Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Tennessee

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

Bioguide H000601FEC S0TN00169

Portrait of Bill Hagerty, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
97%
of Senate Republicans score to the left of Hagerty on the CSIP scale

CSIP score +1.36 (approximate range +1.34 to +1.38, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 9,355 donors and 2,411 roll calls.

CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Hagerty sits among Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. Hagerty raised $8.4M in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans (median $3.2M). 34% of Hagerty’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Tennessee, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans.

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

CSIP ideology

+1.36

More conservative than 97% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.02

Party unity

100%

Senate Republicans average 98.4% · ranks 4th of 53 · 8 votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Raised, 2026

$8.4M

Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 8th of 51

From Tennessee, 2026

34%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 10th of 50 Senate Republicans

Out of committee

11%

Senate Republicans average 22% · ranks 41st of 51

Attendance

96.5%

Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 40th of 53 · 915 roll calls

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Hagerty says

Hagerty stresses bipartisanship less than 71% of Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 8.1% of 1,483 statements, against 13% for the average Senate Republican; 38th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Hagerty’s 1,483 statements in the 119th Congress (1,236 posts on X, 191 press releases, 54 Congressional Record speeches, 2 newsletters) 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 Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Hagerty
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,082 statements
73%
70%
24th of 52
Credit claiming565 statements
38%
36%
24th of 52
Policy criticism220 statements
15%
17%
32nd of 52
Bipartisanship120 statements
8%
13%
38th of 52
Personal attacks44 statements
3%
2%
16th of 52
Show the data
Hagerty's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowHagertyPeers
Policy discussion73%70%
Credit claiming38%36%
Policy criticism15%17%
Bipartisanship8%13%
Personal attacks3%2%
1,483

statements classified

1,236 posts on X, 191 press releases, 54 Congressional Record speeches, 2 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,236 (83.3%)posts on X 1,236press releases: 191 (12.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 54 (3.6%)newsletters: 2 (0.1%)
Show the data
Hagerty's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,236
press releases191
Congressional Record speeches54
newsletters2
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Hagerty used extreme labels in 3.7% of statements, above the peer average. 55 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “radical”20
  2. “far left”14
  3. “communist”5
  4. “extreme”4
  5. “woke”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats4
  2. far left4
  3. Left3
  4. Biden DOJ2
  5. leftist2
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: 1012025-02: 742025-03: 662025-04: 1012025-05: 832025-06: 1062025-07: 642025-08: 442025-09: 592025-10: 722025-11: 382025-12: 582026-01: 982026-02: 712026-03: 462026-04: 622026-05: 312026-06: 682026-07: 712026-08: 662026-09: 682026-10: 36peak 106 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 7.9% · Jan ’25 · latest 2.8%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 7.9% of 101Personal attacks, 2025-02: 6.8% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.0% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.0% of 101Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.8% of 106Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.6% of 64Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 44Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-10: 6.9% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-11: 5.3% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-01: 4.1% of 98Personal attacks, 2026-02: 4.2% of 71Personal attacks, 2026-03: 2.2% of 46Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 71Personal attacks, 2026-08: 4.5% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-09: 4.4% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-10: 2.8% of 36Policy criticismpeak 34.2% · Nov ’25 · latest 2.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 23.8% of 101Policy criticism, 2025-02: 23.0% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-03: 13.6% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-04: 14.8% of 101Policy criticism, 2025-05: 18.1% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-06: 19.8% of 106Policy criticism, 2025-07: 15.6% of 64Policy criticism, 2025-08: 13.6% of 44Policy criticism, 2025-09: 17.0% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-10: 18.1% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-11: 34.2% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-12: 10.3% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-01: 1.0% of 98Policy criticism, 2026-02: 12.7% of 71Policy criticism, 2026-03: 23.9% of 46Policy criticism, 2026-04: 9.7% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-05: 19.4% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-06: 14.7% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-07: 7.0% of 71Policy criticism, 2026-08: 6.1% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-09: 11.8% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-10: 2.8% of 36Policy discussionpeak 90.8% · Jan ’26 · latest 80.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 70.3% of 101Policy discussion, 2025-02: 79.7% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-03: 75.8% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-04: 69.3% of 101Policy discussion, 2025-05: 84.3% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-06: 69.8% of 106Policy discussion, 2025-07: 68.8% of 64Policy discussion, 2025-08: 61.4% of 44Policy discussion, 2025-09: 64.4% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-10: 63.9% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-11: 65.8% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-12: 70.7% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-01: 90.8% of 98Policy discussion, 2026-02: 63.4% of 71Policy discussion, 2026-03: 71.7% of 46Policy discussion, 2026-04: 69.3% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-05: 74.2% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-06: 67.7% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-07: 70.4% of 71Policy discussion, 2026-08: 80.3% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-09: 82.3% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-10: 80.6% of 36Bipartisanshippeak 23.9% · Mar ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 5.0% of 101Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.8% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 13.6% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 4.0% of 101Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 16.9% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 8.5% of 106Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 7.8% of 64Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 6.8% of 44Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 15.3% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 6.9% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 7.9% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 10.3% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 3.1% of 98Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 7.0% of 71Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 23.9% of 46Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 8.1% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 6.5% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 8.8% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 2.8% of 71Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 3.0% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 10.3% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 36Credit claimingpeak 55.4% · Feb ’25 · latest 44.4%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 39.6% of 101Credit claiming, 2025-02: 55.4% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-03: 40.9% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-04: 32.7% of 101Credit claiming, 2025-05: 41.0% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-06: 38.7% of 106Credit claiming, 2025-07: 45.3% of 64Credit claiming, 2025-08: 36.4% of 44Credit claiming, 2025-09: 37.3% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-10: 29.2% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-11: 36.8% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-12: 50.0% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-01: 26.5% of 98Credit claiming, 2026-02: 43.7% of 71Credit claiming, 2026-03: 50.0% of 46Credit claiming, 2026-04: 25.8% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-05: 35.5% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-06: 38.2% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-07: 33.8% of 71Credit claiming, 2026-08: 22.7% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-09: 44.1% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-10: 44.4% of 36Extreme labelspeak 10.2% · Sep ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 8.9% of 101Extreme labels, 2025-02: 4.0% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-03: 6.1% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-04: 5.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.4% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.8% of 106Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.6% of 64Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2025-09: 10.2% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-10: 8.3% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-11: 5.3% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.0% of 98Extreme labels, 2026-02: 5.6% of 71Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.2% of 46Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-05: 3.2% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-06: 4.4% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-07: 2.8% of 71Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.9% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 36Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Hagerty, 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 ’251017.9%23.8%70.3%5.0%39.6%8.9%
Feb ’25746.8%23.0%79.7%6.8%55.4%4.0%
Mar ’25663.0%13.6%75.8%13.6%40.9%6.1%
Apr ’251011.0%14.8%69.3%4.0%32.7%5.0%
May ’25830.0%18.1%84.3%16.9%41.0%2.4%
Jun ’251062.8%19.8%69.8%8.5%38.7%2.8%
Jul ’25641.6%15.6%68.8%7.8%45.3%1.6%
Aug ’25440.0%13.6%61.4%6.8%36.4%0.0%
Sep ’25590.0%17.0%64.4%15.3%37.3%10.2%
Oct ’25726.9%18.1%63.9%6.9%29.2%8.3%
Nov ’25385.3%34.2%65.8%7.9%36.8%5.3%
Dec ’25580.0%10.3%70.7%10.3%50.0%0.0%
Jan ’26984.1%1.0%90.8%3.1%26.5%1.0%
Feb ’26714.2%12.7%63.4%7.0%43.7%5.6%
Mar ’26462.2%23.9%71.7%23.9%50.0%2.2%
Apr ’26620.0%9.7%69.3%8.1%25.8%0.0%
May ’26310.0%19.4%74.2%6.5%35.5%3.2%
Jun ’26682.9%14.7%67.7%8.8%38.2%4.4%
Jul ’26710.0%7.0%70.4%2.8%33.8%2.8%
Aug ’26664.5%6.1%80.3%3.0%22.7%0.0%
Sep ’26684.4%11.8%82.3%10.3%44.1%2.9%
Oct ’26362.8%2.8%80.6%0.0%44.4%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 Hagerty’s words

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

Personal attacks

Hagerty Formally Calls for Disbarment of Jack Smith Jack Smith, a Biden DOJ prosecutor, is accused of withholding critical information from a federal court in violation of Tennessee ethics rules WASHINGTON—On Wednesday, United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) submitted a formal complaint to the T…

Oct 1, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Government Operations and Politics; Law; target: Jack Smith · Source

Bipartisanship

Hagerty Advocates for the Ratepayer Protection Act The bill passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 417-3 WASHINGTON—Today, United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) spoke on the Senate floor, imploring his colleagues to vote in favor of the Ratepayer Protection…

Sep 30, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy; Science, Technology, Communications; Commerce · Source

Extreme label

ICYMI—Hagerty JoinsSunday Morning Futures on Fox News Channel to Discuss Trump, GOP Accomplishments WASHINGTON—On Sunday, United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations, Appropriations, and Banking committees, joined Sunday Morning Futures on Fox News Channel to…

Sep 28, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Crime and Law Enforcement; Economics and Public Finance; Energy; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Immigration; Taxation; extreme label “radical” aimed at DSA · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Press releases

    Hagerty Formally Calls for Disbarment of Jack Smith Jack Smith, a Biden DOJ prosecutor, is accused of withholding critical information from a federal court in violation of Tennessee ethics rules WASHINGTON—On Wednesday, United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) submitted a formal complaint to the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Responsibility, calling for the disbarment of former special counsel Jack…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · Law · target: Jack SmithSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Law · Government Operations and Politics · target: Jack SmithSource

  3. 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 · Law · target: BoasbergSource

  4. 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 · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Jack SmithSource

  5. 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: Verizon CEO, Verizon CLOSource

All 1,483 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: 1,236 posts on X, 191 press releases, 54 Congressional Record speeches, 2 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Hagerty talks about most: 22% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.64 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 36th of 52).

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 Hagerty talks about. The bills Hagerty sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Hagerty talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Hagerty
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security242 statements
22%
25%
International Affairs224 statements
21%
11%
Government Operations and Politics194 statements
18%
19%
Economics and Public Finance193 statements
18%
17%
Crime and Law Enforcement176 statements
16%
11%
Show the data
Policy areas Hagerty talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowHagertyPeers
Armed Forces and National Security22%25%
International Affairs21%11%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%
Economics and Public Finance18%17%
Crime and Law Enforcement16%11%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Hagerty’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate Republicans. 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 Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 22% (Senate Republicans 25%)22%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 2% (Senate Republicans 8%)2%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 21% (Senate Republicans 11%)21%International Affairs, legislates on: 11% (Senate Republicans 8%)11%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (Senate Republicans 19%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (Senate Republicans 11%)11%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 18% (Senate Republicans 17%)18%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (Senate Republicans 1%)1%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 16% (Senate Republicans 11%)16%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 13% (Senate Republicans 8%)13%
Show the data
Hagerty's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security22%25%2%8%
International Affairs21%11%11%8%
Government Operations and Politics18%19%11%11%
Economics and Public Finance18%17%1%1%
Crime and Law Enforcement16%11%13%8%
0.64

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 36th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Hagerty sits at +1.36 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 97% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +1.34 to +1.38, which understates the uncertainty; from 9,355 donors and 2,411 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”.

+1.36

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.34 to +1.38. From 9,355 donors and 2,411 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Hagerty +1.4Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Hagerty, 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 Hagerty’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 Hagerty sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Hagerty +1.4All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Hagerty's CSIP score of +1.36 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Hagerty
Senate Republicans51+1.096%
All Senate98+0.498%
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 Hagerty 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 Hagerty.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Hagerty raised $8.4M in the 2026 cycle, 2.6 times the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 25% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 34% of itemized individual money came from Tennessee.

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
$8.4M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 4,023 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.1M (13.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)PACs and other committees: $1.8M (21.1%)Party committees: $62.0K (0.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $2.2M (25.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)39 squares$3.3M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)13 squares$1.1M
  • PACs and other committees21 squares$1.8M
  • Party committees1 squares$62.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)26 squares$2.2M
Show the data
Sources of Hagerty's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$3.3M39.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.1M13.0%
PACs and other committees$1.8M21.1%
Party committees$62.0K0.7%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$2.2M25.9%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $15.8M$15.8M20202022 cycle: $3.9M$3.9M20222024 cycle: $4.9M$4.9M20242026 cycle: $8.4M$8.4M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Hagerty's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$15.8M
2022 cycle$3.9M
2024 cycle$4.9M
2026 cycle$8.4M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 34% came from Tennessee.

  1. Tennessee$1.3M
  2. Florida$270.0K
  3. California$250.3K
  4. New York$246.5K
  5. Texas$238.5K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Hagerty
Median
2026
25%
17%
2024
30%
17%
2022
29%
17%
2020
4%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowHagertyMedian
2026 cycle25%17%
2024 cycle30%17%
2022 cycle29%17%
2020 cycle4%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,930AKMaine: $4,562MEVermont: $3,742VTNew Hampshire: $4,849NHWashington: $31.9KWAIdaho: $4,849IDMontana: $4,164MTNorth Dakota: $148NDMinnesota: $10.5KMNIllinois: $43.3KILWisconsin: $19.7KWIMichigan: $127.9KMINew York: $246.5KNYRhode Island: $1,656RIMassachusetts: $54.5KMAOregon: $13.2KORNevada: $13.1KNVWyoming: $3,741WYSouth Dakota: $3,054SDIowa: $4,354IAIndiana: $29.4KINOhio: $40.7KOHPennsylvania: $33.0KPANew Jersey: $62.0KNJConnecticut: $16.7KCTCalifornia: $250.3KCAUtah: $9,889UTColorado: $15.1KCONebraska: $5,486NEMissouri: $21.9KMOKentucky: $12.8KKYWest Virginia: $3,780WVVirginia: $196.2KVAMaryland: $43.8KMDDelaware: $1,738DEArizona: $56.7KAZNew Mexico: $9,072NMKansas: $13.6KKSArkansas: $22.1KARTennessee: $1.3MTNNorth Carolina: $60.8KNCSouth Carolina: $41.8KSCDistrict of Columbia: $152.6KDCOklahoma: $13.6KOKLouisiana: $19.0KLAMississippi: $20.6KMSAlabama: $113.8KALGeorgia: $57.6KGAHawaii: $1,643HITexas: $238.5KTXFlorida: $270.0KFL
Show the data
Hagerty's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Tennessee$1.3M
Florida$270.0K
California$250.3K
New York$246.5K
Texas$238.5K
Virginia$196.2K
District of Columbia$152.6K
Michigan$127.9K
Alabama$113.8K
New Jersey$62.0K
North Carolina$60.8K
Georgia$57.6K
Arizona$56.7K
Massachusetts$54.5K
Maryland$43.8K
Illinois$43.3K
South Carolina$41.8K
Ohio$40.7K
Pennsylvania$33.0K
Washington$31.9K
Indiana$29.4K
Arkansas$22.1K
Missouri$21.9K
Mississippi$20.6K
Wisconsin$19.7K
Louisiana$19.0K
Connecticut$16.7K
Colorado$15.1K
Oklahoma$13.6K
Kansas$13.6K
Oregon$13.2K
Nevada$13.1K
Kentucky$12.8K
Minnesota$10.5K
Utah$9,889
New Mexico$9,072
Nebraska$5,486
New Hampshire$4,849
Idaho$4,849
Maine$4,562
Iowa$4,354
Montana$4,164
West Virginia$3,780
Vermont$3,742
Wyoming$3,741
South Dakota$3,054
Alaska$1,930
Delaware$1,738
Rhode Island$1,656
Hawaii$1,643
North Dakota$148
4,023

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

34%

from Tennessee

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.1%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.4%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.9%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 3.0%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 6.3%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 22%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 37%37%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 26%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Hagerty's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.75: 6.3% between +0.50 and +0.75, 22% between +0.75 and +1.00, 37% between +1.00 and +1.25, 26% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.1%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.503.0%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.756.3%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0022%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2537%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5026%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Hagerty’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Hagerty’s own score is +1.36.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$1.2M 2,778 donors
  2. HOMEMAKER$218.5K 37 donors
  3. CEO$203.1K 55 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$124.4K 34 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$103.5K 49 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NRSC$62.0K
  2. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (MORPAC)$21.8K
  3. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. PAC$20.0K
  4. AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$10.0K
  5. ALABAMA FIRST PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. WELLS FARGO$34.1K 13 donors
  2. APOLLO$26.4K 11 donors
  3. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$26.0K 6 donors
  4. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS$19.1K 18 donors
  5. CITI$16.0K 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Hagerty voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 100% of party-line votes and missed 3.5% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hagerty voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 8 times.

915 roll calls Hagerty could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Republicans. 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 Hagerty voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

8

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 100%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 4th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Hagerty
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.5%
97.1%
40th of 53
Party unity
100%
98.4%
4th of 53
Show the data
Hagerty's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowHagertyPeers
Attendance96.5%97.1%
Party unity100%98.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 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
NayWith 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
YeaWith 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 Hagerty most often

  1. Marsha BlackburnR837 shared votes100%
  2. John BarrassoR879 shared votes100%
  3. Bernie MorenoR878 shared votes100%
  4. Eric SchmittR874 shared votes100%
  5. Jim BanksR871 shared votes100%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Hagerty least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD876 shared votes2.4%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD870 shared votes2.6%
  3. Bernie SandersI820 shared votes2.7%
  4. Christopher MurphyD860 shared votes3.0%
  5. Chris Van HollenD870 shared votes3.7%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Hagerty sponsored 27 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 197 others. 11% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 41st of 51).

The bills Hagerty 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

Sponsored27 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2727Sponsored, In committee: 2727Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored197 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 197197Cosponsored, In committee: 193193Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 5151Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Hagerty sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2727211
Cosponsored1971935155
How to read the blocks

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

11%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 41st of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Marsha Blackburn63
  2. Pete Ricketts50
  3. Ted Budd45
  4. Ted Cruz43
  5. Rick Scott43
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 Hagerty’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. 934A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 923A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week".CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberAgriculture and FoodSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 912A resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (consideration: CR S5074) Sep 28, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026
S.Res. 903A resolution designating October 30, 2026, as a national day of remembrance for the workers of the nuclear weapons program of the United States.CosponsorSep 24, 2026Passed one chamberArmed Forces and National SecuritySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5020; text: CR S5008) Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 33 times in 90 days. Hagerty’s official site had 22 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Hagerty posted on Oct 22, 2026.

The lab crawls Hagerty’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 Hagerty 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 Hagerty posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Three men sit around a table in a sheriff’s office or conference room. A uniformed sheriff speaks with a suited man while another man is seen from behind. A red state flag and sheriff’s insignia are displayed in the background, and there is visible text on the insignia.
    Three men sit around a table in a sheriff’s office or conference room. A uniformed sheriff speaks with a suited man while another man is seen from behind. A red state flag and sheriff’s insignia are displayed in the background, and there is visible text on the insignia.View post
  • A group of men, including law enforcement officers and officials, pose for a photograph outside a building with large glass windows. Text is visible on the window behind them.
    A group of men, including law enforcement officers and officials, pose for a photograph outside a building with large glass windows. Text is visible on the window behind them.View post
  • A photograph of two smiling men in suits standing together outdoors. Behind them are buildings, trees, an American flag, and rows of chairs. No prominent text is visible.
    A photograph of two smiling men in suits standing together outdoors. Behind them are buildings, trees, an American flag, and rows of chairs. No prominent text is visible.View post
  • Four men pose together outdoors in front of a brick building. One wears a police uniform, while the others wear business suits. A fifth person is visible in the background. There is a small amount of text on the uniform and clothing.
    Four men pose together outdoors in front of a brick building. One wears a police uniform, while the others wear business suits. A fifth person is visible in the background. There is a small amount of text on the uniform and clothing.View post
  • A group of officials wearing hard hats pose at a construction site for a groundbreaking ceremony, holding shovels and a blue ribbon. A large American flag hangs from a crane above them. There is no prominent visible text.
    A group of officials wearing hard hats pose at a construction site for a groundbreaking ceremony, holding shovels and a blue ribbon. A large American flag hangs from a crane above them. There is no prominent visible text.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 Hagerty is most unusual among Senate Republicans, 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
H000601
Bioguide
H000601
FEC candidate ids
S0TN00169

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