
Apr ’25730.0%15.1%74.0%15.1%39.7%0.0%
May ’251070.0%22.4%88.8%27.1%43.0%1.9%
Jun ’25880.0%17.1%75.0%19.3%34.1%0.0%
Jul ’25740.0%18.9%79.7%28.4%47.3%0.0%
Aug ’25620.0%12.9%72.6%17.7%51.6%0.0%
Sep ’25841.2%9.5%71.4%10.7%32.1%0.0%
Oct ’25831.2%15.7%74.7%20.5%34.9%1.2%
Nov ’25614.9%14.8%65.6%16.4%27.9%3.3%
Dec ’25830.0%16.9%79.5%8.4%42.2%1.2%
Jan ’26830.0%7.2%66.3%10.8%32.5%1.2%
Feb ’261031.0%17.5%65.0%16.5%35.9%0.0%
Mar ’261370.7%14.6%72.3%16.1%33.6%0.0%
Apr ’261060.0%7.5%79.3%7.5%31.1%0.0%
May ’261010.0%13.9%70.3%10.9%29.7%1.0%
Jun ’261070.0%15.9%71.0%9.3%35.5%0.0%
Jul ’261170.9%10.3%68.4%11.1%35.0%0.0%
Aug ’26660.0%7.6%86.4%4.5%40.9%0.0%
Sep ’26970.0%12.4%80.4%3.1%27.8%0.0%
Oct ’26570.0%8.8%80.7%3.5%26.3%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 Cramer’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Cramer, Wicker Strengthen Transatlantic Security Ties Lawmakers Meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy Amid Russian Attacks, Reaffirm U.S. Support for Ukraine and Regional Security Cooperation ***Click here for media resources.*** WASHINGTON, D.C. – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky…

Oct 15, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Energy; Agriculture and Food; Public Lands and Natural Resources · Source

Personal attacks

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

Jul 16, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; target: Chuck Schumer · Source

Extreme label

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

May 21, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Energy; extreme label “extreme” aimed at activist judges, activists · 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 · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Chuck SchumerSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Taxation · target: Fargo ForumSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: POTUSSource

  4. Newsletters

    My Weekly Newsletter | Good morning, Last week, I partnered with U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) to pass a resolution designating November as National Adoption Month and Nov. 22 as National Adoption Day. I received the National Council For Adoption's Friend of Adoption Award. Adoption unites us because children are worth uniting for. Being able to work on behalf of adoption is a great joy. General Ken Wilsbach fo…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Families · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Environmental Protection · Water Resources Development · Law · target: Boasberg

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Law · Government Operations and Politics · target: Judge BoasbergSource

All 2,020 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: 1,468 posts on X, 438 press releases, 72 newsletters, 42 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Cramer talks about most: 38% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 15th 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 Cramer talks about. The bills Cramer sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Cramer talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%42%
Cramer
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security582 statements
38%
25%
Energy226 statements
15%
10%
Health218 statements
14%
15%
Government Operations and Politics193 statements
13%
19%
Economics and Public Finance173 statements
11%
17%
Show the data
Policy areas Cramer talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowCramerPeers
Armed Forces and National Security38%25%
Energy15%10%
Health14%15%
Government Operations and Politics13%19%
Economics and Public Finance11%17%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Cramer’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 42%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 38% (Senate Republicans 25%)38%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 13% (Senate Republicans 8%)13%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 15% (Senate Republicans 10%)15%Energy, legislates on: 4% (Senate Republicans 2%)4%HealthHealth, talks about: 14% (Senate Republicans 15%)14%Health, legislates on: 10% (Senate Republicans 11%)10%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 13% (Senate Republicans 19%)13%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 7% (Senate Republicans 11%)7%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 11% (Senate Republicans 17%)11%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (Senate Republicans 1%)1%
Show the data
Cramer's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security38%25%13%8%
Energy15%10%4%2%
Health14%15%10%11%
Government Operations and Politics13%19%7%11%
Economics and Public Finance11%17%1%1%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 15th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Cramer sits at +0.84 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 70% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.81 to +0.86, which understates the uncertainty; from 783 donors and 3,541 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”.

+0.84

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.81 to +0.86. From 783 donors and 3,541 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Cramer +0.8Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Cramer, 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 Cramer’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 Cramer sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Cramer +0.8All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Cramer's CSIP score of +0.84 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Cramer
Senate Republicans51+1.029%
All Senate98+0.463%
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 Cramer 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 Cramer.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Cramer raised $1.3M in the 2026 cycle, below the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 54% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 2.9% of itemized individual money came from North Dakota.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$1.3M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 678 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): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $469.5K (35.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $544.2K (40.9%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $234.0K (17.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $83.8K (6.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $83.8K (6.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $83.8K (6.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $83.8K (6.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $83.8K (6.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $83.8K (6.3%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)35 squares$469.5K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)41 squares$544.2K
  • PACs and other committees18 squares$234.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)6 squares$83.8K
Show the data
Sources of Cramer's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$469.5K35.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$544.2K40.9%
PACs and other committees$234.0K17.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$83.8K6.3%
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.

2020 cycle: $447.9K$447.9K20202022 cycle: $566.4K$566.4K20222024 cycle: $5.6M$5.6M20242026 cycle: $1.3M$1.3M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Cramer's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$447.9K
2022 cycle$566.4K
2024 cycle$5.6M
2026 cycle$1.3M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 2.9% came from North Dakota.

  1. California$104.2K
  2. Virginia$42.3K
  3. Florida$37.5K
  4. Colorado$32.4K
  5. Texas$23.0K

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%
Cramer
Median
2026
54%
17%
2024
29%
17%
2022
10%
17%
2020
39%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowCramerMedian
2026 cycle54%17%
2024 cycle29%17%
2022 cycle10%17%
2020 cycle39%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $408AKMaine: $1,175MEVermont: $2,755VTNew Hampshire: $151NHWashington: $2,702WAIdaho: $1,939IDMontana: $665MTNorth Dakota: $12.3KNDMinnesota: $6,111MNIllinois: $9,225ILWisconsin: $1,965WIMichigan: $8,042MINew York: $9,866NYRhode Island: $985RIMassachusetts: $3,071MAOregon: $2,117ORNevada: $2,160NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: $4,821SDIowa: $660IAIndiana: $1,974INOhio: $5,565OHPennsylvania: $13.8KPANew Jersey: $3,596NJConnecticut: $9CTCalifornia: $104.2KCAUtah: $3,581UTColorado: $32.4KCONebraska: $1,991NEMissouri: $2,879MOKentucky: $550KYWest Virginia: $629WVVirginia: $42.3KVAMaryland: $21.5KMDDelaware: $70DEArizona: $3,847AZNew Mexico: $1,773NMKansas: $1,412KSArkansas: $1,951ARTennessee: $5,061TNNorth Carolina: $15.4KNCSouth Carolina: $2,672SCDistrict of Columbia: $21.6KDCOklahoma: $682OKLouisiana: $1,898LAMississippi: $1,240MSAlabama: $1,344ALGeorgia: $4,079GAHawaii: $70HITexas: $23.0KTXFlorida: $37.5KFL
Show the data
Cramer's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$104.2K
Virginia$42.3K
Florida$37.5K
Colorado$32.4K
Texas$23.0K
District of Columbia$21.6K
Maryland$21.5K
North Carolina$15.4K
Pennsylvania$13.8K
North Dakota$12.3K
New York$9,866
Illinois$9,225
Michigan$8,042
Minnesota$6,111
Ohio$5,565
Tennessee$5,061
South Dakota$4,821
Georgia$4,079
Arizona$3,847
New Jersey$3,596
Utah$3,581
Massachusetts$3,071
Missouri$2,879
Vermont$2,755
Washington$2,702
South Carolina$2,672
Nevada$2,160
Oregon$2,117
Nebraska$1,991
Indiana$1,974
Wisconsin$1,965
Arkansas$1,951
Idaho$1,939
Louisiana$1,898
New Mexico$1,773
Kansas$1,412
Alabama$1,344
Mississippi$1,240
Maine$1,175
Rhode Island$985
Oklahoma$682
Montana$665
Iowa$660
West Virginia$629
Kentucky$550
Alaska$408
New Hampshire$151
Delaware$70
Hawaii$70
Connecticut$9
WyomingNo data
678

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

2.9%

from North Dakota

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.2%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 5.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 5.6%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 7.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 2.8%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 53%53%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 23%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.9%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Cramer's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.75: 5.6% between 0.00 and +0.25, 7.5% between +0.25 and +0.50, 53% between +0.75 and +1.00, 23% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.005.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.255.6%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.507.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.752.8%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0053%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2523%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.9%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Cramer’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Cramer’s own score is +0.84.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$141.2K 478 donors
  2. CEO$27.5K 8 donors
  3. MANAGER$15.6K 5 donors
  4. CONSULTANT$10.7K 9 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$10.1K 9 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NATIONAL MARINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND MARINE RETAILERS ASSOCIATION BOAT PAC$7,500
  2. AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION, PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF ELECTRIC RESOURCES PAC$5,000
  3. ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  4. ASSOCIATION OF FUNDRAISING PROFESSIONALS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  5. CDM SMITH INC. NATIONAL PAC$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CONSTELLATION ENERGY$20.9K 23 donors
  2. CONSTELLATION$17.2K 21 donors
  3. ZIEBART CONSULTING LLC$6,500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Cramer voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.5% of party-line votes and missed 3.5% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Cramer voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 6 times.

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

6

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.5%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 32nd of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Cramer
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.5%
97.1%
40th of 53
Party unity
99.5%
98.4%
32nd of 53
Show the data
Cramer's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowCramerPeers
Attendance96.5%97.1%
Party unity99.5%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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
NayWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
YeaWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Cramer most often

  1. John HoevenR875 shared votes100%
  2. Tim ScottR859 shared votes100%
  3. Dave McCormickR857 shared votes100%
  4. Tom CottonR870 shared votes99%
  5. Jim JusticeR843 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Cramer least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD877 shared votes3.4%
  2. Bernie SandersI822 shared votes3.6%
  3. Elizabeth WarrenD869 shared votes3.7%
  4. Christopher MurphyD858 shared votes4.2%
  5. Chris Van HollenD871 shared votes4.9%
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

Cramer sponsored 31 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 377 others. 9.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 43rd of 51).

The bills Cramer 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

Sponsored31 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3131Sponsored, In committee: 3131Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored377 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 377377Cosponsored, In committee: 370370Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 8888Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Cramer sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3131100
Cosponsored3773708855
How to read the blocks

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

9.7%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 43rd of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Steve Daines80
  2. Cynthia Lummis70
  3. John Hoeven68
  4. James Risch68
  5. Marsha Blackburn65
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 Cramer’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S. 5642Know Your Sanctioned Securities ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorRead twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5643Protecting U.S. Investors From Chinese Military Companies ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorRead twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 934A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 945A resolution designating November 7, 2026, as "National Bison Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberEnvironmental ProtectionSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272) Sep 30, 2026
S. 5587National Critical Minerals Council ActCosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeEnergyRead twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 29, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 107 times in 90 days. Cramer’s official site had 46 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Cramer posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Images Cramer posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Three adults pose for a photograph in an office, standing in front of two flags and a circular government seal. Framed pictures and chairs are visible around the room. There is some text on a jacket patch and the seal.
    Three adults pose for a photograph in an office, standing in front of two flags and a circular government seal. Framed pictures and chairs are visible around the room. There is some text on a jacket patch and the seal.View post
  • Three people sit around a conference table in an office, appearing to have a meeting. A television on the wall displays a scenic mountain lake, with text visible on the screen.
    Three people sit around a conference table in an office, appearing to have a meeting. A television on the wall displays a scenic mountain lake, with text visible on the screen.View post
  • Three people pose for a photograph in an office or government setting, with flags and an official seal behind them. There is text on the seal.
    Three people pose for a photograph in an office or government setting, with flags and an official seal behind them. There is text on the seal.View post
  • Several people are seated around a large conference table in a meeting room. A television on the wall shows a news presenter, and there are framed displays, a clock, chairs, and a bag in the room. Text is visible on the television and on items on the table.
    Several people are seated around a large conference table in a meeting room. A television on the wall shows a news presenter, and there are framed displays, a clock, chairs, and a bag in the room. Text is visible on the television and on items on the table.View post
  • Four men pose for a photograph in an office, standing in front of an American flag, another flag, and a United States Senate seal. Framed artwork and chairs are visible around the room. There is text on the seal.
    Four men pose for a photograph in an office, standing in front of an American flag, another flag, and a United States Senate seal. Framed artwork and chairs are visible around the room. There is text on the seal.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 Cramer 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
C001096
Bioguide
C001096
FEC candidate ids
H0ND01026, H6ND00074, S8ND00120

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