Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, Illinois

Serving since Jan 3, 2017119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 7, 2028

Bioguide D000622FEC H6IL06141, S6IL00292

Portrait of Tammy Duckworth, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.0×
the Senate Democrat rate of personal attacks

22% of 1,943 statements contain a personal attack (428 statements); the average for Senate Democrats is 11%. Ranks 3rd of 45, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Duckworth’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and press releases 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 Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. Duckworth missed 6.6% of 915 roll calls, attendance in the bottom tenth of Senate Democrats (average 97.0%). 63% of Duckworth’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top tenth of Senate Democrats (median 35%).

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

Personal attacks

22%

Senate Democrats average 11% · ranks 3rd of 45

Attendance

93.4%

Senate Democrats average 97.0% · ranks 43rd of 45 · 915 roll calls

Small donations, 2026

63%

Senate Democrats’ median 35% · ranks 5th of 45

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.70

Senate Democrats average 0.66 · ranks 6th of 45

CSIP ideology

−1.43

More liberal than 86% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.01

Raised, 2026

$6.1M

Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M · ranks 9th of 45

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Duckworth says

Duckworth attacks opponents personally more than 93% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 22% of 1,943 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 3rd of 45.

An AI model reads each of Duckworth’s 1,943 statements in the 119th Congress (1,144 posts on X, 751 press releases, 48 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 Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Duckworth
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,608 statements
83%
78%
14th of 45
Policy criticism657 statements
34%
37%
34th of 45
Credit claiming505 statements
26%
26%
23rd of 45
Personal attacks428 statements
22%
11%
3rd of 45
Bipartisanship309 statements
16%
18%
22nd of 45
Show the data
Duckworth's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowDuckworthPeers
Policy discussion83%78%
Policy criticism34%37%
Credit claiming26%26%
Personal attacks22%11%
Bipartisanship16%18%
1,943

statements classified

1,144 posts on X, 751 press releases, 48 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,144 (58.9%)posts on X 1,144press releases: 751 (38.7%)press releases 751Congressional Record speeches: 48 (2.5%)
Show the data
Duckworth's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,144
press releases751
Congressional Record speeches48
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Duckworth used extreme labels in 3.5% of statements, above the peer average. 67 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 2.4%.

  1. “extreme”41
  2. “radical”5
  3. “MAGA”4
  4. “woke”3
  5. “far right”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump12
  2. Trump9
  3. Republicans7
  4. MAGA Republicans4
  5. abortion bans2
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: 962025-02: 1492025-03: 1222025-04: 1532025-05: 862025-06: 982025-07: 822025-08: 542025-09: 962025-10: 1262025-11: 712025-12: 742026-01: 952026-02: 762026-03: 962026-04: 532026-05: 592026-06: 802026-07: 822026-08: 672026-09: 692026-10: 59peak 153 · Apr ’25Personal attackspeak 32.8% · Mar ’25 · latest 11.9%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 30.2% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-02: 31.5% of 149Personal attacks, 2025-03: 32.8% of 122Personal attacks, 2025-04: 15.7% of 153Personal attacks, 2025-05: 19.8% of 86Personal attacks, 2025-06: 26.5% of 98Personal attacks, 2025-07: 18.3% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-08: 14.8% of 54Personal attacks, 2025-09: 21.9% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-10: 23.8% of 126Personal attacks, 2025-11: 15.5% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-12: 20.3% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-01: 21.1% of 95Personal attacks, 2026-02: 23.7% of 76Personal attacks, 2026-03: 21.9% of 96Personal attacks, 2026-04: 32.1% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-05: 23.7% of 59Personal attacks, 2026-06: 16.3% of 80Personal attacks, 2026-07: 18.3% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-08: 16.4% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-09: 13.0% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-10: 11.9% of 59Policy criticismpeak 51.8% · Aug ’25 · latest 22.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 25.0% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-02: 36.2% of 149Policy criticism, 2025-03: 26.2% of 122Policy criticism, 2025-04: 45.8% of 153Policy criticism, 2025-05: 29.1% of 86Policy criticism, 2025-06: 33.7% of 98Policy criticism, 2025-07: 37.8% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-08: 51.8% of 54Policy criticism, 2025-09: 33.3% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-10: 46.0% of 126Policy criticism, 2025-11: 46.5% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-12: 24.3% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-01: 15.8% of 95Policy criticism, 2026-02: 28.9% of 76Policy criticism, 2026-03: 49.0% of 96Policy criticism, 2026-04: 24.5% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-05: 32.2% of 59Policy criticism, 2026-06: 43.8% of 80Policy criticism, 2026-07: 19.5% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-08: 31.3% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-09: 26.1% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-10: 22.0% of 59Policy discussionpeak 92.8% · Sep ’26 · latest 84.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 76.0% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-02: 85.2% of 149Policy discussion, 2025-03: 75.4% of 122Policy discussion, 2025-04: 75.2% of 153Policy discussion, 2025-05: 86.1% of 86Policy discussion, 2025-06: 83.7% of 98Policy discussion, 2025-07: 84.2% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-08: 85.2% of 54Policy discussion, 2025-09: 78.1% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-10: 84.1% of 126Policy discussion, 2025-11: 80.3% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-12: 85.1% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-01: 92.6% of 95Policy discussion, 2026-02: 71.0% of 76Policy discussion, 2026-03: 81.3% of 96Policy discussion, 2026-04: 90.6% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-05: 79.7% of 59Policy discussion, 2026-06: 86.3% of 80Policy discussion, 2026-07: 87.8% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-08: 88.1% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-09: 92.8% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-10: 84.8% of 59Bipartisanshippeak 26.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 11.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 26.0% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 10.7% of 149Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 9.0% of 122Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.1% of 153Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 16.3% of 86Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 10.2% of 98Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 17.1% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 14.8% of 54Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 13.5% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 11.1% of 126Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 18.3% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 20.3% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 18.9% of 95Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 18.4% of 76Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 21.9% of 96Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 24.5% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 22.0% of 59Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 17.5% of 80Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 17.1% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 14.9% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 21.7% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 11.9% of 59Credit claimingpeak 39.0% · Jul ’25 · latest 22.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 37.5% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-02: 23.5% of 149Credit claiming, 2025-03: 21.3% of 122Credit claiming, 2025-04: 17.6% of 153Credit claiming, 2025-05: 34.9% of 86Credit claiming, 2025-06: 23.5% of 98Credit claiming, 2025-07: 39.0% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-08: 31.5% of 54Credit claiming, 2025-09: 18.8% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-10: 19.8% of 126Credit claiming, 2025-11: 19.7% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-12: 20.3% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-01: 20.0% of 95Credit claiming, 2026-02: 25.0% of 76Credit claiming, 2026-03: 24.0% of 96Credit claiming, 2026-04: 35.9% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-05: 35.6% of 59Credit claiming, 2026-06: 25.0% of 80Credit claiming, 2026-07: 32.9% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-08: 29.8% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-09: 37.7% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-10: 22.0% of 59Extreme labelspeak 8.7% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 7.3% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-02: 5.4% of 149Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 122Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.7% of 153Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.3% of 86Extreme labels, 2025-06: 6.1% of 98Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.7% of 54Extreme labels, 2025-09: 4.2% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-10: 8.7% of 126Extreme labels, 2025-11: 2.8% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-12: 8.1% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.1% of 95Extreme labels, 2026-02: 6.6% of 76Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.1% of 96Extreme labels, 2026-04: 1.9% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 59Extreme labels, 2026-06: 6.3% of 80Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.2% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-08: 1.5% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.9% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 59Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Duckworth, 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 ’259630.2%25.0%76.0%26.0%37.5%7.3%
Feb ’2514931.5%36.2%85.2%10.7%23.5%5.4%
Mar ’2512232.8%26.2%75.4%9.0%21.3%0.0%
Apr ’2515315.7%45.8%75.2%11.1%17.6%0.7%
May ’258619.8%29.1%86.1%16.3%34.9%2.3%
Jun ’259826.5%33.7%83.7%10.2%23.5%6.1%
Jul ’258218.3%37.8%84.2%17.1%39.0%0.0%
Aug ’255414.8%51.8%85.2%14.8%31.5%3.7%
Sep ’259621.9%33.3%78.1%13.5%18.8%4.2%
Oct ’2512623.8%46.0%84.1%11.1%19.8%8.7%
Nov ’257115.5%46.5%80.3%18.3%19.7%2.8%
Dec ’257420.3%24.3%85.1%20.3%20.3%8.1%
Jan ’269521.1%15.8%92.6%18.9%20.0%1.1%
Feb ’267623.7%28.9%71.0%18.4%25.0%6.6%
Mar ’269621.9%49.0%81.3%21.9%24.0%2.1%
Apr ’265332.1%24.5%90.6%24.5%35.9%1.9%
May ’265923.7%32.2%79.7%22.0%35.6%0.0%
Jun ’268016.3%43.8%86.3%17.5%25.0%6.3%
Jul ’268218.3%19.5%87.8%17.1%32.9%1.2%
Aug ’266716.4%31.3%88.1%14.9%29.8%1.5%
Sep ’266913.0%26.1%92.8%21.7%37.7%2.9%
Oct ’265911.9%22.0%84.8%11.9%22.0%0.0%
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.

In Duckworth’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Duckworth, Durbin Join Bicameral Coalition in Pressing Trump Administration on Illegal Reallocation of Funding for Minority Serving Institutions [WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) joined U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono and a bicamera…

Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Education; Law; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics · 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; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

Duckworth, Durbin Join Senate Democrats in Demanding OMB Director Vought Abandon Any Plan to Exert Political Control Over NIH Funding The lawmakers emphasize the need for Republicans to join Democrats in supporting new guardrails to protect the integrity of NIH’s grantmaking process following a long…

Sep 28, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Health; Science, Technology, Communications; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical, woke” aimed at health research · 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 · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Agriculture and Food · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: TrumpSource

  5. 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 · Economics and Public Finance · target: Donald TrumpSource

All 1,943 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: 1,144 posts on X, 751 press releases, 48 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Duckworth talks about most: 44% of policy statements, 2.1 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 6th of 45).

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

What Duckworth talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%48%
Duckworth
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security709 statements
44%
21%
Health460 statements
29%
27%
Economics and Public Finance344 statements
21%
24%
Government Operations and Politics319 statements
20%
22%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues248 statements
15%
11%
Show the data
Policy areas Duckworth talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowDuckworthPeers
Armed Forces and National Security44%21%
Health29%27%
Economics and Public Finance21%24%
Government Operations and Politics20%22%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues15%11%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 48%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 44% (Senate Democrats 21%)44%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 14% (Senate Democrats 7%)14%HealthHealth, talks about: 29% (Senate Democrats 27%)29%Health, legislates on: 13% (Senate Democrats 14%)13%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 21% (Senate Democrats 24%)21%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Democrats 0%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 20% (Senate Democrats 22%)20%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (Senate Democrats 9%)8%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 15% (Senate Democrats 11%)15%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 5% (Senate Democrats 5%)5%
Show the data
Duckworth's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security44%21%14%7%
Health29%27%13%14%
Economics and Public Finance21%24%0%0%
Government Operations and Politics20%22%8%9%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues15%11%5%5%
0.70

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 6th of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Duckworth sits at −1.43 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 86% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.45 to −1.42, which understates the uncertainty; from 28,141 donors and 3,685 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”.

−1.43

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.45 to −1.42. From 28,141 donors and 3,685 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Duckworth −1.4Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Duckworth, 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 Duckworth’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 Duckworth sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Duckworth −1.4All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Duckworth's CSIP score of −1.43 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Duckworth
Senate Democrats45−1.113%
All Senate98+0.46%
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 Duckworth 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 Duckworth.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Duckworth raised $6.1M in the 2026 cycle, 2.3 times the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 63% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 37% of itemized individual money came from Illinois.

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
$6.1M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 5,804 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.3M (54.7%)PACs and other committees: $170.3K (2.8%)PACs and other committees: $170.3K (2.8%)PACs and other committees: $170.3K (2.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $596.7K (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $596.7K (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $596.7K (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $596.7K (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $596.7K (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $596.7K (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $596.7K (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $596.7K (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $596.7K (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $596.7K (9.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)32 squares$2.0M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)55 squares$3.3M
  • PACs and other committees3 squares$170.3K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)10 squares$596.7K
Show the data
Sources of Duckworth's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.0M32.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$3.3M54.7%
PACs and other committees$170.3K2.8%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$596.7K9.9%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $4.2M$4.2M20202022 cycle: $14.8M$14.8M20222024 cycle: $4.6M$4.6M20242026 cycle: $6.1M$6.1M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Duckworth's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$4.2M
2022 cycle$14.8M
2024 cycle$4.6M
2026 cycle$6.1M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 37% came from Illinois.

  1. Illinois$597.9K
  2. California$175.1K
  3. New York$89.0K
  4. Florida$51.1K
  5. Massachusetts$49.7K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Duckworth
Median
2026
63%
35%
2024
61%
35%
2022
47%
35%
2020
62%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowDuckworthMedian
2026 cycle63%35%
2024 cycle61%35%
2022 cycle47%35%
2020 cycle62%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $3,394AKMaine: $5,164MEVermont: $3,783VTNew Hampshire: $4,967NHWashington: $44.6KWAIdaho: $5,447IDMontana: $1,730MTNorth Dakota: $948NDMinnesota: $13.3KMNIllinois: $597.9KILWisconsin: $26.0KWIMichigan: $30.1KMINew York: $89.0KNYRhode Island: $5,090RIMassachusetts: $49.7KMAOregon: $30.3KORNevada: $8,407NVWyoming: $5,520WYSouth Dakota: $2,504SDIowa: $13.0KIAIndiana: $16.0KINOhio: $30.8KOHPennsylvania: $41.2KPANew Jersey: $22.5KNJConnecticut: $17.7KCTCalifornia: $175.1KCAUtah: $1,803UTColorado: $19.7KCONebraska: $3,675NEMissouri: $21.0KMOKentucky: $10.4KKYWest Virginia: $862WVVirginia: $42.4KVAMaryland: $25.5KMDDelaware: $4,623DEArizona: $21.7KAZNew Mexico: $14.0KNMKansas: $8,185KSArkansas: $3,152ARTennessee: $13.2KTNNorth Carolina: $36.8KNCSouth Carolina: $4,306SCDistrict of Columbia: $4,045DCOklahoma: $12.1KOKLouisiana: $2,665LAMississippi: $1,147MSAlabama: $3,059ALGeorgia: $9,505GAHawaii: $19.2KHITexas: $39.5KTXFlorida: $51.1KFL
Show the data
Duckworth's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Illinois$597.9K
California$175.1K
New York$89.0K
Florida$51.1K
Massachusetts$49.7K
Washington$44.6K
Virginia$42.4K
Pennsylvania$41.2K
Texas$39.5K
North Carolina$36.8K
Ohio$30.8K
Oregon$30.3K
Michigan$30.1K
Wisconsin$26.0K
Maryland$25.5K
New Jersey$22.5K
Arizona$21.7K
Missouri$21.0K
Colorado$19.7K
Hawaii$19.2K
Connecticut$17.7K
Indiana$16.0K
New Mexico$14.0K
Minnesota$13.3K
Tennessee$13.2K
Iowa$13.0K
Oklahoma$12.1K
Kentucky$10.4K
Georgia$9,505
Nevada$8,407
Kansas$8,185
Wyoming$5,520
Idaho$5,447
Maine$5,164
Rhode Island$5,090
New Hampshire$4,967
Delaware$4,623
South Carolina$4,306
District of Columbia$4,045
Vermont$3,783
Nebraska$3,675
Alaska$3,394
Arkansas$3,152
Alabama$3,059
Louisiana$2,665
South Dakota$2,504
Utah$1,803
Montana$1,730
Mississippi$1,147
North Dakota$948
West Virginia$862
5,804

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

37%

from Illinois

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.4%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 35%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 57%57%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 6.5%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.2%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Duckworth's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +0.75: 35% between −1.50 and −1.25, 57% between −1.25 and −1.00, 6.5% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.4%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.2535%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0057%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.756.5%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Duckworth’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Duckworth’s own score is −1.43.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$714.1K 2,335 donors
  2. NOT EMPLOYED$621.0K 2,626 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$11.7K 52 donors
  4. OWNER$10.3K 13 donors
  5. PHYSICIAN$10.2K 43 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. BURNS AND MCDONNELL INC. PAC$7,500
  2. ABBVIE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  3. ATLAS AIR WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  4. COLLEGE OF AMERICAN PATHOLOGISTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  5. HUMANA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS$1,890 7 donors
  2. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY$865 4 donors
  3. IBM$795 4 donors
  4. DOD$650 4 donors
  5. USPS$325 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Duckworth voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 98.3% of party-line votes and missed 6.6% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Duckworth voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 28 times.

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

28

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 98.3%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 14th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Duckworth
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.4%
97.0%
43rd of 45
Party unity
98.3%
95.3%
14th of 45
Show the data
Duckworth's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowDuckworthPeers
Attendance93.4%97.0%
Party unity98.3%95.3%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

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
NayAgainst 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
YeaWith 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
NayWith 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 Duckworth most often

  1. Jeff MerkleyD848 shared votes97%
  2. Chris Van HollenD842 shared votes97%
  3. Patty MurrayD807 shared votes97%
  4. Lisa Blunt RochesterD851 shared votes96%
  5. Richard BlumenthalD847 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Duckworth least often

  1. Ron JohnsonR843 shared votes5.9%
  2. Mike LeeR827 shared votes6.3%
  3. Cynthia LummisR827 shared votes6.3%
  4. Rick ScottR853 shared votes6.7%
  5. Marsha BlackburnR803 shared votes6.7%
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

Duckworth sponsored 65 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 577 others. 12% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 24th of 45).

The bills Duckworth 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

Sponsored65 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6565Sponsored, In committee: 6565Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 55Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored577 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 577577Cosponsored, In committee: 576576Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 7979Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Duckworth sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6565511
Cosponsored5775767911
How to read the blocks

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

12%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 24th of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Richard Blumenthal195
  2. Cory Booker189
  3. Alex Padilla172
  4. Chris Van Hollen170
  5. Jeff Merkley169
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 Duckworth’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. 5632National Archives Protection ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsRead twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (text: CR S5264) Sep 30, 2026
S. 5675Nutrition Continuity for Military Families Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityRead twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 931A resolution recognizing the month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and celebrating the history and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to the United States.CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5265-5266) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 946A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberArmed Forces and National SecuritySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 923A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week".CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberAgriculture and FoodSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 163 times in 90 days. Duckworth’s official site had 43 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Duckworth posted on Oct 23, 2026.

The lab crawls Duckworth’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 Duckworth 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.

Social accounts

Images Duckworth posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A screenshot of an ABC News headline and subheadline on a white background, with the ABC News logo above. The headline says the CDC is lagging in hiring behind other health agencies after DOGE cuts, according to a union. The subheadline mentions so-called “zombie” programs across the CDC.
    A screenshot of an ABC News headline and subheadline on a white background, with the ABC News logo above. The headline says the CDC is lagging in hiring behind other health agencies after DOGE cuts, according to a union. The subheadline mentions so-called “zombie” programs across the CDC.View post
  • Several people stand on the porch of a brick house. Two uniformed investigators approach the entrance while other people are on the porch and in the doorway. Text is visible on the investigators’ jackets.
    Several people stand on the porch of a brick house. Two uniformed investigators approach the entrance while other people are on the porch and in the doorway. Text is visible on the investigators’ jackets.View post
  • A news article layout with a large headline and subheading above a photograph of a woman wearing glasses, surrounded by several people, including children. Text appears in the upper portion.
    A news article layout with a large headline and subheading above a photograph of a woman wearing glasses, surrounded by several people, including children. Text appears in the upper portion.View post
  • A page from a formal letter, with two paragraphs of printed text followed by a closing and six handwritten signatures with printed names and titles. The page number appears at the top.
    A page from a formal letter, with two paragraphs of printed text followed by a closing and six handwritten signatures with printed names and titles. The page number appears at the top.View post
  • A photographed page from a formal legal or policy document. It contains several paragraphs of dense text discussing conflicts of interest and legal representation for children in government custody, with footnotes at the bottom. A page number appears in the upper-right corner.
    A photographed page from a formal legal or policy document. It contains several paragraphs of dense text discussing conflicts of interest and legal representation for children in government custody, with footnotes at the bottom. A page number appears in the upper-right corner.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 Duckworth is most unusual among Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
D000622
Bioguide
D000622
FEC candidate ids
H6IL06141, S6IL00292

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

  • What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
  • Roll calls (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
  • Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
  • Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
  • Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
  • WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
  • ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.

How the measures work

What politicians say
Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
Extreme labels
A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
Policy areas and agreement
Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology (CSIP)
Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
Campaign money
Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
Votes and key votes
Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
Peers and ranks
Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top