Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Texas’s 16th district

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

Bioguide E000299FEC H8TX16109

Portrait of Veronica Escobar, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.5×
the House Democrat rate of policy criticism

42% of 1,623 statements criticize a policy (685 statements); the average for House Democrats is 28%. Ranks 13th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Escobar’s posts on X, newsletters, press releases and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. 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. 84% of Escobar’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Texas, in the top quarter of House Democrats. 4.6% of Escobar’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (median 13%).

The measures on which Escobar 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.

Policy criticism

42%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 13th of 216

From Texas, 2026

84%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 25th of 214 House Democrats

Small donations, 2026

4.6%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 175th of 214

Out of committee

0%

House Democrats average 4.9% · ranks 171st of 207

Raised, 2026

$1.1M

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 169th of 214

CSIP ideology

−1.03

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Escobar says

Escobar criticizes policies more than 93% of House Democrats. Policy criticism in 42% of 1,623 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 13th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Escobar’s 1,623 statements in the 119th Congress (1,199 posts on X, 240 press releases, 160 newsletters, 24 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%
Escobar
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,158 statements
71%
73%
140th of 216
Policy criticism685 statements
42%
28%
13th of 216
Credit claiming272 statements
17%
23%
161st of 216
Bipartisanship161 statements
10%
10%
86th of 216
Personal attacks127 statements
8%
7%
70th of 216
Show the data
Escobar's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowEscobarPeers
Policy discussion71%73%
Policy criticism42%28%
Credit claiming17%23%
Bipartisanship10%10%
Personal attacks8%7%
1,623

statements classified

1,199 posts on X, 240 press releases, 160 newsletters, 24 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,199 (73.9%)posts on X 1,199press releases: 240 (14.8%)newsletters: 160 (9.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 24 (1.5%)
Show the data
Escobar's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,199
press releases240
newsletters160
Congressional Record speeches24
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Escobar used extreme labels in 1.7% of statements, below the peer average. 27 statements, most often aimed at abortion bans; peers 1.9%.

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

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. abortion bans1
  2. leftwing agenda1
  3. MAGA group1
  4. Republicans1
  5. right wing1
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: 522025-02: 712025-03: 972025-04: 852025-05: 912025-06: 1422025-07: 1462025-08: 772025-09: 1272025-10: 662025-11: 402025-12: 582026-01: 822026-02: 772026-03: 772026-04: 412026-05: 522026-06: 852026-07: 682026-08: 432026-09: 332026-10: 13peak 146 · Jul ’25Personal attackspeak 15.8% · Jan ’26 · latest 7.7%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 11.5% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-02: 14.1% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-03: 15.5% of 97Personal attacks, 2025-04: 8.2% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-05: 5.5% of 91Personal attacks, 2025-06: 12.0% of 142Personal attacks, 2025-07: 6.2% of 146Personal attacks, 2025-08: 2.6% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-09: 4.7% of 127Personal attacks, 2025-10: 7.6% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-11: 10.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-12: 8.6% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-01: 15.8% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-02: 6.5% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-03: 5.2% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-04: 4.9% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-05: 5.8% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.4% of 85Personal attacks, 2026-07: 5.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-08: 2.3% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-09: 3.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-10: 7.7% of 13Policy criticismpeak 63.5% · Jun ’26 · latest 38.5%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 40.4% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-02: 45.1% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-03: 30.9% of 97Policy criticism, 2025-04: 41.2% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-05: 45.1% of 91Policy criticism, 2025-06: 53.5% of 142Policy criticism, 2025-07: 29.4% of 146Policy criticism, 2025-08: 40.3% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-09: 48.0% of 127Policy criticism, 2025-10: 45.5% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-11: 30.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-12: 36.2% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-01: 18.3% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-02: 59.7% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-03: 37.7% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-04: 39.0% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-05: 55.8% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-06: 63.5% of 85Policy criticism, 2026-07: 36.8% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-08: 48.8% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-09: 36.4% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-10: 38.5% of 13Policy discussionpeak 90.9% · Sep ’26 · latest 76.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 76.9% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-02: 60.6% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-03: 54.6% of 97Policy discussion, 2025-04: 63.5% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-05: 69.2% of 91Policy discussion, 2025-06: 72.5% of 142Policy discussion, 2025-07: 59.6% of 146Policy discussion, 2025-08: 72.7% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-09: 71.7% of 127Policy discussion, 2025-10: 81.8% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-11: 60.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-12: 62.1% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-01: 87.8% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-02: 71.4% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-03: 61.0% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-04: 82.9% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-05: 76.9% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-06: 84.7% of 85Policy discussion, 2026-07: 80.9% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.7% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-09: 90.9% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-10: 76.9% of 13Bipartisanshippeak 25.0% · May ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 15.4% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 9.9% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.2% of 97Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 3.5% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.6% of 91Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.3% of 142Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.2% of 146Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 7.8% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 12.6% of 127Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 10.6% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 5.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 8.6% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 9.8% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.6% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 5.2% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 17.1% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 25.0% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 14.1% of 85Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 16.2% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 18.6% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 24.2% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 13Credit claimingpeak 40.4% · Jan ’25 · latest 30.8%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 40.4% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-02: 14.1% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-03: 9.3% of 97Credit claiming, 2025-04: 11.8% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-05: 8.8% of 91Credit claiming, 2025-06: 7.0% of 142Credit claiming, 2025-07: 19.9% of 146Credit claiming, 2025-08: 16.9% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-09: 11.0% of 127Credit claiming, 2025-10: 22.7% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-11: 20.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-12: 13.8% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-01: 14.6% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-02: 11.7% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-03: 13.0% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-04: 24.4% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-05: 32.7% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-06: 18.8% of 85Credit claiming, 2026-07: 23.5% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-08: 27.9% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-09: 33.3% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-10: 30.8% of 13Extreme labelspeak 7.7% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 7.7% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-02: 5.6% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-03: 3.1% of 97Extreme labels, 2025-04: 2.4% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-05: 3.3% of 91Extreme labels, 2025-06: 4.9% of 142Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.4% of 146Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 127Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.3% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.3% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 85Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 13Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Escobar, 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 ’255211.5%40.4%76.9%15.4%40.4%7.7%
Feb ’257114.1%45.1%60.6%9.9%14.1%5.6%
Mar ’259715.5%30.9%54.6%7.2%9.3%3.1%
Apr ’25858.2%41.2%63.5%3.5%11.8%2.4%
May ’25915.5%45.1%69.2%6.6%8.8%3.3%
Jun ’2514212.0%53.5%72.5%6.3%7.0%4.9%
Jul ’251466.2%29.4%59.6%8.2%19.9%1.4%
Aug ’25772.6%40.3%72.7%7.8%16.9%0.0%
Sep ’251274.7%48.0%71.7%12.6%11.0%0.0%
Oct ’25667.6%45.5%81.8%10.6%22.7%0.0%
Nov ’254010.0%30.0%60.0%5.0%20.0%0.0%
Dec ’25588.6%36.2%62.1%8.6%13.8%0.0%
Jan ’268215.8%18.3%87.8%9.8%14.6%0.0%
Feb ’26776.5%59.7%71.4%2.6%11.7%1.3%
Mar ’26775.2%37.7%61.0%5.2%13.0%1.3%
Apr ’26414.9%39.0%82.9%17.1%24.4%0.0%
May ’26525.8%55.8%76.9%25.0%32.7%0.0%
Jun ’26852.4%63.5%84.7%14.1%18.8%0.0%
Jul ’26685.9%36.8%80.9%16.2%23.5%0.0%
Aug ’26432.3%48.8%90.7%18.6%27.9%0.0%
Sep ’26333.0%36.4%90.9%24.2%33.3%0.0%
Oct ’26137.7%38.5%76.9%0.0%30.8%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 Escobar’s words

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

Credit claiming

Congresswoman Escobar Introduces Bill to Improve Port Staffing, Infrastructure Needs This week, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16) introduced the Port Staffing Reporting Act, legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess staffing levels, operational challenges, and i…

Oct 21, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; Transportation and Public Works · Source

Policy criticism

Joint Economic Committee: Families in El Paso Have Had to Spend Thousands More Under Trump Administration Today, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16) reacted to the latest report from the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) detailing how the average household in El Paso has had to spend thousands of d…

Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Foreign Trade and International Finance; International Affairs; Housing and Community Development; Agriculture and Food; Energy; Health · Source

Extreme label

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

Mar 4, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Immigration; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Trump administration · 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. Press releases

    Congresswoman Escobar Statement on El Paso Chamber of Commerce's Effort to Rename Bridge of the Americas Today, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16) released the following statement in response to media inquires about the El Paso Chamber of Commerce's effort to rename the Bridge of the Americas after Donald Trump: "Gas prices are through the roof because of Donald Trump’s illegal war in Iran; businesses and consum…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Energy · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Transportation and Public Works · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: presidentSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Transportation and Public Works · target: PaxtonSource

  4. Press releases

    Congresswoman Escobar Statement Following Dangerous Trump Speech to Cast Doubt on Election Safety Today, Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16) released the following statement after Donald Trump gave a rambling, dangerous speech from the White House: “Since the 2020 election, more than 60 judges – some of whom Trump appointed – rejected lawsuits challenging the results. Numerous recounts and audits have only reaffi…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Donald TrumpSource

  5. Newsletters

    Weekly Update, July 11 - July 17, 2026 Dear political, Welcome to the weekly edition of my newsletter. Here you'll find recaps of some of the most important things that happened in Washington and El Paso, my reactions, and news I'd love to bring to your attention. [Final 2023 Banner]<https://escobar.house.gov/components/redirect/r.aspx?ID=7059-1868228> Dear political, Welcome to the weekly edition of my newsletter…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Crime and Law Enforcement · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Transportation and Public Works · Immigration · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Housing and Community Development · Government Operations and Politics · Agriculture and Food · Water Resources Development · Health · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: Donald Trump

All 1,623 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: 1,199 posts on X, 240 press releases, 160 newsletters, 24 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Immigration is what Escobar talks about most: 30% of policy statements, 2.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 110th 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 Escobar talks about. The bills Escobar sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Escobar talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Escobar
Peers
Immigration342 statements
30%
11%
Health337 statements
29%
26%
Economics and Public Finance317 statements
27%
20%
Government Operations and Politics303 statements
26%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security186 statements
16%
16%
Show the data
Policy areas Escobar talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowEscobarPeers
Immigration30%11%
Health29%26%
Economics and Public Finance27%20%
Government Operations and Politics26%20%
Armed Forces and National Security16%16%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Escobar’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 35%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 30% (House Democrats 11%)30%Immigration, legislates on: 9% (House Democrats 4%)9%HealthHealth, talks about: 29% (House Democrats 26%)29%Health, legislates on: 16% (House Democrats 16%)16%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 27% (House Democrats 20%)27%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 26% (House Democrats 20%)26%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 11%)10%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 16%)16%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 15% (House Democrats 7%)15%
Show the data
Escobar's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Immigration30%11%9%4%
Health29%26%16%16%
Economics and Public Finance27%20%1%1%
Government Operations and Politics26%20%10%11%
Armed Forces and National Security16%16%15%7%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 110th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Escobar sits at −1.03 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 55% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.05 to −1.01, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,443 donors and 3,776 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”.

−1.03

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.05 to −1.01. From 1,443 donors and 3,776 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Escobar, 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 Escobar’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 Escobar sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Escobar −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Escobar's CSIP score of −1.03 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Escobar
House Democrats217−1.045%
All House439+0.322%
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 Escobar 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 Escobar.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Escobar raised $1.1M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 4.6% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 84% of itemized individual money came from Texas.

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

Election cycle
$1.1M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 290 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): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Itemized individual (over $200): $538.3K (50.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $25.9K (2.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $25.9K (2.4%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)PACs and other committees: $503.1K (47.1%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)51 squares$538.3K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)2 squares$25.9K
  • PACs and other committees47 squares$503.1K
Show the data
Sources of Escobar's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$538.3K50.4%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$25.9K2.4%
PACs and other committees$503.1K47.1%
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: $1.1M$1.1M20202022 cycle: $1.3M$1.3M20222024 cycle: $1.3M$1.3M20242026 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Escobar's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$1.1M
2022 cycle$1.3M
2024 cycle$1.3M
2026 cycle$1.1M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 84% came from Texas.

  1. Texas$379.8K
  2. District of Columbia$19.0K
  3. Puerto Rico$13.5K
  4. California$9,300
  5. Virginia$9,050

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%
Escobar
Median
2026
5%
13%
2024
4%
13%
2022
9%
13%
2020
9%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowEscobarMedian
2026 cycle5%13%
2024 cycle4%13%
2022 cycle9%13%
2020 cycle9%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $7,000WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $1,000ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $2,100NYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $250MAOregon: $500ORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: no dataOHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: no dataNJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $9,300CAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $1,250CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $250MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $9,050VAMaryland: $4,500MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $65AZNew Mexico: $50NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $19.0KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $379.8KTXFlorida: $1,000FL
Show the data
Escobar's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Texas$379.8K
District of Columbia$19.0K
California$9,300
Virginia$9,050
Washington$7,000
Maryland$4,500
New York$2,100
Colorado$1,250
Illinois$1,000
Florida$1,000
Oregon$500
Massachusetts$250
Missouri$250
Arizona$65
New Mexico$50
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
OhioNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
New JerseyNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
HawaiiNo data
290

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

84%

from Texas

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.3%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 39%39%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 37%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 7.6%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 3.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 5.6%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 5.5%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.7%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.8%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Escobar's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +0.75: 39% between −1.25 and −1.00, 37% between −1.00 and −0.75, 7.6% between −0.75 and −0.50, 5.6% between −0.25 and 0.00, 5.5% between 0.00 and +0.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.3%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0039%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7537%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.507.6%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.253.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.005.6%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.255.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.7%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.8%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Escobar’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Escobar’s own score is −1.03.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$94.7K 74 donors
  2. CEO$51.0K 22 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$47.2K 32 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$24.1K 4 donors
  5. REAL ESTATE$12.5K 3 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. PAC$17.5K
  2. JSTREETPAC$14.0K
  3. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
  4. DELOITTE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. TECHNOLOGIES PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL (HONPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. WESTSTAR BANK$11.3K 4 donors
  2. THE RABEN GROUP$5,140 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Escobar voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 1.2% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Escobar voted against the majority of House Democrats 15 times.

674 roll calls Escobar 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 Escobar voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

15

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 54th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Escobar
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.8%
96.9%
73rd of 217
Party unity
99.3%
96.4%
54th of 217
Show the data
Escobar's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowEscobarPeers
Attendance98.8%96.9%
Party unity99.3%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
NayAgainst 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 Escobar most often

  1. Teresa Leger FernandezD608 shared votes99%
  2. Jill TokudaD664 shared votes99%
  3. Mark PocanD658 shared votes99%
  4. Suzanne BonamiciD657 shared votes99%
  5. Joaquin CastroD645 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Escobar least often

  1. Chip RoyR627 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR592 shared votes17%
  3. Eric BurlisonR637 shared votes17%
  4. Andy BiggsR603 shared votes18%
  5. Josh BrecheenR635 shared votes18%
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

Escobar sponsored 23 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 338 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills Escobar 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

Sponsored23 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2323Sponsored, In committee: 2323Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored338 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 338338Cosponsored, In committee: 338338Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 99Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Escobar sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2323000
Cosponsored338338900
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Escobar sponsored, ochre blocks bills Escobar 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 Escobar, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Eleanor Norton37
  2. Rashida Tlaib21
  3. Vicente Gonzalez16
  4. Sylvia Garcia16
  5. Shri Thanedar16
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 Escobar’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. 10845Port Staffing Reporting ActSponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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 19, 2026
H.R. 10642STS ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and 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 1, 2026
H.Res. 1603Expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States.CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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 1, 2026
H.R. 10550Nutrition Continuity for Military Families Act of 2026SponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 120 times in 90 days. Escobar’s official site had 37 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Escobar posted on Oct 1, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    escobar.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    37

    pages crawled

    120

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    veronicaescobar.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    11

    pages crawled

    14

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Images Escobar posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A news article screenshot about a proposed ban on building a border wall in Big Bend failing in a U.S. House funding panel. Below the headline and article details is a wide photograph of a rugged, arid mountain and canyon landscape beneath a cloudy sky. The page includes text and article-sharing controls.
    A news article screenshot about a proposed ban on building a border wall in Big Bend failing in a U.S. House funding panel. Below the headline and article details is a wide photograph of a rugged, arid mountain and canyon landscape beneath a cloudy sky. The page includes text and article-sharing controls.View post
  • A patriotic commemorative graphic for POW/MIA Recognition Day, with white stars across a dark blue background, red side borders, and a circle of red stars around the central message.
    A patriotic commemorative graphic for POW/MIA Recognition Day, with white stars across a dark blue background, red side borders, and a circle of red stars around the central message.View post
  • A political graphic overlays a photograph of a large domed government building at dusk, with an orange glow across the lower portion and large black lettering. A small campaign-style logo appears in the lower-left corner.
    A political graphic overlays a photograph of a large domed government building at dusk, with an orange glow across the lower portion and large black lettering. A small campaign-style logo appears in the lower-left corner.View post
  • A political graphic announcing that Representative Escobar is calling for an EPA investigation into a refinery incident. Several pages of a letter are pictured, with a congressional campaign-style logo at the bottom. The image contains text.
    A political graphic announcing that Representative Escobar is calling for an EPA investigation into a refinery incident. Several pages of a letter are pictured, with a congressional campaign-style logo at the bottom. The image contains text.View post
  • A political announcement graphic with large black lettering over a pale floral background. A small campaign logo appears near the bottom.
    A political announcement graphic with large black lettering over a pale floral background. A small campaign logo appears near the bottom.View post
About the descriptions

Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

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 Escobar 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
E000299
Bioguide
E000299
FEC candidate ids
H8TX16109

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