Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 9, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics · Source
140
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 70%, in the bottom 5% of House Democrats (average 96.4%). 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
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 Golden voted with the majority of House Democrats; it is ranked among House Democrats. The count covers every roll call where Golden voted opposite that majority.
At a glance
6 measures against House Democrats. 33% of Golden’s statements use bipartisan language, 3.3 times the House Democrat average of 9.8%. Golden sits at −0.35 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 99% of House Democrats.
The measures on which Golden 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.
Party unity
70%
House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 214th of 217 · 140 votes against the majority of House Democrats
Bipartisanship
33%
House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 3rd of 216
CSIP ideology
−0.35
More conservative than 99% of House Democrats · ± 0.01
From Maine, 2026
4.3%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 213th of 214 House Democrats
Credit claiming
45%
House Democrats average 23% · ranks 6th of 216
Policy criticism
44%
House Democrats average 28% · ranks 7th of 216
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Golden, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Golden is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Golden says
Golden attacks opponents personally less than 92% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 0.8% of 640 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 201st of 216.
An AI model reads each of Golden’s 640 statements in the 119th Congress (415 posts on X, 146 press releases, 63 newsletters, 16 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%
Golden
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion524 statements
82%
73%
19th of 216
Credit claiming291 statements
45%
23%
6th of 216
Policy criticism282 statements
44%
28%
7th of 216
Bipartisanship209 statements
33%
10%
3rd of 216
Personal attacks5 statements
1%
7%
201st of 216
Show the data
| Row | Golden | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 82% | 73% |
| Credit claiming | 45% | 23% |
| Policy criticism | 44% | 28% |
| Bipartisanship | 33% | 10% |
| Personal attacks | 1% | 7% |
640
statements classified
415 posts on X, 146 press releases, 63 newsletters, 16 Congressional Record speeches.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 415 |
| press releases | 146 |
| newsletters | 63 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 16 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Golden; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Golden does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Golden used extreme labels in 1.4% of statements, below the peer average. 9 statements, most often aimed at far-left groups; peers 1.9%.
- “extreme”6
- “far left”2
- “communist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- far-left groups2
- anti-choice agenda1
- anti-choice ideology1
- GOP1
- House GOP1
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
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 69 | 0.0% | 43.5% | 87.0% | 33.3% | 50.7% | 1.5% |
| Feb ’25 | 57 | 3.5% | 54.4% | 86.0% | 22.8% | 45.6% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’25 | 49 | 6.1% | 40.8% | 85.7% | 20.4% | 38.8% | 2.0% |
| Apr ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 40.0% | 82.9% | 34.3% | 37.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 54 | 0.0% | 59.3% | 85.2% | 18.5% | 37.0% | 5.6% |
| Jun ’25 | 40 | 0.0% | 52.5% | 85.0% | 27.5% | 27.5% | 5.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 35 | 0.0% | 54.3% | 94.3% | 62.9% | 65.7% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’25 | 25 | 0.0% | 28.0% | 80.0% | 40.0% | 64.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 29 | 0.0% | 55.2% | 65.5% | 51.7% | 41.4% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 13 | 0.0% | 61.5% | 76.9% | 30.8% | 30.8% | 15.4% |
| Nov ’25 | 20 | 0.0% | 40.0% | 75.0% | 40.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 38 | 0.0% | 31.6% | 60.5% | 39.5% | 47.4% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 38.1% | 85.7% | 38.1% | 52.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 8 | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) | — (fewer than 10 statements) |
| Mar ’26 | 14 | 0.0% | 57.1% | 100.0% | 28.6% | 42.9% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 15 | 0.0% | 53.3% | 93.3% | 33.3% | 53.3% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 21 | 0.0% | 28.6% | 76.2% | 28.6% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’26 | 20 | 0.0% | 50.0% | 75.0% | 30.0% | 50.0% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 19 | 0.0% | 26.3% | 79.0% | 26.3% | 42.1% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 13 | 0.0% | 38.5% | 69.2% | 30.8% | 23.1% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 23 | 0.0% | 13.0% | 82.6% | 39.1% | 52.2% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 22 | 0.0% | 18.2% | 72.7% | 13.6% | 54.5% | 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%. One month is hatched here.
In Golden’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The hollow resistance of the CR debacle Email from Rep. Golden Hello , Since the CR was the major topic in the news last week, I decided on Friday against sharing a brief update in my weekly newsletter - I thought you'd rather get my complete thoughts in a longer, one-topic email. I published the f…
Mar 17, 2025 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; Taxation
Extreme label
It's time to end the shutdown | Ten days into the government shutdown, both sides are blaming the other, trying to "win" the shutdown even as millions of federal workers and service members and their families lose pay and Americans suffer the harms that come when federal agencies are stripped to th…
Oct 10, 2025 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Health; Taxation; Agriculture and Food; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “far left” aimed at far-left groups
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.
Newsletters
The hollow resistance of the CR debacle Email from Rep. Golden Hello , Since the CR was the major topic in the news last week, I decided on Friday against sharing a brief update in my weekly newsletter - I thought you'd rather get my complete thoughts in a longer, one-topic email. I published the following piece Friday evening, and if you're interested in getting future letters the second I publish them, subscribe t…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Agriculture and Food · Armed Forces and National Security · Taxation
Newsletters
Last week in Maine's Second District Email from Rep. Golden Hello , Welcome to my weekly rundown, the latest on what I've been working on for Mainers in the Second District. My response to the president's address to Congress This week, President Trump gave a joint address to members of the House and Senate. While I'd still like to hear a more comprehensive economic strategy from the president, I'm encouraged by his…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Economics and Public Finance · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Health · Water Resources Development · Taxation · Government Operations and Politics · Armed Forces and National Security
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: executive officialsSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: Elon MuskSource
Press releases
Golden renews push to secure reopening of West Paris Post Office WASHINGTON — Congressman Jared Golden (ME-02) today demanded answers from U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Postmaster General Louis DeJoy over the agency’s delay in reopening the West Paris Post Office — which has been closed for nearly four years — despite having signed a new lease last August. “I continue to hear almost daily from constituents whose lives a…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: Louis DeJoySource
All 640 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: 415 posts on X, 146 press releases, 63 newsletters, 16 Congressional Record speeches.
Policy
Economics and Public Finance is what Golden talks about most: 24% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.73 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 16th 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 Golden talks about. The bills Golden sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Golden talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Golden
Peers
Economics and Public Finance125 statements
24%
20%
Government Operations and Politics121 statements
23%
20%
Health119 statements
23%
26%
Armed Forces and National Security117 statements
22%
16%
Labor and Employment86 statements
16%
7%
Show the data
| Row | Golden | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 24% | 20% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 20% |
| Health | 23% | 26% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 22% | 16% |
| Labor and Employment | 16% | 7% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Golden’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.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics and Public Finance | 24% | 20% | 4% | 1% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 20% | 15% | 11% |
| Health | 23% | 26% | 12% | 16% |
| Armed Forces and National Security | 22% | 16% | 15% | 7% |
| Labor and Employment | 16% | 7% | 6% | 5% |
0.73
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 16th of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Golden legislates on exactly the areas Golden 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 Golden sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Golden sits at −0.35 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 99% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.37 to −0.34, which understates the uncertainty; from 10,648 donors and 3,756 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
−0.35
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.37 to −0.34. From 10,648 donors and 3,756 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Golden, 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 Golden’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 Golden sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Golden |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 99% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 49% |
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 Golden 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 Golden.
Money
Golden raised $2.6M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 19% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 4.3% of itemized individual money came from Maine.
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.
$2.6M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 937 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)62 squares$1.6M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)14 squares$367.2K
- PACs and other committees13 squares$319.0K
- Party committees$548
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)11 squares$285.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $1.6M | 62.3% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $367.2K | 14.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $319.0K | 12.3% |
| Party committees | $548 | 0.0% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $285.9K | 11.1% |
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.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $5.4M |
| 2022 cycle | $6.1M |
| 2024 cycle | $7.9M |
| 2026 cycle | $2.6M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 4.3% came from Maine.
- California$188.7K
- Massachusetts$143.5K
- New York$94.2K
- Texas$85.7K
- Florida$69.4K
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%
Golden
Median
2026
19%
13%
2024
18%
13%
2022
23%
13%
2020
23%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Golden | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 19% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 18% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 23% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 23% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| California | $188.7K |
| Massachusetts | $143.5K |
| New York | $94.2K |
| Texas | $85.7K |
| Florida | $69.4K |
| Maine | $35.9K |
| Pennsylvania | $22.9K |
| Colorado | $22.3K |
| Washington | $22.2K |
| District of Columbia | $21.8K |
| Virginia | $17.2K |
| Oregon | $16.9K |
| Maryland | $16.9K |
| New Jersey | $15.7K |
| Illinois | $13.4K |
| New Hampshire | $9,372 |
| Kentucky | $7,000 |
| Georgia | $6,500 |
| North Carolina | $5,512 |
| Vermont | $4,500 |
| Ohio | $4,450 |
| New Mexico | $4,250 |
| Arizona | $4,050 |
| Nevada | $3,950 |
| Alabama | $3,600 |
| Arkansas | $3,500 |
| Tennessee | $2,355 |
| Minnesota | $2,200 |
| Wyoming | $1,500 |
| Rhode Island | $1,375 |
| Louisiana | $1,250 |
| South Carolina | $1,100 |
| Missouri | $932 |
| Utah | $680 |
| Wisconsin | $600 |
| Indiana | $450 |
| Iowa | $300 |
| Kansas | $200 |
| Idaho | $100 |
| Nebraska | $100 |
| Hawaii | $100 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
937
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
4.3%
from Maine
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 Maine. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.0% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 9.3% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 42% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 15% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 10% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 7.6% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 9.4% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 4.3% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 1.7% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.0% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 0.1% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Golden’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Golden’s own score is −0.35.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$499.4K 419 donors
- RETIRED$221.7K 222 donors
- ATTORNEY$83.0K 67 donors
- INVESTOR$55.0K 16 donors
- CEO$45.4K 21 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- FAIR SHOT PAC$15.0K
- JOBS, EDUCATION, & FAMILIES FIRST JEFF PAC$10.0K
- SD PAC$10.0K
- END CITIZENS UNITED$5,500
- ACROSS THE AISLE PAC$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$8,500 5 donors
- BOSTON UNIVERSITY$1,583 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Golden voted with the majority of House Democrats on 70% of party-line votes and missed 2.7% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Golden voted against the majority of House Democrats 140 times.
674 roll calls Golden 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 Golden voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
140
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 70%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 214th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Golden, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 70% to 100% to show the gap.
70%100%
Golden
Peers
Rank
Attendance
97.3%
96.9%
140th of 217
Party unity
70%
96.4%
214th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Golden | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 97.3% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 70% | 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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | Against majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Yea | Against majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 Golden most often
- Marie Gluesenkamp PerezD648 shared votes95%
- Donald DavisD642 shared votes90%
- Adam GrayD617 shared votes89%
- Henry CuellarD648 shared votes88%
- Laura GillenD639 shared votes87%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Golden least often
- Chip RoyR619 shared votes34%
- Keith SelfR642 shared votes36%
- Josh BrecheenR630 shared votes36%
- Thomas MassieR613 shared votes36%
- Eric BurlisonR627 shared votes37%
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
Legislation
Golden sponsored 15 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 226 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 21st of 207).
The bills Golden 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 15 | 15 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 226 | 226 | 18 | 2 | 2 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Golden sponsored, ochre blocks bills Golden cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
13%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 21st of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Golden, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Brian Fitzpatrick30
- Donald Davis24
- Michael Lawler23
- Eugene Vindman20
- Don Bacon19
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 Golden’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10780 | Congressional Budget Reform Act | Sponsor | Oct 9, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance | Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, House Administration, Appropriations, and Oversight and Government Reform, 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 9, 2026 |
| H.R. 10555 | VETS Access Act | Sponsor | Sep 24, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 24, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1563 | Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives with respect to the certification requirement in the case of a congressional earmark or limited tax or tariff benefit. | Cosponsor | Sep 17, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the House Committee on Ethics. Sep 17, 2026 |
| H.R. 10419 | SMILE for Veterans Act | Cosponsor | Sep 16, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 16, 2026 |
| H.R. 10327 | Cost Estimates Improvement Act | Cosponsor | Sep 10, 2026 | In committee | Economics and Public Finance | Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 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 10, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 58 times in 90 days. Golden’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Golden posted on Oct 23, 2026.
The lab crawls Golden’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 Golden posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 36
pages crawled
58changes 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.
Social accounts
Images Golden posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A news-style graphic featuring an ambulance with emergency lights on, overlaid with a headline about rural emergency services. A publication credit and campaign logo appear near the bottom.View post 
A formal letter on U.S. Congress letterhead, dated October 14, 2026. It is addressed to congressional appropriations committee leaders and urges additional funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The page has blue bands along the top and bottom and contains several paragraphs of text.View post 
A formal letter page with a dark blue border at the top and bottom. Several paragraphs discuss utility bills and the need for LIHEAP assistance, followed by a closing, two handwritten signatures, and printed names and titles for members of Congress.View post 
A scenic landscape poster shows the sun rising over a body of water and forested hills covered in autumn foliage. A large heading and smaller subtitle are overlaid on the sky.View post 
A wooden sign stands among rocks on a mountain summit, with hills and a cloudy sky in the background. The sign has large lettering, and a small 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.
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 Golden 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
- G000592
- Bioguide
- G000592
- FEC candidate ids
- H8ME02185
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