Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, New Hampshire

Serving since Jan 3, 2017119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 7, 2028

Bioguide H001076FEC S6NH00091

Portrait of Maggie Hassan, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
111
votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 87%, in the bottom tenth of Senate Democrats (average 95.3%). 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Hassan voted with the majority of Senate Democrats; it is ranked among Senate Democrats. The count covers every roll call where Hassan voted opposite that majority.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. The policy areas Hassan talks about and legislates on agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale, in the top tenth of Senate Democrats. 0.5% of Hassan’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom tenth of Senate Democrats (average 2.4%).

The measures on which Hassan 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

87%

Senate Democrats average 95.3% · ranks 43rd of 45 · 111 votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.71

Senate Democrats average 0.66 · ranks 3rd of 45

Extreme labels

0.5%

Senate Democrats average 2.4% · ranks 42nd of 45

Bipartisanship

27%

Senate Democrats average 18% · ranks 5th of 45

From New Hampshire, 2026

17%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 38th of 41 Senate Democrats

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 Hassan, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hassan is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Hassan says

Hassan attacks opponents personally less than 80% of Senate Democrats. Personal attacks in 6.2% of 1,251 statements, against 11% for the average Senate Democrat; 37th of 45.

An AI model reads each of Hassan’s 1,251 statements in the 119th Congress (808 posts on X, 334 press releases, 60 Congressional Record speeches, 49 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%
Hassan
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,020 statements
82%
78%
18th of 45
Policy criticism460 statements
37%
37%
21st of 45
Credit claiming415 statements
33%
26%
10th of 45
Bipartisanship340 statements
27%
18%
5th of 45
Personal attacks78 statements
6%
11%
37th of 45
Show the data
Hassan's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowHassanPeers
Policy discussion82%78%
Policy criticism37%37%
Credit claiming33%26%
Bipartisanship27%18%
Personal attacks6%11%
1,251

statements classified

808 posts on X, 334 press releases, 60 Congressional Record speeches, 49 newsletters.

posts on X: 808 (64.6%)posts on X 808press releases: 334 (26.7%)press releases 334Congressional Record speeches: 60 (4.8%)newsletters: 49 (3.9%)
Show the data
Hassan's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X808
press releases334
Congressional Record speeches60
newsletters49
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Hassan used extreme labels in 0.5% of statements, 20% of the peer average. 6 statements, most often aimed at extremism; peers 2.4%.

  1. “extreme”5
  2. “communist”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. extremism1
  2. funding freeze1
  3. legislation1
  4. President1
  5. Republican legislatures1
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: 682025-02: 662025-03: 602025-04: 622025-05: 592025-06: 772025-07: 662025-08: 522025-09: 682025-10: 392025-11: 502025-12: 632026-01: 592026-02: 452026-03: 462026-04: 532026-05: 362026-06: 592026-07: 642026-08: 522026-09: 582026-10: 49peak 77 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 17.3% · Aug ’26 · latest 2.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 13.2% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-02: 12.1% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-03: 8.3% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-04: 6.5% of 62Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-06: 2.6% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-09: 5.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-11: 6.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.6% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-01: 6.8% of 59Personal attacks, 2026-02: 6.7% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-03: 6.5% of 46Personal attacks, 2026-04: 9.4% of 53Personal attacks, 2026-05: 5.6% of 36Personal attacks, 2026-06: 6.8% of 59Personal attacks, 2026-07: 7.8% of 64Personal attacks, 2026-08: 17.3% of 52Personal attacks, 2026-09: 10.3% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-10: 2.0% of 49Policy criticismpeak 53.3% · Mar ’25 · latest 38.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.5% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-02: 42.4% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-03: 53.3% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-04: 46.8% of 62Policy criticism, 2025-05: 39.0% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-06: 42.9% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-07: 48.5% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-08: 51.9% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-09: 36.8% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-10: 48.7% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-11: 34.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-12: 25.4% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-01: 22.0% of 59Policy criticism, 2026-02: 31.1% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-03: 34.8% of 46Policy criticism, 2026-04: 20.8% of 53Policy criticism, 2026-05: 33.3% of 36Policy criticism, 2026-06: 37.3% of 59Policy criticism, 2026-07: 43.8% of 64Policy criticism, 2026-08: 21.1% of 52Policy criticism, 2026-09: 25.9% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-10: 38.8% of 49Policy discussionpeak 98.0% · Oct ’26 · latest 98.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 82.3% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-02: 81.8% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-03: 88.3% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-04: 80.7% of 62Policy discussion, 2025-05: 83.0% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-06: 79.2% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-07: 87.9% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-08: 84.6% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-09: 80.9% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-10: 76.9% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-11: 70.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-12: 82.5% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-01: 84.8% of 59Policy discussion, 2026-02: 68.9% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-03: 63.0% of 46Policy discussion, 2026-04: 73.6% of 53Policy discussion, 2026-05: 83.3% of 36Policy discussion, 2026-06: 67.8% of 59Policy discussion, 2026-07: 95.3% of 64Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.4% of 52Policy discussion, 2026-09: 82.8% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-10: 98.0% of 49Bipartisanshippeak 42.6% · Jan ’25 · latest 32.6%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 42.6% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 22.7% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 28.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 24.2% of 62Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 17.0% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 22.1% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 27.3% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 26.9% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 20.6% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 35.9% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 28.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 36.5% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 30.5% of 59Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 20.0% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 21.7% of 46Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 20.8% of 53Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 33.3% of 36Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 32.2% of 59Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 21.9% of 64Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 34.6% of 52Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 22.4% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 32.6% of 49Credit claimingpeak 48.5% · Jan ’25 · latest 42.9%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 48.5% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-02: 34.8% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-03: 33.3% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-04: 32.3% of 62Credit claiming, 2025-05: 25.4% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-06: 32.5% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-07: 42.4% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-08: 32.7% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-09: 35.3% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-10: 12.8% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-11: 30.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-12: 47.6% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-01: 27.1% of 59Credit claiming, 2026-02: 22.2% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-03: 30.4% of 46Credit claiming, 2026-04: 26.4% of 53Credit claiming, 2026-05: 33.3% of 36Credit claiming, 2026-06: 37.3% of 59Credit claiming, 2026-07: 26.6% of 64Credit claiming, 2026-08: 38.5% of 52Credit claiming, 2026-09: 24.1% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-10: 42.9% of 49Extreme labelspeak 4.4% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.4% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.7% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.7% of 59Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.2% of 46Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 53Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 59Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 52Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 49Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Hassan, 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 ’256813.2%26.5%82.3%42.6%48.5%4.4%
Feb ’256612.1%42.4%81.8%22.7%34.8%0.0%
Mar ’25608.3%53.3%88.3%28.3%33.3%1.7%
Apr ’25626.5%46.8%80.7%24.2%32.3%0.0%
May ’25590.0%39.0%83.0%17.0%25.4%0.0%
Jun ’25772.6%42.9%79.2%22.1%32.5%0.0%
Jul ’25660.0%48.5%87.9%27.3%42.4%0.0%
Aug ’25520.0%51.9%84.6%26.9%32.7%0.0%
Sep ’25685.9%36.8%80.9%20.6%35.3%0.0%
Oct ’25390.0%48.7%76.9%35.9%12.8%0.0%
Nov ’25506.0%34.0%70.0%28.0%30.0%0.0%
Dec ’25631.6%25.4%82.5%36.5%47.6%0.0%
Jan ’26596.8%22.0%84.8%30.5%27.1%1.7%
Feb ’26456.7%31.1%68.9%20.0%22.2%0.0%
Mar ’26466.5%34.8%63.0%21.7%30.4%2.2%
Apr ’26539.4%20.8%73.6%20.8%26.4%0.0%
May ’26365.6%33.3%83.3%33.3%33.3%0.0%
Jun ’26596.8%37.3%67.8%32.2%37.3%0.0%
Jul ’26647.8%43.8%95.3%21.9%26.6%0.0%
Aug ’265217.3%21.1%90.4%34.6%38.5%0.0%
Sep ’265810.3%25.9%82.8%22.4%24.1%0.0%
Oct ’26492.0%38.8%98.0%32.6%42.9%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 Hassan’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Senator Hassan Visits Canterbury Shaker Village, Highlights New Hampshire Historic Preservation Efforts CANTERBURY – U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan visited Canterbury Shaker Village and heard from staff about their work to preserve the historic site and educate visitors about New Hampshire’s history. D…

Oct 19, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Personal attacks

Senator Hassan Highlights the Cost of Trump’s Vanity Projects During Speech on Senate Floor WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan recently delivered remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate highlighting President Trump’s failure to fulfill his promise to lower costs for American families, while sp…

Oct 5, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Emergency Management; Energy; Health; Taxation; Agriculture and Food; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Armed Forces and National Security; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; Law; Education; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues to oppose the attempt by the President and his allies in Congress to effectively disenfranchise millions of Americans through their so-called SAVE America Act. But more than that, I rise to join my fellow Granite Staters and the majority of freedom-loving…

Mar 23, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Health; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Families; Economics and Public Finance; Energy; Agriculture and Food; Taxation; Foreign Trade and International Finance; extreme label “extreme” aimed at extremism, President · 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

    Senator Hassan Highlights the Cost of Trump’s Vanity Projects During Speech on Senate Floor WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan recently delivered remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate highlighting President Trump’s failure to fulfill his promise to lower costs for American families, while spending taxpayer dollars on projects that honor himself. Since President Trump took office, the average American househol…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Emergency Management · Energy · Health · Taxation · Agriculture and Food · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · Housing and Community Development · Government Operations and Politics · Law · Education · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, 2 years ago, the American people elected a new Congress and a new President. The American people did so based on a promise that the President and his allies in Congress would work to bring down high costs. So now it is worth asking a simple question, one that the American people will ask their elected representatives when they return home in a few days: Did the President and his allies in Congress make…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · Health · Agriculture and Food · Taxation · Housing and Community Development · Government Operations and Politics · Armed Forces and National Security · Law · target: Donald TrumpSource

  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 · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Donald TrumpSource

  4. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, President Trump, who has failed to lower people's costs, last week launched a nationwide television advertisement campaign promoting himself. On televisions across the country right now, people are being inundated with all kinds of political ads. But the ending of these ads is unlike any other. If someone is watching this ad, right at the end, on the bottom of the screen, you find out that this publici…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Armed Forces and National Security · 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 · Families · Health · target: Donald TrumpSource

All 1,251 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: 808 posts on X, 334 press releases, 60 Congressional Record speeches, 49 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Hassan talks about most: 40% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.71 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 3rd 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 Hassan talks about. The bills Hassan sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Hassan talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%44%
Hassan
Peers
Health405 statements
40%
27%
Economics and Public Finance240 statements
24%
24%
Armed Forces and National Security204 statements
20%
21%
Government Operations and Politics182 statements
18%
22%
Crime and Law Enforcement127 statements
12%
9%
Show the data
Policy areas Hassan talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowHassanPeers
Health40%27%
Economics and Public Finance24%24%
Armed Forces and National Security20%21%
Government Operations and Politics18%22%
Crime and Law Enforcement12%9%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Hassan’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 44%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 40% (Senate Democrats 27%)40%Health, legislates on: 26% (Senate Democrats 14%)26%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 24% (Senate Democrats 24%)24%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (Senate Democrats 0%)1%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 20% (Senate Democrats 21%)20%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 9% (Senate Democrats 7%)9%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 18% (Senate Democrats 22%)18%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (Senate Democrats 9%)8%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 12% (Senate Democrats 9%)12%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 7% (Senate Democrats 6%)7%
Show the data
Hassan's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Health40%27%26%14%
Economics and Public Finance24%24%1%0%
Armed Forces and National Security20%21%9%7%
Government Operations and Politics18%22%8%9%
Crime and Law Enforcement12%9%7%6%
0.71

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 3rd of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Hassan sits at −1.05 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 70% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.06 to −1.04, which understates the uncertainty; from 38,499 donors and 3,839 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 −1.06 to −1.04. From 38,499 donors and 3,839 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Hassan −1.0Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Hassan, 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 Hassan’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 Hassan sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Hassan −1.0All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Hassan's CSIP score of −1.05 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Hassan
Senate Democrats45−1.169%
All Senate98+0.433%
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 Hassan 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 Hassan.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Hassan raised $3.2M in the 2026 cycle, above the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 42% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 17% of itemized individual money came from New Hampshire.

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
$3.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 2,191 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): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.4M (45.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.0M (32.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)PACs and other committees: $654.9K (20.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $55.0K (1.7%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $55.0K (1.7%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)45 squares$1.4M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)33 squares$1.0M
  • PACs and other committees20 squares$654.9K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$55.0K
Show the data
Sources of Hassan's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.4M45.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.0M32.6%
PACs and other committees$654.9K20.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$55.0K1.7%
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: $3.9M$3.9M20202022 cycle: $37.0M$37.0M20222024 cycle: $2.9M$2.9M20242026 cycle: $3.2M$3.2M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Hassan's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.9M
2022 cycle$37.0M
2024 cycle$2.9M
2026 cycle$3.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 17% came from New Hampshire.

  1. New Hampshire$186.4K
  2. New York$126.4K
  3. California$119.4K
  4. District of Columbia$109.1K
  5. Massachusetts$94.6K

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%
Hassan
Median
2026
42%
35%
2024
42%
35%
2022
32%
35%
2020
55%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowHassanMedian
2026 cycle42%35%
2024 cycle42%35%
2022 cycle32%35%
2020 cycle55%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $50AKMaine: $5,365MEVermont: $8,853VTNew Hampshire: $186.4KNHWashington: $29.4KWAIdaho: $1,911IDMontana: $600MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $3,240MNIllinois: $13.7KILWisconsin: $2,917WIMichigan: $11.1KMINew York: $126.4KNYRhode Island: $16.5KRIMassachusetts: $94.6KMAOregon: $8,317ORNevada: $4,570NVWyoming: $4,825WYSouth Dakota: $1,322SDIowa: $1,739IAIndiana: $5,411INOhio: $12.7KOHPennsylvania: $24.2KPANew Jersey: $23.5KNJConnecticut: $14.5KCTCalifornia: $119.4KCAUtah: $1,810UTColorado: $14.5KCONebraska: $950NEMissouri: $15.5KMOKentucky: $725KYWest Virginia: $5,000WVVirginia: $69.3KVAMaryland: $72.6KMDDelaware: $775DEArizona: $5,743AZNew Mexico: $1,342NMKansas: $1,800KSArkansas: $436ARTennessee: $3,315TNNorth Carolina: $4,597NCSouth Carolina: $2,242SCDistrict of Columbia: $109.1KDCOklahoma: $3,285OKLouisiana: $1,675LAMississippi: $425MSAlabama: $1,719ALGeorgia: $4,886GAHawaii: $1,281HITexas: $20.1KTXFlorida: $34.8KFL
Show the data
Hassan's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New Hampshire$186.4K
New York$126.4K
California$119.4K
District of Columbia$109.1K
Massachusetts$94.6K
Maryland$72.6K
Virginia$69.3K
Florida$34.8K
Washington$29.4K
Pennsylvania$24.2K
New Jersey$23.5K
Texas$20.1K
Rhode Island$16.5K
Missouri$15.5K
Colorado$14.5K
Connecticut$14.5K
Illinois$13.7K
Ohio$12.7K
Michigan$11.1K
Vermont$8,853
Oregon$8,317
Arizona$5,743
Indiana$5,411
Maine$5,365
West Virginia$5,000
Georgia$4,886
Wyoming$4,825
North Carolina$4,597
Nevada$4,570
Tennessee$3,315
Oklahoma$3,285
Minnesota$3,240
Wisconsin$2,917
South Carolina$2,242
Idaho$1,911
Utah$1,810
Kansas$1,800
Iowa$1,739
Alabama$1,719
Louisiana$1,675
New Mexico$1,342
South Dakota$1,322
Hawaii$1,281
Nebraska$950
Delaware$775
Kentucky$725
Montana$600
Arkansas$436
Mississippi$425
Alaska$50
North DakotaNo data
2,191

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

17%

from New Hampshire

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 Hampshire. 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: 0.0%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.7%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 54%54%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 33%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 4.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.5%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.8%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.8%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 2.1%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Hassan's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +1.00: 54% between −1.25 and −1.00, 33% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.0%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.7%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0054%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7533%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.504.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.5%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.8%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.8%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.502.1%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.1%
How to read the columns

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

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$257.1K 779 donors
  2. RETIRED$208.6K 800 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$104.8K 85 donors
  4. CONSULTANT$78.5K 67 donors
  5. PARTNER$41.2K 22 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMGEN INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. HUMANA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION PAC$9,000
  4. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$8,500
  5. WHOLESALE & SPECIALTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION (WSIA) PAC$7,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ANTHROPIC PBC$28.0K 4 donors
  2. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY$17.9K 13 donors
  3. WINGED KEEL GROUP, INC.$10.5K 8 donors
  4. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INC.$10.0K 6 donors
  5. CHISHOLM CHISHOLM & KILPATRICK LTD.$7,144 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Hassan voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 87% of party-line votes and missed 1.5% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hassan voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 111 times.

915 roll calls Hassan 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 Hassan voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

111

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 87%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 43rd of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Hassan
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.4%
97.0%
18th of 45
Party unity
87%
95.3%
43rd of 45
Show the data
Hassan's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowHassanPeers
Attendance98.4%97.0%
Party unity87%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
NayAgainst 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 Hassan most often

  1. Jeanne ShaheenD864 shared votes94%
  2. Jacky RosenD887 shared votes92%
  3. Ruben GallegoD786 shared votes92%
  4. Mark WarnerD861 shared votes92%
  5. Mark KellyD853 shared votes92%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Hassan least often

  1. Rick ScottR899 shared votes16%
  2. Mike LeeR873 shared votes17%
  3. Ron JohnsonR889 shared votes17%
  4. Tommy TubervilleR843 shared votes18%
  5. Ashley MoodyR883 shared votes18%
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

Hassan sponsored 59 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 340 others. 20% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 9th of 45).

The bills Hassan 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

Sponsored59 billsSponsored, Introduced: 5959Sponsored, In committee: 5959Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 66Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored340 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 340340Cosponsored, In committee: 339339Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 9191Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 77Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Hassan sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored5959600
Cosponsored3403399176
How to read the blocks

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

20%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 9th of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Jeanne Shaheen54
  2. Susan Collins48
  3. Angus King Jr.46
  4. Richard Blumenthal39
  5. Amy Klobuchar38
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 Hassan’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. 5671State Strategic Stockpile Act of 2026SponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeHealthRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 921A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the advertisements promoting President Donald Trump that aired in September 2026, which included the direct language "paid for by the U.S. Government," should not be paid for by the United States Government.SponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeEconomics and Public FinanceReferred to the Committee on Appropriations. (text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 924A resolution designating October 7, 2026, as "Energy Efficiency Day" in celebration of the economic and environmental benefits that have been driven by private sector innovation and Federal energy efficiency policies.CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberEnergySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176-5177) Sep 29, 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. 5502Protecting Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing as Critical Infrastructure ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsRead twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Sep 24, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 128 times in 90 days. Hassan’s official site had 40 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Hassan posted on Oct 25, 2026.

The lab crawls Hassan’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 Hassan 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.

Social accounts

Images Hassan posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Inside a fire station, a uniformed firefighter gestures toward a wall display while a woman and an older man watch. A large red fire engine is parked beside them. There is text visible on the fire engine and wall display.
    Inside a fire station, a uniformed firefighter gestures toward a wall display while a woman and an older man watch. A large red fire engine is parked beside them. There is text visible on the fire engine and wall display.View post
  • Three adults stand inside a fire station equipment room, talking beside red storage racks filled with firefighting gear. There is visible text on signs and equipment labels.
    Three adults stand inside a fire station equipment room, talking beside red storage racks filled with firefighting gear. There is visible text on signs and equipment labels.View post
  • Two smiling women pose together in front of a promotional backdrop covered with colorful logos and repeated text.
    Two smiling women pose together in front of a promotional backdrop covered with colorful logos and repeated text.View post
  • A woman speaks at a podium to a seated audience in a meeting room. A large branded backdrop stands behind her, and tables are set with dishes and glasses. Text is visible on the backdrop and clothing.
    A woman speaks at a podium to a seated audience in a meeting room. A large branded backdrop stands behind her, and tables are set with dishes and glasses. Text is visible on the backdrop and clothing.View post
  • A group of teenagers and adults pose for a photo in a meeting room in front of a branded event backdrop. There is text on the backdrop and on several signs around the room.
    A group of teenagers and adults pose for a photo in a meeting room in front of a branded event backdrop. There is text on the backdrop and on several signs around the room.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 Hassan 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
H001076
Bioguide
H001076
FEC candidate ids
S6NH00091

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