Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Transportation and Public Works; Labor and Employment; Economics and Public Finance · Source
1,982
statements classified
1,165 posts on X, 741 press releases, 52 Congressional Record speeches in the 119th Congress. No measure in the 119th Congress stands far from the peer average.
Every post, press release, newsletter and floor speech the lab collected and ran through its classifier.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Democrats. Heinrich voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 56 times; party unity 93.8%, in the bottom half of Senate Democrats (average 95.3%). 25% of Heinrich’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom quarter of Senate Democrats (median 35%). 30% of Heinrich’s statements claim credit, in the top half of Senate Democrats (average 26%).
The measures on which Heinrich 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.
Party unity
93.8%
Senate Democrats average 95.3% · ranks 34th of 45 · 56 votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Small donations, 2026
25%
Senate Democrats’ median 35% · ranks 35th of 45
Credit claiming
30%
Senate Democrats average 26% · ranks 14th of 45
Attendance
96.2%
Senate Democrats average 97.0% · ranks 31st of 45 · 915 roll calls
From New Mexico, 2026
25%
Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 28th of 41 Senate Democrats
CSIP ideology
−1.15
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 Heinrich, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Heinrich is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Heinrich says
Heinrich attacks opponents personally less than 62% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 8.6% of 1,982 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 29th of 45.
An AI model reads each of Heinrich’s 1,982 statements in the 119th Congress (1,165 posts on X, 741 press releases, 52 Congressional Record speeches, 24 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Heinrich
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,566 statements
79%
78%
24th of 45
Policy criticism725 statements
37%
37%
23rd of 45
Credit claiming603 statements
30%
26%
14th of 45
Bipartisanship306 statements
15%
18%
24th of 45
Personal attacks170 statements
9%
11%
29th of 45
Show the data
| Row | Heinrich | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 79% | 78% |
| Policy criticism | 37% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 30% | 26% |
| Bipartisanship | 15% | 18% |
| Personal attacks | 9% | 11% |
1,982
statements classified
1,165 posts on X, 741 press releases, 52 Congressional Record speeches, 24 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,165 |
| press releases | 741 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 52 |
| newsletters | 24 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Heinrich; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Heinrich does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Heinrich used extreme labels in 1.3% of statements, below the peer average. 25 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 2.4%.
- “extreme”7
- “radical”6
- “MAGA”1
- “woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Donald Trump3
- Radical Left2
- SAVE Act2
- ICE1
- management changes1
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 150 | 6.0% | 36.0% | 85.3% | 16.7% | 42.7% | 2.7% |
| Feb ’25 | 160 | 20.0% | 50.0% | 76.3% | 10.6% | 18.8% | 0.6% |
| Mar ’25 | 116 | 12.9% | 21.6% | 61.2% | 4.3% | 16.4% | 1.7% |
| Apr ’25 | 102 | 5.9% | 33.3% | 74.5% | 10.8% | 30.4% | 0.0% |
| May ’25 | 80 | 10.0% | 40.0% | 66.3% | 10.0% | 18.8% | 2.5% |
| Jun ’25 | 97 | 7.2% | 42.3% | 84.5% | 18.6% | 26.8% | 1.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 91 | 7.7% | 31.9% | 81.3% | 14.3% | 34.1% | 2.2% |
| Aug ’25 | 71 | 8.5% | 35.2% | 78.9% | 12.7% | 38.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 103 | 6.8% | 34.0% | 65.0% | 18.4% | 19.4% | 3.9% |
| Oct ’25 | 97 | 9.3% | 36.1% | 73.2% | 22.7% | 23.7% | 2.1% |
| Nov ’25 | 75 | 10.7% | 40.0% | 73.3% | 18.7% | 36.0% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 74 | 5.4% | 35.1% | 82.4% | 33.8% | 40.5% | 1.4% |
| Jan ’26 | 77 | 5.2% | 28.6% | 80.5% | 13.0% | 28.6% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 61 | 9.8% | 50.8% | 80.3% | 11.5% | 24.6% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 85 | 7.1% | 42.4% | 82.3% | 12.9% | 34.1% | 2.4% |
| Apr ’26 | 83 | 9.6% | 31.3% | 84.3% | 14.5% | 30.1% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 77 | 1.3% | 45.5% | 83.1% | 13.0% | 32.5% | 1.3% |
| Jun ’26 | 72 | 6.9% | 38.9% | 86.1% | 30.6% | 52.8% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’26 | 86 | 5.8% | 32.6% | 89.5% | 16.3% | 31.4% | 1.2% |
| Aug ’26 | 73 | 11.0% | 38.4% | 93.2% | 9.6% | 35.6% | 1.4% |
| Sep ’26 | 101 | 5.9% | 29.7% | 82.2% | 15.8% | 29.7% | 1.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 51 | 5.9% | 29.4% | 88.2% | 21.6% | 45.1% | 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 Heinrich’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 22, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; International Affairs; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Science, Technology, Communications; target: Donald Trump, Elon Musk · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Sep 14, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Energy; Public Lands and Natural Resources; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at red hats · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Science, Technology, Communications · target: Donald Trump, Elon MuskSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · EnergySource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: TrumpSource
Press releases
Heinrich Statement Commemorating National Public Lands Day WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released the following statement on National Public Lands Day: “Our public lands are part of our shared identity – they are a physical manifestation of our Jeffersonian democracy and belong to all of us, no matter where you com…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Environmental Protection · Energy · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · Law · target: Donald TrumpSource
Press releases
Heinrich Demands Trump Admin Immediately Halt Construction of Trump’s 250-Foot Arch Heinrich, colleagues: “Putting the President’s ego ahead of these memorials adds another stain on this administration’s legacy” WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, led his Senate colleagues in sending a letter to Department of the Interio…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Law · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource
All 1,982 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: 1,165 posts on X, 741 press releases, 52 Congressional Record speeches, 24 newsletters.
Policy
Public Lands and Natural Resources is what Heinrich talks about most: 26% of policy statements, 7.2 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 31st 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 Heinrich talks about. The bills Heinrich sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Heinrich talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Heinrich
Peers
Public Lands and Natural Resources407 statements
26%
4%
Economics and Public Finance405 statements
26%
24%
Government Operations and Politics366 statements
23%
22%
Health345 statements
22%
27%
Energy329 statements
21%
8%
Show the data
| Row | Heinrich | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 26% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 26% | 24% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 22% |
| Health | 22% | 27% |
| Energy | 21% | 8% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Heinrich’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.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Lands and Natural Resources | 26% | 4% | 7% | 4% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 26% | 24% | 0% | 0% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 22% | 8% | 9% |
| Health | 22% | 27% | 15% | 14% |
| Energy | 21% | 8% | 3% | 2% |
0.65
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 31st of 45.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Heinrich legislates on exactly the areas Heinrich 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 Heinrich sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Heinrich sits at −1.15 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 52% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.16 to −1.14, which understates the uncertainty; from 9,342 donors and 4,909 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”.
−1.15
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.16 to −1.14. From 9,342 donors and 4,909 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Heinrich, 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 Heinrich’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 Heinrich sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Democrats45 · median −1.1
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Heinrich |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Democrats | 45 | −1.1 | 47% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 22% |
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 Heinrich 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 Heinrich.
Money
Heinrich raised $1.7M in the 2026 cycle, below the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 25% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 25% of itemized individual money came from New Mexico.
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.
$1.7M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 777 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)52 squares$884.5K
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)17 squares$297.9K
- PACs and other committees30 squares$506.4K
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)1 squares$18.7K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $884.5K | 51.8% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $297.9K | 17.4% |
| PACs and other committees | $506.4K | 29.7% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $18.7K | 1.1% |
What this means, and what it doesn’t
Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.
Receipts by cycle
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $645.3K |
| 2022 cycle | $1.8M |
| 2024 cycle | $10.7M |
| 2026 cycle | $1.7M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 25% came from New Mexico.
- New Mexico$170.1K
- District of Columbia$148.1K
- Virginia$96.7K
- Maryland$71.9K
- California$44.5K
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%
Heinrich
Median
2026
25%
35%
2024
18%
35%
2022
23%
35%
2020
40%
35%
Show the data
| Row | Heinrich | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 25% | 35% |
| 2024 cycle | 18% | 35% |
| 2022 cycle | 23% | 35% |
| 2020 cycle | 40% | 35% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New Mexico | $170.1K |
| District of Columbia | $148.1K |
| Virginia | $96.7K |
| Maryland | $71.9K |
| California | $44.5K |
| New York | $29.8K |
| Washington | $20.0K |
| Massachusetts | $12.1K |
| Florida | $11.2K |
| Missouri | $11.1K |
| North Carolina | $10.0K |
| Louisiana | $8,500 |
| Texas | $8,496 |
| Illinois | $7,632 |
| Delaware | $6,100 |
| Colorado | $5,325 |
| Montana | $5,250 |
| New Hampshire | $4,450 |
| Tennessee | $4,120 |
| Pennsylvania | $3,650 |
| Arizona | $2,825 |
| Minnesota | $2,500 |
| Utah | $2,500 |
| Oklahoma | $2,500 |
| Nevada | $2,080 |
| Ohio | $1,970 |
| Arkansas | $1,000 |
| Connecticut | $750 |
| Indiana | $700 |
| Michigan | $500 |
| Kansas | $500 |
| Oregon | $250 |
| Hawaii | $250 |
| New Jersey | $214 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Maine | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| North Dakota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Iowa | No data |
| Nebraska | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| Mississippi | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
777
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
25%
from New Mexico
Of itemized individual dollars
How to read the map
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is New Mexico. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.5% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 54% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 28% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 3.5% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 3.4% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 1.5% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 2.6% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 2.9% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 2.6% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.5% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 0.1% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Heinrich’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Heinrich’s own score is −1.15.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$160.0K 320 donors
- CONSULTANT$83.8K 49 donors
- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER$60.8K 26 donors
- ATTORNEY$53.7K 32 donors
- RETIRED$51.3K 116 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ARAPAC)$10.0K
- DOMINION ENERGY, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE - DOMINION PAC$10.0K
- NOVO NORDISK INC. PAC (NOVO NORDISK PAC)$10.0K
- PSYCHOLOGY PAC OF AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION SERVICES INC.$10.0K
- CRUX CLIMATE, INC. PAC (CRUX PAC)$7,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP$14.5K 7 donors
- CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INC.$11.8K 8 donors
- CASSIDY & ASSOCIATES, INC.$10.0K 3 donors
- BGR GROUP$9,500 7 donors
- TIBER CREEK GROUP INC.$7,500 7 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Heinrich voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 93.8% of party-line votes and missed 3.7% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Heinrich voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 56 times.
915 roll calls Heinrich 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 Heinrich voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
56
votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Party unity 93.8%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 34th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Heinrich, the thin grey bar the Senate Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Heinrich
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.2%
97.0%
31st of 45
Party unity
93.8%
95.3%
34th of 45
Show the data
| Row | Heinrich | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 96.2% | 97.0% |
| Party unity | 93.8% | 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
| 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party 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 | Yea | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became 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 | Nay | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Heinrich most often
- Ben LujánD870 shared votes96%
- Kirsten GillibrandD863 shared votes94%
- Tammy BaldwinD878 shared votes94%
- Jon OssoffD830 shared votes94%
- Elissa SlotkinD856 shared votes93%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Heinrich least often
- Rick ScottR879 shared votes11%
- Mike LeeR857 shared votes11%
- Ron JohnsonR869 shared votes12%
- Ted CruzR834 shared votes12%
- Tommy TubervilleR822 shared votes12%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Heinrich sponsored 62 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 436 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 21st of 45).
The bills Heinrich sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.
Bills by stage
Counts for the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 62 | 62 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 436 | 436 | 73 | 5 | 5 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Heinrich sponsored, ochre blocks bills Heinrich cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
13%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 21st of 45.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Heinrich, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Ben Luján108
- Cory Booker107
- Richard Blumenthal104
- Ron Wyden101
- Alex Padilla95
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 Heinrich’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S. 5650 | SPR Readiness and Long-Term Modernization Act | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Energy | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5653 | Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Environmental Protection | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5659 | Literacy Improvement for Transformation Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Education | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5675 | Nutrition Continuity for Military Families Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Armed Forces and National Security | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 935 | A resolution designating October 23, 2026, as "National Marine Sanctuary Day". | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Public Lands and Natural Resources | Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5268) Sep 30, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 115 times in 90 days. Heinrich’s official site had 39 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Heinrich posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Heinrich’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 Heinrich posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 39
pages crawled
115changes in 90 days
How to read the counts
“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.
Social accounts
- XMartinHeinrich
- FacebookMartinHeinrich
- Instagramsenatormartinheinrich
- YouTubeSenMartinHeinrich
- Emaildonotreply@heinrich.senate.gov
Images Heinrich posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
A political graphic shows Donald Trump pointing beside a large claim about New Mexico families spending more under his presidency. A speech bubble is near his head, against a dark teal textured background.View post 
Four men pose for a photograph inside an office, standing in front of a glass partition. A potted plant and a wall-mounted emergency device are visible nearby. There is text on signs, clothing, and the glass partition.View post 
A man in a blazer looks through a window in a laboratory or industrial workspace. Safety notices are posted on the doors.View post 
Three men stand in an industrial or laboratory setting. The man on the left holds out a small, round object for the man in the center to examine, while the man on the right watches. Signs and notices are visible in the background.View post 
A Vox article graphic about a large renewable energy project in the United States. It shows a stylized wind turbine against an orange-toned landscape, with a publication logo, headline, and subtitle above.View post
About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Methods and sources
How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.
The headline
The headline is the measure on which Heinrich 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. That is the case for Heinrich in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).
Identifiers
- Profile id
- H001046
- Bioguide
- H001046
- FEC candidate ids
- H8NM01224, S2NM00088
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
Freshness of this profile’s data
- What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
- Roll calls (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
- Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
- Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
- Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
- WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
- ImagesOct 28, 2026todayImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.
How the measures work
- What politicians say
- Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
- Extreme labels
- A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
- Policy areas and agreement
- Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
- Ideology (CSIP)
- Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
- Campaign money
- Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
- Votes and key votes
- Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
- Peers and ranks
- Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab