Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, Colorado

Serving since Jan 3, 2021119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide H000273FEC S0CO00575

Portrait of John Hickenlooper, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.8×
the Senate Democrat rate of extreme labels

6.7% of 2,322 statements use an extreme label (155 statements); the average for Senate Democrats is 2.4%. Ranks 2nd of 45, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at MAGA Republicans.

An AI model reads each of Hickenlooper’s posts on X, newsletters, press releases and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. 24% of the 37 bills Hickenlooper sponsored got out of committee, in the top tenth of Senate Democrats. Hickenlooper raised $9.5M in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of Senate Democrats (median $2.6M).

The measures on which Hickenlooper 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.

Extreme labels

6.7%

Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 2nd of 45

Out of committee

24%

Senate Democrats average 14% · ranks 4th of 45

Raised, 2026

$9.5M

Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M · ranks 7th of 45

Small donations, 2026

25%

Senate Democrats’ median 35% · ranks 36th of 45

Attendance

98.9%

Senate Democrats average 97.0% · ranks 10th of 45 · 915 roll calls

CSIP ideology

−1.05

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Hickenlooper says

Hickenlooper attacks opponents personally less than 71% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 7.5% of 2,322 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 33rd of 45.

An AI model reads each of Hickenlooper’s 2,322 statements in the 119th Congress (1,752 posts on X, 433 press releases, 79 newsletters, 58 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Hickenlooper
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,926 statements
83%
78%
12th of 45
Policy criticism924 statements
40%
37%
12th of 45
Credit claiming537 statements
23%
26%
28th of 45
Bipartisanship334 statements
14%
18%
27th of 45
Personal attacks174 statements
7%
11%
33rd of 45
Show the data
Hickenlooper's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowHickenlooperPeers
Policy discussion83%78%
Policy criticism40%37%
Credit claiming23%26%
Bipartisanship14%18%
Personal attacks7%11%
2,322

statements classified

1,752 posts on X, 433 press releases, 79 newsletters, 58 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,752 (75.5%)posts on X 1,752press releases: 433 (18.6%)newsletters: 79 (3.4%)Congressional Record speeches: 58 (2.5%)
Show the data
Hickenlooper's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,752
press releases433
newsletters79
Congressional Record speeches58
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Hickenlooper used extreme labels in 6.7% of statements, 2.8 times the peer average. 155 statements, most often aimed at MAGA Republicans; peers 2.4%.

  1. “MAGA”123
  2. “extreme”30
  3. “far right”10
  4. “radical”1
  5. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. MAGA Republicans54
  2. Republicans43
  3. MAGA21
  4. Trump14
  5. budget bill2
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: 802025-02: 1112025-03: 962025-04: 922025-05: 732025-06: 912025-07: 872025-08: 712025-09: 742025-10: 962025-11: 1032025-12: 1132026-01: 942026-02: 1292026-03: 1242026-04: 1292026-05: 1302026-06: 1512026-07: 1332026-08: 1352026-09: 1202026-10: 90peak 151 · Jun ’26Personal attackspeak 24.5% · Jun ’26 · latest 11.1%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 2.5% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-02: 2.7% of 111Personal attacks, 2025-03: 1.0% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.2% of 92Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 73Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 91Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.1% of 87Personal attacks, 2025-08: 1.4% of 71Personal attacks, 2025-09: 9.5% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-10: 1.0% of 96Personal attacks, 2025-11: 1.9% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-12: 9.7% of 113Personal attacks, 2026-01: 13.8% of 94Personal attacks, 2026-02: 3.9% of 129Personal attacks, 2026-03: 4.8% of 124Personal attacks, 2026-04: 11.6% of 129Personal attacks, 2026-05: 10.0% of 130Personal attacks, 2026-06: 24.5% of 151Personal attacks, 2026-07: 12.0% of 133Personal attacks, 2026-08: 14.8% of 135Personal attacks, 2026-09: 6.7% of 120Personal attacks, 2026-10: 11.1% of 90Policy criticismpeak 63.2% · Jul ’25 · latest 22.2%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 27.5% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-02: 57.7% of 111Policy criticism, 2025-03: 51.0% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-04: 46.7% of 92Policy criticism, 2025-05: 58.9% of 73Policy criticism, 2025-06: 54.9% of 91Policy criticism, 2025-07: 63.2% of 87Policy criticism, 2025-08: 46.5% of 71Policy criticism, 2025-09: 52.7% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-10: 52.1% of 96Policy criticism, 2025-11: 50.5% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-12: 28.3% of 113Policy criticism, 2026-01: 19.1% of 94Policy criticism, 2026-02: 56.6% of 129Policy criticism, 2026-03: 56.5% of 124Policy criticism, 2026-04: 22.5% of 129Policy criticism, 2026-05: 38.5% of 130Policy criticism, 2026-06: 35.8% of 151Policy criticism, 2026-07: 24.1% of 133Policy criticism, 2026-08: 15.6% of 135Policy criticism, 2026-09: 20.8% of 120Policy criticism, 2026-10: 22.2% of 90Policy discussionpeak 93.3% · Oct ’26 · latest 93.3%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 73.8% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-02: 90.1% of 111Policy discussion, 2025-03: 77.1% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-04: 85.9% of 92Policy discussion, 2025-05: 86.3% of 73Policy discussion, 2025-06: 79.1% of 91Policy discussion, 2025-07: 87.4% of 87Policy discussion, 2025-08: 78.9% of 71Policy discussion, 2025-09: 73.0% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-10: 84.4% of 96Policy discussion, 2025-11: 77.7% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-12: 85.0% of 113Policy discussion, 2026-01: 85.1% of 94Policy discussion, 2026-02: 83.7% of 129Policy discussion, 2026-03: 80.7% of 124Policy discussion, 2026-04: 80.6% of 129Policy discussion, 2026-05: 79.2% of 130Policy discussion, 2026-06: 73.5% of 151Policy discussion, 2026-07: 89.5% of 133Policy discussion, 2026-08: 91.1% of 135Policy discussion, 2026-09: 86.7% of 120Policy discussion, 2026-10: 93.3% of 90Bipartisanshippeak 37.5% · Jan ’25 · latest 12.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 37.5% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 22.5% of 111Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 14.6% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 18.5% of 92Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 4.1% of 73Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 4.4% of 91Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 3.5% of 87Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 7.0% of 71Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 12.2% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 20.8% of 96Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 17.5% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 19.5% of 113Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 19.1% of 94Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 15.5% of 129Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 18.6% of 124Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 9.3% of 129Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 10.0% of 130Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 13.3% of 151Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 12.0% of 133Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 12.6% of 135Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 11.7% of 120Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 12.2% of 90Credit claimingpeak 50.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 21.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 50.0% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-02: 33.3% of 111Credit claiming, 2025-03: 17.7% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-04: 21.7% of 92Credit claiming, 2025-05: 6.9% of 73Credit claiming, 2025-06: 11.0% of 91Credit claiming, 2025-07: 14.9% of 87Credit claiming, 2025-08: 15.5% of 71Credit claiming, 2025-09: 12.2% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-10: 12.5% of 96Credit claiming, 2025-11: 14.6% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-12: 34.5% of 113Credit claiming, 2026-01: 21.3% of 94Credit claiming, 2026-02: 23.3% of 129Credit claiming, 2026-03: 23.4% of 124Credit claiming, 2026-04: 21.7% of 129Credit claiming, 2026-05: 22.3% of 130Credit claiming, 2026-06: 35.1% of 151Credit claiming, 2026-07: 29.3% of 133Credit claiming, 2026-08: 25.2% of 135Credit claiming, 2026-09: 23.3% of 120Credit claiming, 2026-10: 21.1% of 90Extreme labelspeak 12.5% · Sep ’26 · latest 11.1%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 3.8% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-02: 9.0% of 111Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.1% of 92Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.7% of 73Extreme labels, 2025-06: 5.5% of 91Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.5% of 87Extreme labels, 2025-08: 8.5% of 71Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.7% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-10: 9.4% of 96Extreme labels, 2025-11: 3.9% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-12: 4.4% of 113Extreme labels, 2026-01: 6.4% of 94Extreme labels, 2026-02: 7.8% of 129Extreme labels, 2026-03: 11.3% of 124Extreme labels, 2026-04: 6.2% of 129Extreme labels, 2026-05: 7.7% of 130Extreme labels, 2026-06: 9.3% of 151Extreme labels, 2026-07: 5.3% of 133Extreme labels, 2026-08: 8.2% of 135Extreme labels, 2026-09: 12.5% of 120Extreme labels, 2026-10: 11.1% of 90Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Hickenlooper, 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 ’25802.5%27.5%73.8%37.5%50.0%3.8%
Feb ’251112.7%57.7%90.1%22.5%33.3%9.0%
Mar ’25961.0%51.0%77.1%14.6%17.7%0.0%
Apr ’25922.2%46.7%85.9%18.5%21.7%1.1%
May ’25730.0%58.9%86.3%4.1%6.9%2.7%
Jun ’25910.0%54.9%79.1%4.4%11.0%5.5%
Jul ’25871.1%63.2%87.4%3.5%14.9%3.5%
Aug ’25711.4%46.5%78.9%7.0%15.5%8.5%
Sep ’25749.5%52.7%73.0%12.2%12.2%2.7%
Oct ’25961.0%52.1%84.4%20.8%12.5%9.4%
Nov ’251031.9%50.5%77.7%17.5%14.6%3.9%
Dec ’251139.7%28.3%85.0%19.5%34.5%4.4%
Jan ’269413.8%19.1%85.1%19.1%21.3%6.4%
Feb ’261293.9%56.6%83.7%15.5%23.3%7.8%
Mar ’261244.8%56.5%80.7%18.6%23.4%11.3%
Apr ’2612911.6%22.5%80.6%9.3%21.7%6.2%
May ’2613010.0%38.5%79.2%10.0%22.3%7.7%
Jun ’2615124.5%35.8%73.5%13.3%35.1%9.3%
Jul ’2613312.0%24.1%89.5%12.0%29.3%5.3%
Aug ’2613514.8%15.6%91.1%12.6%25.2%8.2%
Sep ’261206.7%20.8%86.7%11.7%23.3%12.5%
Oct ’269011.1%22.2%93.3%12.2%21.1%11.1%
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 Hickenlooper’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Putting D.C. to work for Colorado Making Washington work for Coloradans means listening to Coloradans’ needs and putting taxpayer money back where it belongs–into Colorado communities. Forwarded this email? Subscribe here<https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zZW5hdG9yaGlja2VubG9vcGVy…

Oct 21, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Economics and Public Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; Energy; Environmental Protection; Families; Health; Water Resources Development; Housing and Community Development; Labor and Employment; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works

Personal attacks

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

Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; target: Tina Peters · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Health; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at healthcare cuts · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: Tina PetersSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · Agriculture and Food · target: TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · International Affairs · Economics and Public Finance · target: Donald TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Donald TrumpSource

  5. 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 · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource

All 2,322 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: 1,752 posts on X, 433 press releases, 79 newsletters, 58 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Hickenlooper talks about most: 28% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 23rd 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 Hickenlooper talks about. The bills Hickenlooper sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Hickenlooper talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Hickenlooper
Peers
Economics and Public Finance547 statements
28%
24%
Health534 statements
28%
27%
Government Operations and Politics354 statements
18%
22%
Armed Forces and National Security308 statements
16%
21%
Energy233 statements
12%
8%
Show the data
Policy areas Hickenlooper talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowHickenlooperPeers
Economics and Public Finance28%24%
Health28%27%
Government Operations and Politics18%22%
Armed Forces and National Security16%21%
Energy12%8%
How to read the bars

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

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 28% (Senate Democrats 24%)28%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Democrats 0%)0%HealthHealth, talks about: 28% (Senate Democrats 27%)28%Health, legislates on: 11% (Senate Democrats 14%)11%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (Senate Democrats 22%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 9%)6%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 16% (Senate Democrats 21%)16%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 9% (Senate Democrats 7%)9%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 12% (Senate Democrats 8%)12%Energy, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 2%)6%
Show the data
Hickenlooper's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance28%24%0%0%
Health28%27%11%14%
Government Operations and Politics18%22%6%9%
Armed Forces and National Security16%21%9%7%
Energy12%8%6%2%
0.67

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 23rd of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Hickenlooper sits at −1.05 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 68% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.07 to −1.04, which understates the uncertainty; from 33,127 donors and 2,505 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”.

−1.05

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.07 to −1.04. From 33,127 donors and 2,505 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

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

The outlined dot is Hickenlooper, 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 Hickenlooper’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 Hickenlooper sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Hickenlooper −1.1All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Hickenlooper's CSIP score of −1.05 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Hickenlooper
Senate Democrats45−1.167%
All Senate98+0.432%
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 Hickenlooper 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 Hickenlooper.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Hickenlooper raised $9.5M in the 2026 cycle, 3.6 times the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 25% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 27% of itemized individual money came from Colorado.

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

Election cycle
$9.5M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 4,058 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): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.0M (52.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.6M (17.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (11.2%)Party committees: $62.0K (0.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.7M (18.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)53 squares$5.0M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)17 squares$1.6M
  • PACs and other committees11 squares$1.1M
  • Party committees1 squares$62.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)18 squares$1.7M
Show the data
Sources of Hickenlooper's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$5.0M52.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.6M17.2%
PACs and other committees$1.1M11.2%
Party committees$62.0K0.7%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.7M18.2%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $44.2M$44.2M20202022 cycle: $1.0M$1.0M20222024 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20242026 cycle: $9.5M$9.5M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Hickenlooper's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$44.2M
2022 cycle$1.0M
2024 cycle$1.2M
2026 cycle$9.5M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 27% came from Colorado.

  1. Colorado$1.2M
  2. New York$579.9K
  3. California$528.2K
  4. Massachusetts$251.7K
  5. Texas$246.6K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Hickenlooper
Median
2026
25%
35%
2024
22%
35%
2022
50%
35%
2020
37%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowHickenlooperMedian
2026 cycle25%35%
2024 cycle22%35%
2022 cycle50%35%
2020 cycle37%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $5,117AKMaine: $31.6KMEVermont: $10.2KVTNew Hampshire: $23.2KNHWashington: $108.1KWAIdaho: $3,600IDMontana: $8,950MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $13.3KMNIllinois: $216.3KILWisconsin: $31.8KWIMichigan: $15.4KMINew York: $579.9KNYRhode Island: $19.0KRIMassachusetts: $251.7KMAOregon: $23.0KORNevada: $21.2KNVWyoming: $22.7KWYSouth Dakota: $1,889SDIowa: $2,660IAIndiana: $16.2KINOhio: $18.3KOHPennsylvania: $122.9KPANew Jersey: $59.2KNJConnecticut: $113.5KCTCalifornia: $528.2KCAUtah: $9,975UTColorado: $1.2MCONebraska: $3,345NEMissouri: $14.3KMOKentucky: $11.2KKYWest Virginia: $322WVVirginia: $84.8KVAMaryland: $106.6KMDDelaware: $3,400DEArizona: $50.2KAZNew Mexico: $22.8KNMKansas: $7,302KSArkansas: $15.0KARTennessee: $60.5KTNNorth Carolina: $6,684NCSouth Carolina: $3,540SCDistrict of Columbia: $109.3KDCOklahoma: $4,755OKLouisiana: $1,354LAMississippi: $4,750MSAlabama: $1,675ALGeorgia: $25.9KGAHawaii: $4,850HITexas: $246.6KTXFlorida: $169.0KFL
Show the data
Hickenlooper's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Colorado$1.2M
New York$579.9K
California$528.2K
Massachusetts$251.7K
Texas$246.6K
Illinois$216.3K
Florida$169.0K
Pennsylvania$122.9K
Connecticut$113.5K
District of Columbia$109.3K
Washington$108.1K
Maryland$106.6K
Virginia$84.8K
Tennessee$60.5K
New Jersey$59.2K
Arizona$50.2K
Wisconsin$31.8K
Maine$31.6K
Georgia$25.9K
New Hampshire$23.2K
Oregon$23.0K
New Mexico$22.8K
Wyoming$22.7K
Nevada$21.2K
Rhode Island$19.0K
Ohio$18.3K
Indiana$16.2K
Michigan$15.4K
Arkansas$15.0K
Missouri$14.3K
Minnesota$13.3K
Kentucky$11.2K
Vermont$10.2K
Utah$9,975
Montana$8,950
Kansas$7,302
North Carolina$6,684
Alaska$5,117
Hawaii$4,850
Oklahoma$4,755
Mississippi$4,750
Idaho$3,600
South Carolina$3,540
Delaware$3,400
Nebraska$3,345
Iowa$2,660
South Dakota$1,889
Alabama$1,675
Louisiana$1,354
West Virginia$322
North DakotaNo data
4,058

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

27%

from Colorado

Of itemized individual dollars

How to read the map

Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Colorado. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.4%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 40%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 41%41%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 6.6%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 4.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.8%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.9%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.3%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.3%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.4%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Hickenlooper's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +1.00: 40% between −1.25 and −1.00, 41% between −1.00 and −0.75, 6.6% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.4%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0040%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7541%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.506.6%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.254.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.9%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.3%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.3%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.4%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Hickenlooper’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Hickenlooper’s own score is −1.05.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$1.2M 1,704 donors
  2. RETIRED$393.4K 555 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$326.0K 229 donors
  4. CEO$291.2K 110 donors
  5. INVESTOR$152.9K 34 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. DSCC$62.0K
  2. A NEW DIRECTION PAC$10.0K
  3. ADVANCING DEMOCRACY AND MOBILIZATION PAC$10.0K
  4. ALL FOR OUR COUNTRY LEADERSHIP PAC$10.0K
  5. ALSOPAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS$47.4K 15 donors
  2. NEXTERA ENERGY$25.0K 15 donors
  3. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$24.5K 8 donors
  4. MICROSOFT CORPORATION$20.8K 17 donors
  5. COMCAST$19.5K 16 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Hickenlooper voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 94.8% of party-line votes and missed 1.1% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hickenlooper voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 48 times.

915 roll calls Hickenlooper 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 Hickenlooper 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 94.8%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 29th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Hickenlooper
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.9%
97.0%
10th of 45
Party unity
94.8%
95.3%
29th of 45
Show the data
Hickenlooper's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowHickenlooperPeers
Attendance98.9%97.0%
Party unity94.8%95.3%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
YeaWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
NayWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Hickenlooper most often

  1. Michael BennetD823 shared votes97%
  2. Ben LujánD894 shared votes95%
  3. Kirsten GillibrandD887 shared votes94%
  4. Maria CantwellD903 shared votes94%
  5. Jon OssoffD854 shared votes94%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Hickenlooper least often

  1. Rick ScottR903 shared votes10%
  2. Tommy TubervilleR845 shared votes11%
  3. Mike LeeR880 shared votes11%
  4. Ted CruzR858 shared votes11%
  5. Ron JohnsonR893 shared votes11%
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

Hickenlooper sponsored 37 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 440 others. 24% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 4th of 45).

The bills Hickenlooper 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

Sponsored37 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3737Sponsored, In committee: 3737Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 66Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored440 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 440440Cosponsored, In committee: 437437Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 9494Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Hickenlooper sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3737600
Cosponsored4404379455
How to read the blocks

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

24%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 4th of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Bennet88
  2. Cory Booker75
  3. Alex Padilla74
  4. Christopher Coons69
  5. Jeanne Shaheen69
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 Hickenlooper’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S.Res. 950A resolution designating the week of September 14 through September 18, 2026, as "National Clean Energy Week".CosponsorOct 15, 2026IntroducedEnergyUnder authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026
S. 5621Safe Spaces for All ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEmergency ManagementRead twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5630Stop Orphaned Wells ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEnergyRead twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5668Methane Monitoring Science Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsRead twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5675Nutrition Continuity for Military Families Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityRead twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Sep 30, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 119 times in 90 days. Hickenlooper’s official site had 25 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Hickenlooper posted on Oct 24, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Images Hickenlooper posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of people sit beneath a blue canopy as a man in a blue suit speaks to them. A red fire engine is parked behind the gathering. Text and logos are visible on the fire engine and nearby equipment.
    A group of people sit beneath a blue canopy as a man in a blue suit speaks to them. A red fire engine is parked behind the gathering. Text and logos are visible on the fire engine and nearby equipment.View post
  • A group of people sits in a circle beneath a blue canopy at an outdoor gathering. One person speaks into a microphone while a camera records the discussion. Vehicles and buildings are visible in the background, and there is some text on the canopy.
    A group of people sits in a circle beneath a blue canopy at an outdoor gathering. One person speaks into a microphone while a camera records the discussion. Vehicles and buildings are visible in the background, and there is some text on the canopy.View post
  • Four people stand and talk in front of a large food bank delivery truck. The truck has a colorful illustration of people preparing food at a table, along with prominent text.
    Four people stand and talk in front of a large food bank delivery truck. The truck has a colorful illustration of people preparing food at a table, along with prominent text.View post
  • A large group of people pose for a photo outdoors in front of a fire truck and a large black-and-white vehicle or trailer. There is visible text on the vehicles.
    A large group of people pose for a photo outdoors in front of a fire truck and a large black-and-white vehicle or trailer. There is visible text on the vehicles.View post
  • Two smiling men pose together inside a living room. One man is seated in a mobility scooter and holds a small object, while the other stands beside him. There is text on a paper and a bag in the foreground.
    Two smiling men pose together inside a living room. One man is seated in a mobility scooter and holds a small object, while the other stands beside him. There is text on a paper and a bag in the foreground.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 Hickenlooper is most unusual among Senate Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
H000273
Bioguide
H000273
FEC candidate ids
S0CO00575

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

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

How the measures work

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

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top