Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Colorado’s 6th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2019119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide C001121FEC H8CO06229

Portrait of Jason Crow, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.2×
the House Democrat rate of personal attacks

15% of 2,372 statements contain a personal attack (346 statements); the average for House Democrats is 6.6%. Ranks 22nd of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

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

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 40% of Crow’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top tenth of House Democrats (median 13%). 0% of the 36 bills Crow sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats.

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

Personal attacks

15%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 22nd of 216

Small donations, 2026

40%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 18th of 214

Out of committee

0%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 171st of 207

Attendance

99.5%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 40th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.65

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 173rd of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.00

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Crow says

Crow attacks opponents personally more than 89% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 15% of 2,372 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 22nd of 216.

An AI model reads each of Crow’s 2,372 statements in the 119th Congress (2,020 posts on X, 205 press releases, 113 newsletters, 34 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Crow
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,700 statements
72%
73%
138th of 216
Policy criticism752 statements
32%
28%
81st of 216
Credit claiming421 statements
18%
23%
148th of 216
Personal attacks346 statements
15%
7%
22nd of 216
Bipartisanship190 statements
8%
10%
119th of 216
Show the data
Crow's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowCrowPeers
Policy discussion72%73%
Policy criticism32%28%
Credit claiming18%23%
Personal attacks15%7%
Bipartisanship8%10%
2,372

statements classified

2,020 posts on X, 205 press releases, 113 newsletters, 34 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 2,020 (85.2%)posts on X 2,020press releases: 205 (8.6%)newsletters: 113 (4.8%)Congressional Record speeches: 34 (1.4%)
Show the data
Crow's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,020
press releases205
newsletters113
Congressional Record speeches34
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Crow used extreme labels in 1.0% of statements, below the peer average. 23 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”6
  2. “MAGA”5
  3. “far right”2
  4. “fascist”2
  5. “radical”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump5
  2. abortion bans2
  3. anti-abortion efforts1
  4. democracy1
  5. DOJ1
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: 1142025-02: 1292025-03: 1432025-04: 1332025-05: 1112025-06: 1192025-07: 1312025-08: 1022025-09: 1272025-10: 1222025-11: 862025-12: 632026-01: 822026-02: 812026-03: 872026-04: 1102026-05: 1062026-06: 1052026-07: 1102026-08: 1072026-09: 1202026-10: 84peak 143 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 30.5% · Jan ’26 · latest 22.6%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.5% of 114Personal attacks, 2025-02: 9.3% of 129Personal attacks, 2025-03: 9.8% of 143Personal attacks, 2025-04: 9.0% of 133Personal attacks, 2025-05: 9.0% of 111Personal attacks, 2025-06: 7.6% of 119Personal attacks, 2025-07: 6.1% of 131Personal attacks, 2025-08: 6.9% of 102Personal attacks, 2025-09: 11.0% of 127Personal attacks, 2025-10: 13.1% of 122Personal attacks, 2025-11: 17.4% of 86Personal attacks, 2025-12: 20.6% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-01: 30.5% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-02: 22.2% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-03: 14.9% of 87Personal attacks, 2026-04: 16.4% of 110Personal attacks, 2026-05: 19.8% of 106Personal attacks, 2026-06: 20.0% of 105Personal attacks, 2026-07: 23.6% of 110Personal attacks, 2026-08: 22.4% of 107Personal attacks, 2026-09: 22.5% of 120Personal attacks, 2026-10: 22.6% of 84Policy criticismpeak 47.5% · Oct ’25 · latest 16.7%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 27.2% of 114Policy criticism, 2025-02: 42.6% of 129Policy criticism, 2025-03: 33.6% of 143Policy criticism, 2025-04: 45.1% of 133Policy criticism, 2025-05: 39.6% of 111Policy criticism, 2025-06: 31.9% of 119Policy criticism, 2025-07: 38.2% of 131Policy criticism, 2025-08: 27.5% of 102Policy criticism, 2025-09: 35.4% of 127Policy criticism, 2025-10: 47.5% of 122Policy criticism, 2025-11: 30.2% of 86Policy criticism, 2025-12: 27.0% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-01: 14.6% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-02: 35.8% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-03: 47.1% of 87Policy criticism, 2026-04: 17.3% of 110Policy criticism, 2026-05: 31.1% of 106Policy criticism, 2026-06: 36.2% of 105Policy criticism, 2026-07: 22.7% of 110Policy criticism, 2026-08: 14.9% of 107Policy criticism, 2026-09: 20.8% of 120Policy criticism, 2026-10: 16.7% of 84Policy discussionpeak 90.5% · Oct ’26 · latest 90.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 58.8% of 114Policy discussion, 2025-02: 68.2% of 129Policy discussion, 2025-03: 57.3% of 143Policy discussion, 2025-04: 69.9% of 133Policy discussion, 2025-05: 69.4% of 111Policy discussion, 2025-06: 79.0% of 119Policy discussion, 2025-07: 73.3% of 131Policy discussion, 2025-08: 54.9% of 102Policy discussion, 2025-09: 56.7% of 127Policy discussion, 2025-10: 70.5% of 122Policy discussion, 2025-11: 58.1% of 86Policy discussion, 2025-12: 71.4% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-01: 87.8% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-02: 58.0% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-03: 70.1% of 87Policy discussion, 2026-04: 75.4% of 110Policy discussion, 2026-05: 79.3% of 106Policy discussion, 2026-06: 77.1% of 105Policy discussion, 2026-07: 79.1% of 110Policy discussion, 2026-08: 88.8% of 107Policy discussion, 2026-09: 90.0% of 120Policy discussion, 2026-10: 90.5% of 84Bipartisanshippeak 17.5% · Jan ’25 · latest 1.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 17.5% of 114Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 7.0% of 129Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 4.9% of 143Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 9.0% of 133Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 8.1% of 111Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.7% of 119Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 9.9% of 131Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 9.8% of 102Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 12.6% of 127Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 4.9% of 122Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 8.1% of 86Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 7.9% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 4.9% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.5% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 0.0% of 87Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.3% of 110Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 15.1% of 106Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 16.2% of 105Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 7.3% of 110Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 3.7% of 107Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 6.7% of 120Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 1.2% of 84Credit claimingpeak 36.3% · Aug ’25 · latest 19.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 27.2% of 114Credit claiming, 2025-02: 16.3% of 129Credit claiming, 2025-03: 11.9% of 143Credit claiming, 2025-04: 14.3% of 133Credit claiming, 2025-05: 18.0% of 111Credit claiming, 2025-06: 20.2% of 119Credit claiming, 2025-07: 25.2% of 131Credit claiming, 2025-08: 36.3% of 102Credit claiming, 2025-09: 16.5% of 127Credit claiming, 2025-10: 12.3% of 122Credit claiming, 2025-11: 16.3% of 86Credit claiming, 2025-12: 22.2% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-01: 17.1% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-02: 18.5% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-03: 9.2% of 87Credit claiming, 2026-04: 8.2% of 110Credit claiming, 2026-05: 23.6% of 106Credit claiming, 2026-06: 24.8% of 105Credit claiming, 2026-07: 13.6% of 110Credit claiming, 2026-08: 11.2% of 107Credit claiming, 2026-09: 12.5% of 120Credit claiming, 2026-10: 19.1% of 84Extreme labelspeak 3.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.9% of 114Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.8% of 129Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.4% of 143Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.8% of 133Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 111Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.7% of 119Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 131Extreme labels, 2025-08: 2.9% of 102Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.4% of 127Extreme labels, 2025-10: 3.3% of 122Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 86Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.2% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.3% of 87Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.9% of 110Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.9% of 106Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.9% of 105Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 110Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 107Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 120Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 84Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Crow, 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 ’251143.5%27.2%58.8%17.5%27.2%0.9%
Feb ’251299.3%42.6%68.2%7.0%16.3%0.8%
Mar ’251439.8%33.6%57.3%4.9%11.9%1.4%
Apr ’251339.0%45.1%69.9%9.0%14.3%0.8%
May ’251119.0%39.6%69.4%8.1%18.0%0.0%
Jun ’251197.6%31.9%79.0%6.7%20.2%1.7%
Jul ’251316.1%38.2%73.3%9.9%25.2%0.0%
Aug ’251026.9%27.5%54.9%9.8%36.3%2.9%
Sep ’2512711.0%35.4%56.7%12.6%16.5%2.4%
Oct ’2512213.1%47.5%70.5%4.9%12.3%3.3%
Nov ’258617.4%30.2%58.1%8.1%16.3%0.0%
Dec ’256320.6%27.0%71.4%7.9%22.2%0.0%
Jan ’268230.5%14.6%87.8%4.9%17.1%0.0%
Feb ’268122.2%35.8%58.0%2.5%18.5%1.2%
Mar ’268714.9%47.1%70.1%0.0%9.2%2.3%
Apr ’2611016.4%17.3%75.4%7.3%8.2%0.9%
May ’2610619.8%31.1%79.3%15.1%23.6%0.9%
Jun ’2610520.0%36.2%77.1%16.2%24.8%0.9%
Jul ’2611023.6%22.7%79.1%7.3%13.6%0.0%
Aug ’2610722.4%14.9%88.8%3.7%11.2%0.0%
Sep ’2612022.5%20.8%90.0%6.7%12.5%0.0%
Oct ’268422.6%16.7%90.5%1.2%19.1%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 Crow’s words

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

Credit claiming

Crow Introduces Bill to Expand Medicare, Lower Eligibility Age AURORA — Congressman Jason Crow (D-CO) introduced legislation to expand Medicare and lower the eligibility age to 50 from 65, helping to lower healthcare and prescription drug costs and strengthen the Medicare Savings Program. As Republi…

Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Taxation; Economics and Public Finance; Armed Forces and National Security · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; target: Trump · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 24, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Health; extreme label “extreme” aimed at judges · 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 · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Pete HegsethSource

  3. Posts on X

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

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

  4. Press releases

    Crow Earns Perfect “A” Grade for Fighting to Protect Democracy AURORA — Congressman Jason Crow (D-CO), co-chair of the End Corruption Caucus, earned a perfect “A” grade from pro-democracy group Defend the Vote. The legislative score reflects Crow’s work protecting every American’s right to vote, upholding the integrity of our elections, and combating corruption. “Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans have attack…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · Finance and Financial Sector · target: Donald Trump, Congressional RepublicansSource

  5. 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: PresidentSource

All 2,372 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: 2,020 posts on X, 205 press releases, 113 newsletters, 34 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Crow talks about most: 40% of policy statements, 2.5 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 173rd of 216).

Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Crow talks about. The bills Crow sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Crow talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%44%
Crow
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security673 statements
40%
16%
Economics and Public Finance364 statements
21%
20%
Government Operations and Politics342 statements
20%
20%
Health335 statements
20%
26%
International Affairs317 statements
19%
8%
Show the data
Policy areas Crow talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowCrowPeers
Armed Forces and National Security40%16%
Economics and Public Finance21%20%
Government Operations and Politics20%20%
Health20%26%
International Affairs19%8%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Crow’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 44%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 40% (House Democrats 16%)40%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 21% (House Democrats 7%)21%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 20%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 20%)20%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 12% (House Democrats 11%)12%HealthHealth, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 26%)20%Health, legislates on: 16% (House Democrats 16%)16%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 8%)19%International Affairs, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 8%)10%
Show the data
Crow's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security40%16%21%7%
Economics and Public Finance21%20%0%1%
Government Operations and Politics20%20%12%11%
Health20%26%16%16%
International Affairs19%8%10%8%
0.65

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 173rd of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Crow sits at −1.00 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 50% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.01 to −0.98, which understates the uncertainty; from 6,620 donors and 3,787 roll calls.

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

−1.00

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.01 to −0.98. From 6,620 donors and 3,787 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Crow, 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 Crow’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 Crow sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Crow −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Crow's CSIP score of −1.00 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Crow
House Democrats217−1.049%
All House439+0.324%
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 Crow 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 Crow.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Crow raised $4.0M in the 2026 cycle, 2.0 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 40% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 61% of itemized individual money came from Colorado.

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
$4.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,843 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.1M (52.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (34.9%)PACs and other committees: $279.8K (7.0%)PACs and other committees: $279.8K (7.0%)PACs and other committees: $279.8K (7.0%)PACs and other committees: $279.8K (7.0%)PACs and other committees: $279.8K (7.0%)PACs and other committees: $279.8K (7.0%)PACs and other committees: $279.8K (7.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $230.6K (5.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $230.6K (5.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $230.6K (5.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $230.6K (5.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $230.6K (5.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $230.6K (5.8%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)52 squares$2.1M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)35 squares$1.4M
  • PACs and other committees7 squares$279.8K
  • Party committees$1,223
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)6 squares$230.6K
Show the data
Sources of Crow's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.1M52.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.4M34.9%
PACs and other committees$279.8K7.0%
Party committees$1,2230.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$230.6K5.8%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $4.2M$4.2M20202022 cycle: $2.7M$2.7M20222024 cycle: $2.2M$2.2M20242026 cycle: $4.0M$4.0M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Crow's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$4.2M
2022 cycle$2.7M
2024 cycle$2.2M
2026 cycle$4.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 61% came from Colorado.

  1. Colorado$1.1M
  2. California$151.4K
  3. New York$126.3K
  4. Massachusetts$68.7K
  5. Wyoming$49.8K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Crow
Median
2026
40%
13%
2024
34%
13%
2022
26%
13%
2020
15%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowCrowMedian
2026 cycle40%13%
2024 cycle34%13%
2022 cycle26%13%
2020 cycle15%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $450AKMaine: $1,250MEVermont: $250VTNew Hampshire: $8,200NHWashington: $10.9KWAIdaho: $1,750IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $8,798MNIllinois: $10.6KILWisconsin: $2,175WIMichigan: $1,075MINew York: $126.3KNYRhode Island: $700RIMassachusetts: $68.7KMAOregon: $5,460ORNevada: $23.4KNVWyoming: $49.8KWYSouth Dakota: $5,000SDIowa: $550IAIndiana: $1,617INOhio: $8,875OHPennsylvania: $6,685PANew Jersey: $3,484NJConnecticut: $11.4KCTCalifornia: $151.4KCAUtah: $1,605UTColorado: $1.1MCONebraska: $1,000NEMissouri: $1,208MOKentucky: $7,250KYWest Virginia: $250WVVirginia: $33.4KVAMaryland: $25.9KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $2,310AZNew Mexico: $4,815NMKansas: $35KSArkansas: $1,830ARTennessee: $1,550TNNorth Carolina: $2,640NCSouth Carolina: $4,980SCDistrict of Columbia: $20.8KDCOklahoma: $700OKLouisiana: $300LAMississippi: $210MSAlabama: $2,500ALGeorgia: $875GAHawaii: $750HITexas: $37.7KTXFlorida: $12.3KFL
Show the data
Crow's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Colorado$1.1M
California$151.4K
New York$126.3K
Massachusetts$68.7K
Wyoming$49.8K
Texas$37.7K
Virginia$33.4K
Maryland$25.9K
Nevada$23.4K
District of Columbia$20.8K
Florida$12.3K
Connecticut$11.4K
Washington$10.9K
Illinois$10.6K
Ohio$8,875
Minnesota$8,798
New Hampshire$8,200
Kentucky$7,250
Pennsylvania$6,685
Oregon$5,460
South Dakota$5,000
South Carolina$4,980
New Mexico$4,815
New Jersey$3,484
North Carolina$2,640
Alabama$2,500
Arizona$2,310
Wisconsin$2,175
Arkansas$1,830
Idaho$1,750
Indiana$1,617
Utah$1,605
Tennessee$1,550
Maine$1,250
Missouri$1,208
Michigan$1,075
Nebraska$1,000
Georgia$875
Hawaii$750
Rhode Island$700
Oklahoma$700
Iowa$550
Alaska$450
Louisiana$300
Vermont$250
West Virginia$250
Mississippi$210
Kansas$35
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
DelawareNo data
1,843

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

61%

from Colorado

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −2.00 to −1.75: 0%CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.2%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 31%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 62%62%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.4%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.2%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.1%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.0%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Crow's itemized donors in 2026, from −2.00 to +1.25: 31% between −1.25 and −1.00, 62% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −2.00 to −1.750%
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.2%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0031%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7562%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.2%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.1%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.0%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.250.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Crow’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Crow’s own score is −1.00.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$706.2K 1,055 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$113.3K 103 donors
  3. RETIRED$99.3K 106 donors
  4. CEO$39.8K 20 donors
  5. LAWYER$37.0K 29 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  3. GIDDY UP PAC$10.0K
  4. LIFTOFF PAC$10.0K
  5. MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. HOLLAND & HART LLP$22.0K 16 donors
  2. PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES$15.8K 4 donors
  3. HOLLAND & HART$10.8K 6 donors
  4. YORK SPACE SYSTEMS$9,000 5 donors
  5. UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE$8,500 11 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Crow voted with the majority of House Democrats on 98.7% of party-line votes and missed 0.4% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Crow voted against the majority of House Democrats 13 times.

674 roll calls Crow could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Democrats. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Crow voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

13

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 98.7%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 95th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Crow
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.5%
96.9%
40th of 217
Party unity
98.7%
96.4%
95th of 217
Show the data
Crow's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowCrowPeers
Attendance99.5%96.9%
Party unity98.7%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
NayWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Crow most often

  1. Joe NeguseD670 shared votes99%
  2. Hakeem JeffriesD667 shared votes99%
  3. Teresa Leger FernandezD612 shared votes98%
  4. Katherine ClarkD669 shared votes98%
  5. Jamie RaskinD664 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Crow least often

  1. Chip RoyR632 shared votes17%
  2. Ralph NormanR595 shared votes19%
  3. Josh BrecheenR639 shared votes19%
  4. Eric BurlisonR643 shared votes19%
  5. Keith SelfR657 shared votes19%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Crow sponsored 36 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 289 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Crow 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

Sponsored36 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3636Sponsored, In committee: 3636Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored289 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 289289Cosponsored, In committee: 289289Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2121Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Crow sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3636000
Cosponsored2892892153
How to read the blocks

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

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

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

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Joe Neguse36
  2. Eugene Vindman23
  3. Brittany Pettersen22
  4. Maggie Goodlander21
  5. Diana DeGette21
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 Crow’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10875To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10847Military Justice Leadership and Independence ActCosponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Oct 19, 2026
H.R. 10828To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10770To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to temporarily limit the use of rebates under the 340B Program.CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10740To designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 5, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 96 times in 90 days. Crow’s official site had 28 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Crow posted on Oct 22, 2026.

The lab crawls Crow’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 Crow 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 Crow posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A newspaper-style graphic with The Washington Post masthead above a large headline. It contains text but no other imagery.
    A newspaper-style graphic with The Washington Post masthead above a large headline. It contains text but no other imagery.View post
  • A man speaks at a podium during a union meeting or conference while seated panelists and attendees watch. A blue backdrop behind him has repeated logos and text.
    A man speaks at a podium during a union meeting or conference while seated panelists and attendees watch. A blue backdrop behind him has repeated logos and text.View post
  • A man speaks at a podium during a union meeting or conference, with attendees seated in the foreground and another man seated beside him. American and Canadian flags stand to the side. The backdrop displays union branding and repeated graphic panels, and the podium has event lettering.
    A man speaks at a podium during a union meeting or conference, with attendees seated in the foreground and another man seated beside him. American and Canadian flags stand to the side. The backdrop displays union branding and repeated graphic panels, and the podium has event lettering.View post
  • A large antique globe sits in an ornate wooden stand in a room. A framed painting hangs on the wall behind it, and small debris is scattered on the carpet beneath the globe. Text appears on the globe.
    A large antique globe sits in an ornate wooden stand in a room. A framed painting hangs on the wall behind it, and small debris is scattered on the carpet beneath the globe. Text appears on the globe.View post
  • A news headline graphic from The Hill on a white background, with a large headline and a short summary beneath it. The image contains text.
    A news headline graphic from The Hill on a white background, with a large headline and a short summary beneath it. The image contains text.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 Crow is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
C001121
Bioguide
C001121
FEC candidate ids
H8CO06229

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