Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Louisiana

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

Bioguide K000393FEC S4LA00065

Portrait of John Kennedy, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
4.1×
the Senate Republican rate of personal attacks

8.9% of 1,872 statements contain a personal attack (166 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 2.1%. Ranks 2nd of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Kennedy’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and press releases and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 28% of Kennedy’s statements criticize a policy, 1.6 times the Senate Republican average of 17%. 44% of Kennedy’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans (median 17%).

The measures on which Kennedy 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.

Personal attacks

8.9%

Senate Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 2nd of 52

Policy criticism

28%

Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 5th of 52

Small donations, 2026

44%

Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 6th of 51

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.59

Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 48th of 52

Raised, 2026

$11.9M

Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 6th of 51

CSIP ideology

+1.07

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Kennedy says

Kennedy attacks opponents personally more than 96% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 8.9% of 1,872 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 2nd of 52.

An AI model reads each of Kennedy’s 1,872 statements in the 119th Congress (1,265 posts on X, 398 press releases, 209 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Kennedy
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,195 statements
64%
70%
42nd of 52
Credit claiming561 statements
30%
36%
40th of 52
Policy criticism519 statements
28%
17%
5th of 52
Personal attacks166 statements
9%
2%
2nd of 52
Bipartisanship154 statements
8%
13%
37th of 52
Show the data
Kennedy's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowKennedyPeers
Policy discussion64%70%
Credit claiming30%36%
Policy criticism28%17%
Personal attacks9%2%
Bipartisanship8%13%
1,872

statements classified

1,265 posts on X, 398 press releases, 209 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,265 (67.6%)posts on X 1,265press releases: 398 (21.3%)press releases 398Congressional Record speeches: 209 (11.2%)
Show the data
Kennedy's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,265
press releases398
Congressional Record speeches209
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Kennedy used extreme labels in 5.9% of statements, 2.1 times the peer average. 111 statements, most often aimed at Democratic Party; peers 2.9%.

  1. “radical”16
  2. “woke”16
  3. “communist”9
  4. “far left”8
  5. “extreme”5

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democratic Party28
  2. Democratic friends3
  3. Democrats3
  4. Biden administration2
  5. Democratic colleagues2
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: 1862025-02: 1522025-03: 1052025-04: 842025-05: 1072025-06: 982025-07: 1322025-08: 682025-09: 582025-10: 1032025-11: 942025-12: 672026-01: 692026-02: 922026-03: 1132026-04: 662026-05: 552026-06: 652026-07: 382026-08: 382026-09: 562026-10: 26peak 186 · Jan ’25Personal attackspeak 17.2% · Sep ’25 · latest 3.9%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 7.5% of 186Personal attacks, 2025-02: 4.6% of 152Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.8% of 105Personal attacks, 2025-04: 4.8% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-05: 11.2% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-06: 6.1% of 98Personal attacks, 2025-07: 13.6% of 132Personal attacks, 2025-08: 8.8% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-09: 17.2% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-10: 12.6% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-11: 9.6% of 94Personal attacks, 2025-12: 10.4% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-01: 7.2% of 69Personal attacks, 2026-02: 14.1% of 92Personal attacks, 2026-03: 9.7% of 113Personal attacks, 2026-04: 16.7% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-05: 3.6% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-06: 7.7% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-07: 7.9% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-08: 5.3% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-09: 5.4% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-10: 3.9% of 26Policy criticismpeak 43.4% · Feb ’25 · latest 11.5%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 41.9% of 186Policy criticism, 2025-02: 43.4% of 152Policy criticism, 2025-03: 32.4% of 105Policy criticism, 2025-04: 27.4% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-05: 31.8% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-06: 30.6% of 98Policy criticism, 2025-07: 30.3% of 132Policy criticism, 2025-08: 32.4% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-09: 24.1% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-10: 24.3% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-11: 29.8% of 94Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.4% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-01: 11.6% of 69Policy criticism, 2026-02: 29.3% of 92Policy criticism, 2026-03: 17.7% of 113Policy criticism, 2026-04: 16.7% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-05: 34.5% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-06: 21.5% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-07: 5.3% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-08: 13.2% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-09: 8.9% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-10: 11.5% of 26Policy discussionpeak 85.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 73.1%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 85.0% of 186Policy discussion, 2025-02: 70.4% of 152Policy discussion, 2025-03: 65.7% of 105Policy discussion, 2025-04: 70.2% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-05: 67.3% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-06: 62.2% of 98Policy discussion, 2025-07: 60.6% of 132Policy discussion, 2025-08: 55.9% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-09: 65.5% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-10: 38.8% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-11: 52.1% of 94Policy discussion, 2025-12: 67.2% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-01: 84.1% of 69Policy discussion, 2026-02: 65.2% of 92Policy discussion, 2026-03: 46.0% of 113Policy discussion, 2026-04: 66.7% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-05: 61.8% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-06: 52.3% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-07: 50.0% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-08: 50.0% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-09: 71.4% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-10: 73.1% of 26Bipartisanshippeak 20.0% · May ’26 · latest 3.9%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 5.4% of 186Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.6% of 152Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.6% of 105Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 4.8% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.6% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 4.1% of 98Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 6.1% of 132Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 4.4% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 17.2% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 8.7% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 11.7% of 94Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 7.5% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 14.5% of 69Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 5.4% of 92Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 14.2% of 113Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.6% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 20.0% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 13.9% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 5.3% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 7.9% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 7.1% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.9% of 26Credit claimingpeak 47.3% · May ’26 · latest 42.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 36.6% of 186Credit claiming, 2025-02: 32.2% of 152Credit claiming, 2025-03: 38.1% of 105Credit claiming, 2025-04: 28.6% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-05: 26.2% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-06: 25.5% of 98Credit claiming, 2025-07: 27.3% of 132Credit claiming, 2025-08: 19.1% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-09: 34.5% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-10: 14.6% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-11: 35.1% of 94Credit claiming, 2025-12: 32.8% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-01: 44.9% of 69Credit claiming, 2026-02: 33.7% of 92Credit claiming, 2026-03: 16.8% of 113Credit claiming, 2026-04: 33.3% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-05: 47.3% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-06: 21.5% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-07: 26.3% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-08: 10.5% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-09: 35.7% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-10: 42.3% of 26Extreme labelspeak 12.8% · Nov ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 7.0% of 186Extreme labels, 2025-02: 7.2% of 152Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.9% of 105Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.6% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.7% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-06: 4.1% of 98Extreme labels, 2025-07: 7.6% of 132Extreme labels, 2025-08: 11.8% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-09: 10.3% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-10: 12.6% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-11: 12.8% of 94Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.5% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.5% of 69Extreme labels, 2026-02: 5.4% of 92Extreme labels, 2026-03: 4.4% of 113Extreme labels, 2026-04: 3.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-05: 3.6% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-06: 6.2% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-07: 7.9% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 26Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Kennedy, 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 ’251867.5%41.9%85.0%5.4%36.6%7.0%
Feb ’251524.6%43.4%70.4%6.6%32.2%7.2%
Mar ’251053.8%32.4%65.7%7.6%38.1%2.9%
Apr ’25844.8%27.4%70.2%4.8%28.6%3.6%
May ’2510711.2%31.8%67.3%5.6%26.2%4.7%
Jun ’25986.1%30.6%62.2%4.1%25.5%4.1%
Jul ’2513213.6%30.3%60.6%6.1%27.3%7.6%
Aug ’25688.8%32.4%55.9%4.4%19.1%11.8%
Sep ’255817.2%24.1%65.5%17.2%34.5%10.3%
Oct ’2510312.6%24.3%38.8%8.7%14.6%12.6%
Nov ’25949.6%29.8%52.1%11.7%35.1%12.8%
Dec ’256710.4%16.4%67.2%7.5%32.8%1.5%
Jan ’26697.2%11.6%84.1%14.5%44.9%1.5%
Feb ’269214.1%29.3%65.2%5.4%33.7%5.4%
Mar ’261139.7%17.7%46.0%14.2%16.8%4.4%
Apr ’266616.7%16.7%66.7%7.6%33.3%3.0%
May ’26553.6%34.5%61.8%20.0%47.3%3.6%
Jun ’26657.7%21.5%52.3%13.9%21.5%6.2%
Jul ’26387.9%5.3%50.0%5.3%26.3%7.9%
Aug ’26385.3%13.2%50.0%7.9%10.5%0.0%
Sep ’26565.4%8.9%71.4%7.1%35.7%0.0%
Oct ’26263.9%11.5%73.1%3.9%42.3%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 Kennedy’s words

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

Policy criticism

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

Oct 6, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 11, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; target: El-Sayed · Source

Extreme label

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

Jul 9, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “extreme” aimed at Democratic Party · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: El-SayedSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Law · 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 · Economics and Public Finance · target: Abdul El-SayedSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: SEC leadersSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Lulu LeninsSource

All 1,872 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: 1,265 posts on X, 398 press releases, 209 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Kennedy talks about most: 26% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.59 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 48th 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 Kennedy talks about. The bills Kennedy sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Kennedy talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Kennedy
Peers
Economics and Public Finance316 statements
26%
17%
Government Operations and Politics253 statements
21%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security211 statements
18%
25%
Health147 statements
12%
15%
International Affairs139 statements
12%
11%
Show the data
Policy areas Kennedy talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowKennedyPeers
Economics and Public Finance26%17%
Government Operations and Politics21%19%
Armed Forces and National Security18%25%
Health12%15%
International Affairs12%11%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Kennedy’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 onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 26% (Senate Republicans 17%)26%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (Senate Republicans 1%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 21% (Senate Republicans 19%)21%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (Senate Republicans 11%)11%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 18% (Senate Republicans 25%)18%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 3% (Senate Republicans 8%)3%HealthHealth, talks about: 12% (Senate Republicans 15%)12%Health, legislates on: 9% (Senate Republicans 11%)9%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 12% (Senate Republicans 11%)12%International Affairs, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 8%)8%
Show the data
Kennedy's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance26%17%1%1%
Government Operations and Politics21%19%11%11%
Armed Forces and National Security18%25%3%8%
Health12%15%9%11%
International Affairs12%11%8%8%
0.59

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 48th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Kennedy sits at +1.07 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 74% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +1.06 to +1.08, which understates the uncertainty; from 46,137 donors and 3,758 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”.

+1.07

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.06 to +1.08. From 46,137 donors and 3,758 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Kennedy +1.1Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Kennedy, 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 Kennedy’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 Kennedy sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Kennedy +1.1All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Kennedy's CSIP score of +1.07 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Kennedy
Senate Republicans51+1.073%
All Senate98+0.486%
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 Kennedy 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 Kennedy.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Kennedy raised $11.9M in the 2026 cycle, 3.7 times the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 44% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 15% of itemized individual money came from Louisiana.

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
$11.9M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 14,598 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): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $5.9M (49.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $4.7M (39.2%)PACs and other committees: $120.1K (1.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (9.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.2M (9.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)50 squares$5.9M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)39 squares$4.7M
  • PACs and other committees1 squares$120.1K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)10 squares$1.2M
Show the data
Sources of Kennedy's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$5.9M49.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$4.7M39.2%
PACs and other committees$120.1K1.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.2M9.9%
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: $4.4M$4.4M20202022 cycle: $33.9M$33.9M20222024 cycle: $15.6M$15.6M20242026 cycle: $11.9M$11.9M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Kennedy's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$4.4M
2022 cycle$33.9M
2024 cycle$15.6M
2026 cycle$11.9M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 15% came from Louisiana.

  1. Louisiana$690.4K
  2. Texas$508.9K
  3. California$501.7K
  4. Florida$429.1K
  5. Illinois$141.6K

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%
Kennedy
Median
2026
44%
17%
2024
55%
17%
2022
49%
17%
2020
26%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowKennedyMedian
2026 cycle44%17%
2024 cycle55%17%
2022 cycle49%17%
2020 cycle26%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $27.1KAKMaine: $15.2KMEVermont: $5,141VTNew Hampshire: $12.3KNHWashington: $78.9KWAIdaho: $29.1KIDMontana: $18.7KMTNorth Dakota: $10.5KNDMinnesota: $43.1KMNIllinois: $141.6KILWisconsin: $45.7KWIMichigan: $121.5KMINew York: $123.0KNYRhode Island: $8,695RIMassachusetts: $62.4KMAOregon: $44.1KORNevada: $41.0KNVWyoming: $13.1KWYSouth Dakota: $13.3KSDIowa: $22.6KIAIndiana: $55.3KINOhio: $107.4KOHPennsylvania: $132.7KPANew Jersey: $76.0KNJConnecticut: $39.4KCTCalifornia: $501.7KCAUtah: $24.3KUTColorado: $80.5KCONebraska: $18.8KNEMissouri: $69.3KMOKentucky: $29.9KKYWest Virginia: $15.9KWVVirginia: $121.1KVAMaryland: $57.6KMDDelaware: $11.9KDEArizona: $117.1KAZNew Mexico: $33.0KNMKansas: $44.5KKSArkansas: $27.9KARTennessee: $93.4KTNNorth Carolina: $87.9KNCSouth Carolina: $71.2KSCDistrict of Columbia: $16.0KDCOklahoma: $54.7KOKLouisiana: $690.4KLAMississippi: $45.2KMSAlabama: $56.1KALGeorgia: $132.8KGAHawaii: $16.6KHITexas: $508.9KTXFlorida: $429.1KFL
Show the data
Kennedy's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Louisiana$690.4K
Texas$508.9K
California$501.7K
Florida$429.1K
Illinois$141.6K
Georgia$132.8K
Pennsylvania$132.7K
New York$123.0K
Michigan$121.5K
Virginia$121.1K
Arizona$117.1K
Ohio$107.4K
Tennessee$93.4K
North Carolina$87.9K
Colorado$80.5K
Washington$78.9K
New Jersey$76.0K
South Carolina$71.2K
Missouri$69.3K
Massachusetts$62.4K
Maryland$57.6K
Alabama$56.1K
Indiana$55.3K
Oklahoma$54.7K
Wisconsin$45.7K
Mississippi$45.2K
Kansas$44.5K
Oregon$44.1K
Minnesota$43.1K
Nevada$41.0K
Connecticut$39.4K
New Mexico$33.0K
Kentucky$29.9K
Idaho$29.1K
Arkansas$27.9K
Alaska$27.1K
Utah$24.3K
Iowa$22.6K
Nebraska$18.8K
Montana$18.7K
Hawaii$16.6K
District of Columbia$16.0K
West Virginia$15.9K
Maine$15.2K
South Dakota$13.3K
Wyoming$13.1K
New Hampshire$12.3K
Delaware$11.9K
North Dakota$10.5K
Rhode Island$8,695
Vermont$5,141
14,598

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

15%

from Louisiana

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.0%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.0%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.2%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.5%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 3.0%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 23%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 71%71%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 1.7%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Kennedy's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.75: 23% between +0.75 and +1.00, 71% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.0%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.0%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.2%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.753.0%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0023%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2571%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.501.7%
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 Kennedy’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Kennedy’s own score is +1.07.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$3.6M 12,871 donors
  2. OWNER$115.4K 104 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$78.8K 61 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$73.8K 73 donors
  5. CEO$71.8K 63 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. PAC$10.0K
  2. REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$7,500
  3. BP CORPORATION NORTH AMERICA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BP NORTH AMERICA EMPLOYEE PAC)$5,000
  4. ERNST & YOUNG POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  5. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP COMERICA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NU CYBERTEK, INC.$16.3K 3 donors
  2. DISABLED$1,686 9 donors
  3. WALMART$1,166 4 donors
  4. COLDWELL BANKER REALTY$662 3 donors
  5. FEDEX$655 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Kennedy voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 1.7% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Kennedy voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 16 times.

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

16

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.3%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 34th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Kennedy
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.2%
97.1%
23rd of 53
Party unity
99.3%
98.4%
34th of 53
Show the data
Kennedy's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowKennedyPeers
Attendance98.2%97.1%
Party unity99.3%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 Kennedy most often

  1. Jim BanksR887 shared votes99%
  2. Bill HagertyR868 shared votes99%
  3. Bernie MorenoR894 shared votes99%
  4. Eric SchmittR888 shared votes99%
  5. Katie BrittR881 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Kennedy least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD892 shared votes2.6%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD885 shared votes2.8%
  3. Bernie SandersI837 shared votes3.1%
  4. Christopher MurphyD875 shared votes3.3%
  5. Chris Van HollenD885 shared votes4.3%
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

Kennedy sponsored 85 bills in the 119th Congress; 4 became law. Cosponsored 205 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 36th of 51).

The bills Kennedy 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

Sponsored85 billsSponsored, Introduced: 8585Sponsored, In committee: 8585Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 1010Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Sponsored, Became law: 44Cosponsored205 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 205205Cosponsored, In committee: 199199Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4444Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Kennedy sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored85851044
Cosponsored2051994433
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Kennedy sponsored, ochre blocks bills Kennedy 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 Republicans average 22%. Ranks 36th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Marsha Blackburn42
  2. John Cornyn42
  3. Bill Cassidy42
  4. Katie Britt35
  5. Pete Ricketts35
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 Kennedy’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. 5628Transparency in CFPB Cost-Benefit Analysis ActSponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorRead twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Sep 30, 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. 5537Sexual Abuse Services in Detention ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCrime and Law EnforcementRead twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 24, 2026
S. 5487TWICE ActSponsorSep 23, 2026In committeeTransportation and Public WorksRead twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Sep 23, 2026
S.Res. 897A resolution honoring the life, service, and legacy of the Honorable Jon Llewellyn Kyl, former Senator for the State of Arizona.CosponsorSep 23, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4958; text: CR S4951-4952) Sep 23, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 89 times in 90 days. Kennedy’s official site had 26 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Kennedy posted on Oct 22, 2026.

The lab crawls Kennedy’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 Kennedy 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 Kennedy posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A gray-haired man in a dark suit and red checked shirt poses with a smiling woman wearing glasses and a black jacket at a crowded indoor gathering. He has an arm around her and points toward her. Other attendees, tables, chairs, and a man wearing a cowboy hat are visible in the background. There is text on the woman's jacket and on a chair strap.
    A gray-haired man in a dark suit and red checked shirt poses with a smiling woman wearing glasses and a black jacket at a crowded indoor gathering. He has an arm around her and points toward her. Other attendees, tables, chairs, and a man wearing a cowboy hat are visible in the background. There is text on the woman's jacket and on a chair strap.View post
  • Three men pose together at an indoor banquet or event, with the older man in the center putting his arms around the other two. Tables, chairs, attendees, a stage area, and a sign with text are visible in the background.
    Three men pose together at an indoor banquet or event, with the older man in the center putting his arms around the other two. Tables, chairs, attendees, a stage area, and a sign with text are visible in the background.View post
  • A group of uniformed law enforcement officers pose with a man in a suit inside a public building. A welcome sign is mounted high on the wall.
    A group of uniformed law enforcement officers pose with a man in a suit inside a public building. A welcome sign is mounted high on the wall.View post
  • A group of five adults pose together for a photo in a large indoor room. The older man near the center has his arms around two women. Other people and tables are visible in the background. There is no prominent text.
    A group of five adults pose together for a photo in a large indoor room. The older man near the center has his arms around two women. Other people and tables are visible in the background. There is no prominent text.View post
  • Three men pose together and smile at a formal banquet in a large ballroom. Guests, tables, chairs, chandeliers, and flags are visible in the background. One man wears a name badge with text.
    Three men pose together and smile at a formal banquet in a large ballroom. Guests, tables, chairs, chandeliers, and flags are visible in the background. One man wears a name badge with 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 Kennedy 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
K000393
Bioguide
K000393
FEC candidate ids
S4LA00065

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

Back to top