of statements discuss policy, in the top tenth of Senate Democrats
86% of 1,894 statements discuss policy (1,635 statements); the average for Senate Democrats is 78%. Ranks 5th of 45, where 1st is the highest rate.
An AI model reads each of Gillibrand’s posts on X, press releases, newsletters and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.
0
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Democrats. 0.6% of Gillibrand’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom quarter of Senate Democrats (average 2.4%). 37% of Gillibrand’s statements claim credit, in the top quarter of Senate Democrats (average 26%).
The measures on which Gillibrand 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.
Policy discussion
86%
Senate Democrats average 78% · ranks 5th of 45
Extreme labels
0.6%
Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 40th of 45
Credit claiming
37%
Senate Democrats average 26% · ranks 7th of 45
CSIP ideology
−1.38
More liberal than 81% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.01
Policy criticism
33%
Senate Democrats average 37% · ranks 36th of 45
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.65
Senate Democrats average 0.66 · ranks 33rd of 45
Peer group: Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Gillibrand, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Gillibrand is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Gillibrand attacks opponents personally less than 68% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 7.8% of 1,894 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 32nd of 45.
An AI model reads each of Gillibrand’s 1,894 statements in the 119th Congress (1,152 posts on X, 609 press releases, 113 newsletters, 20 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
Gillibrand
Senate Democrats, average of 45
0%20%40%60%80%
Gillibrand
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,635 statements
86%
78%
5th of 45
Credit claiming693 statements
37%
26%
7th of 45
Policy criticism633 statements
33%
37%
36th of 45
Bipartisanship353 statements
19%
18%
16th of 45
Personal attacks147 statements
8%
11%
32nd of 45
+ Show the data
Gillibrand's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
Row
Gillibrand
Peers
Policy discussion
86%
78%
Credit claiming
37%
26%
Policy criticism
33%
37%
Bipartisanship
19%
18%
Personal attacks
8%
11%
1,894
statements classified
1,152 posts on X, 609 press releases, 113 newsletters, 20 Congressional Record speeches.
posts on X
press releases
newsletters
Congressional Record speeches
+ Show the data
Gillibrand's statements by source
Part
Value
posts on X
1,152
press releases
609
newsletters
113
Congressional Record speeches
20
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is Gillibrand; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Gillibrand does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Gillibrand used extreme labels in 0.6% of statements, 25% of the peer average. 11 statements, most often aimed at DEI programs; peers 2.4%.
“extreme”3
“MAGA”2
“radical”2
“far right”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
DEI programs2
anti-abortion riders1
anti-LGBTQ measures1
Bill Pulte1
conspiracy theorist1
+ − What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
+ Show the data
Monthly rates for Gillibrand, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column
Statements
Personal attacks
Policy criticism
Policy discussion
Bipartisanship
Credit claiming
Extreme labels
Jan ’25
44
2.3%
36.4%
84.1%
31.8%
56.8%
0.0%
Feb ’25
64
1.6%
42.2%
85.9%
39.1%
48.4%
0.0%
Mar ’25
52
9.6%
46.2%
88.5%
15.4%
26.9%
1.9%
Apr ’25
70
7.1%
44.3%
82.9%
25.7%
37.1%
1.4%
May ’25
56
3.6%
44.6%
83.9%
16.1%
28.6%
1.8%
Jun ’25
69
1.5%
40.6%
81.2%
21.7%
29.0%
0.0%
Jul ’25
67
1.5%
31.3%
88.1%
22.4%
49.3%
0.0%
Aug ’25
33
0.0%
39.4%
87.9%
3.0%
54.5%
0.0%
Sep ’25
74
1.4%
29.7%
81.1%
23.0%
52.7%
0.0%
Oct ’25
90
3.3%
44.4%
80.0%
24.4%
24.4%
2.2%
Nov ’25
89
6.7%
48.3%
75.3%
16.9%
31.5%
0.0%
Dec ’25
117
2.6%
23.9%
85.5%
25.6%
35.9%
0.9%
Jan ’26
123
3.3%
26.0%
93.5%
13.8%
38.2%
0.8%
Feb ’26
114
7.9%
27.2%
83.3%
21.1%
49.1%
0.0%
Mar ’26
94
10.6%
43.6%
85.1%
13.8%
36.2%
2.1%
Apr ’26
92
17.4%
22.8%
89.1%
15.2%
32.6%
0.0%
May ’26
137
16.1%
32.9%
84.7%
18.3%
42.3%
0.0%
Jun ’26
107
14.9%
35.5%
88.8%
19.6%
40.2%
0.9%
Jul ’26
139
10.1%
35.3%
86.3%
16.6%
23.0%
0.7%
Aug ’26
88
11.4%
22.7%
94.3%
9.1%
23.9%
0.0%
Sep ’26
109
7.3%
25.7%
91.7%
11.9%
35.8%
0.0%
Oct ’26
66
13.6%
15.2%
95.5%
9.1%
28.8%
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 Gillibrand’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Credit claiming
Kirsten’s New York Minute: Protecting Reliable Internet for Schools
Welcome to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s New York Minute!
[Image]
Welcome to Kirsten’s New York Minute!
Here’s what she’s been up to this week:
[Image]
1. Protecting reliable internet for schools
[Image]
Millions of children…
Oct 25, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Crime and Law Enforcement; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Energy; Health
Personal attacks
New Study: Families In New York Have Had To Spend $6,000+ More Under Trump
JEC Report: The Average Household In New York Has Had To Pay An Additional $6,000+ For Goods And Services Due To Rising Costs Under President Trump
This week, a new Joint Economic Committee (JEC) – Minority report found that…
Oct 16, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Housing and Community Development; Energy; Health; Taxation; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Armed Forces and National Security; target: Donald Trump · Source
Extreme label
Gillibrand, Colleagues Renew Push To Establish A Nationwide Right To IVF And Lower IVF Costs For Families
Nearly two years after President Donald Trump promised free IVF for all Americans on the campaign trail, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) joined a bicameral group of colleagues to reintro…
Jul 27, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Health; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Republicans · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
·Press releases
New Study: Families In New York Have Had To Spend $6,000+ More Under Trump
JEC Report: The Average Household In New York Has Had To Pay An Additional $6,000+ For Goods And Services Due To Rising Costs Under President Trump
This week, a new Joint Economic Committee (JEC) – Minority report found that as of September 2026, the average household in New York has had to pay an additional $6,000+ for goods and services due…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Housing and Community Development · Energy · Health · Taxation · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Donald TrumpSource ↗
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: HegsethSource ↗
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · target: TrumpSource ↗
·Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource ↗
·Newsletters
Kirsten’s New York Minute: Fighting for Fair Housing
Welcome to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s New York Minute!
[Image]
Welcome to Kirsten’s New York Minute!
Here’s what she’s been up to this week:
[Image]
1. Fighting for fair housing
[Image]
This week, Kirsten joined 20 of her Senate colleagues in submitting an amicus brief supporting a federal judge’s ruling that the Trump administration’s Department of Housi…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Housing and Community Development · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Health · Armed Forces and National Security · Agriculture and Food · Education · Taxation · Economics and Public Finance · target: Donald Trump
All 1,894 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: 1,152 posts on X, 609 press releases, 113 newsletters, 20 Congressional Record speeches.
Health is what Gillibrand talks about most: 36% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 33rd 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 Gillibrand talks about. The bills Gillibrand sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Gillibrand talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
Gillibrand
Senate Democrats average
0%10%20%30%39%
Gillibrand
Peers
Health585 statements
36%
27%
Economics and Public Finance576 statements
35%
24%
Armed Forces and National Security398 statements
24%
21%
Government Operations and Politics265 statements
16%
22%
Agriculture and Food212 statements
13%
9%
+ Show the data
Policy areas Gillibrand talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
Row
Gillibrand
Peers
Health
36%
27%
Economics and Public Finance
35%
24%
Armed Forces and National Security
24%
21%
Government Operations and Politics
16%
22%
Agriculture and Food
13%
9%
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Gillibrand’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 39%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.
Statements
Bills
Senate Democrats
+ Show the data
Gillibrand's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area
Talks about
Senate Democrats, talks about
Legislates on
Senate Democrats, legislates on
Health
36%
27%
13%
14%
Economics and Public Finance
35%
24%
0%
0%
Armed Forces and National Security
24%
21%
7%
7%
Government Operations and Politics
16%
22%
9%
9%
Agriculture and Food
13%
9%
9%
5%
0.65
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 33rd of 45.
+ − What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Gillibrand legislates on exactly the areas Gillibrand 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 Gillibrand sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Gillibrand sits at −1.38 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 81% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.39 to −1.36, which understates the uncertainty; from 14,294 donors and 4,873 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”.
−1.38
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.39 to −1.36. From 14,294 donors and 4,873 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Gillibrand, 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 Gillibrand’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 Gillibrand sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Democrats45 · median −1.1
All Senate98 · median +0.4
+ Show the data
Gillibrand's CSIP score of −1.38 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
Group
Officials
Median
Share left of Gillibrand
Senate Democrats
45
−1.1
18%
All Senate
98
+0.4
8%
+ − 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 Gillibrand 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 Gillibrand.
Gillibrand raised $3.5M in the 2026 cycle, above the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 37% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 44% of itemized individual money came from New York.
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.
$3.5M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 591 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)28 squares$981.9K
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)16 squares$584.1K
PACs and other committees6 squares$198.2K
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)50 squares$1.8M
+ Show the data
Sources of Gillibrand's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source
Amount
Share
Itemized individual (over $200)
$981.9K
27.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)
$584.1K
16.6%
PACs and other committees
$198.2K
5.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)
$1.8M
50.0%
+ − What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
+ Show the data
Gillibrand's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
Item
Value
2020 cycle
$394.7K
2022 cycle
$4.2M
2024 cycle
$9.8M
2026 cycle
$3.5M
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 44% came from New York.
New York$308.9K
Texas$53.5K
New Jersey$53.4K
California$43.6K
District of Columbia$40.2K
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.
Gillibrand
Median
0%20%40%60%
Gillibrand
Median
2026
37%
35%
2024
25%
35%
2022
34%
35%
2020
66%
35%
+ Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
Row
Gillibrand
Median
2026 cycle
37%
35%
2024 cycle
25%
35%
2022 cycle
34%
35%
2020 cycle
66%
35%
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Itemized dollars$125$308.9Kno data
+ Show the data
Gillibrand's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State
Value
New York
$308.9K
Texas
$53.5K
New Jersey
$53.4K
California
$43.6K
District of Columbia
$40.2K
Florida
$36.7K
Virginia
$34.0K
Maryland
$28.0K
Colorado
$22.2K
Connecticut
$11.4K
South Carolina
$9,850
Illinois
$9,256
Oregon
$7,710
Massachusetts
$6,661
Vermont
$6,076
Pennsylvania
$4,205
Washington
$3,892
Ohio
$3,645
Indiana
$2,950
North Carolina
$2,770
Georgia
$2,566
Arizona
$1,975
Maine
$1,719
Michigan
$1,668
Rhode Island
$1,599
Tennessee
$1,523
New Mexico
$1,242
Montana
$1,120
New Hampshire
$1,054
Nevada
$966
Louisiana
$525
Hawaii
$510
Alabama
$375
Wyoming
$325
West Virginia
$250
Mississippi
$250
Idaho
$205
Kentucky
$154
Minnesota
$125
Alaska
No data
North Dakota
No data
Wisconsin
No data
South Dakota
No data
Iowa
No data
Utah
No data
Nebraska
No data
Missouri
No data
Delaware
No data
Kansas
No data
Arkansas
No data
Oklahoma
No data
591
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
44%
from New York
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 New York. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
+ Show the data
Ideology of Gillibrand's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 22% between −1.50 and −1.25, 31% between −1.25 and −1.00, 22% between −1.00 and −0.75, 6.3% between −0.25 and 0.00, 8.3% between +0.25 and +0.50.
Item
Value
CSIP −1.50 to −1.25
22%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.00
31%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.75
22%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.50
3.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.25
3.6%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.00
6.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.25
1.2%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50
8.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75
1.3%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00
0.5%
+ − How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Gillibrand’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Gillibrand’s own score is −1.38.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
NOT EMPLOYED$206.2K 329 donors
ATTORNEY$58.9K 32 donors
CEO$42.6K 10 donors
LAWYER$41.2K 16 donors
RETIRED$36.7K 34 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
CIRCLE INTERNET GROUP, INC. PAC$10.0K
L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. PAC$6,000
ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS POLITICAL ACTION FUND$5,000
ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF AUDIOLOGY, INC. PAC$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP$20.0K 7 donors
COINBASE$13.5K 4 donors
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER$11.5K 4 donors
LSEG$10.0K 3 donors
WILLKIE FARR$3,500 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Gillibrand voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 95.5% of party-line votes and missed 2.0% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Gillibrand voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 48 times.
915 roll calls Gillibrand 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 Gillibrand voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
48
votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Party unity 95.5%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 25th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Gillibrand, the thin grey bar the Senate Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
Gillibrand
Senate Democrats, average of 45
80%90%100%
Gillibrand
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.0%
97.0%
23rd of 45
Party unity
95.5%
95.3%
25th of 45
+ Show the data
Gillibrand's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
Row
Gillibrand
Peers
Attendance
98.0%
97.0%
Party unity
95.5%
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
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
Nay
Against majority
Bill Passed
D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
Yea
With majority
Concurrent Resolution Rejected
D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
Yea
With majority
Bill Passed
D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
Nay
With majority
Resolution Agreed to
D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay
close vote
+ − How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Gillibrand most often
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.
Gillibrand sponsored 69 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 511 others. 10% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 31st of 45).
The bills Gillibrand 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
Sponsored
Cosponsored
+ Show the data
Bills Gillibrand sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role
Introduced
In committee
Passed one chamber
Passed both chambers
Became law
Sponsored
69
69
3
0
0
Cosponsored
511
508
61
3
3
+ − How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Gillibrand sponsored, ochre blocks bills Gillibrand cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
10%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 31st of 45.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Gillibrand, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
Democrat
Independent
Richard Blumenthal166
Cory Booker150
Jeff Merkley119
Alex Padilla114
Ron Wyden112
+ − 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 Gillibrand’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
A site that changed 137 times in 90 days. Gillibrand’s official site had 43 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Gillibrand posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Gillibrand’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 Gillibrand posts with a vision model.
“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.
A news graphic overlays a close-up of a gas station price sign showing high prices for different gasoline grades. The graphic and sign contain text.View post ↗
02
A USA Today news graphic shows a hand reaching toward a light switch on a blue wall, beneath a headline about electricity bills and grocery costs.View post ↗
03
A New York Times article graphic featuring a woman holding a container of food inside a food pantry or small grocery store. Shelves, produce, baskets, and a shopping cart are visible around her. A prominent headline appears above the photograph.View post ↗
04
A black political campaign graphic features a news clipping about a gun-trafficking crackdown, with a green arrow pointing to a statement about taking illegal guns off the streets. A senator's name and office appear at the bottom.View post ↗
05
A USA TODAY news graphic shows Senator Kirsten Gillibrand seated at a hearing desk, speaking into a microphone. A headline about a medication shortage appears above her.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.
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 Gillibrand 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 …”).
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.
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
