Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, New Jersey

Serving since Dec 9, 2024119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 5, 2030

Bioguide K000394FEC H8NJ03206, S4NJ00466

Portrait of Andy Kim, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
7.9%
of statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom tenth of Senate Democrats

7.9% of 2,860 statements use bipartisan language (226 statements); the average for Senate Democrats is 18%. Ranks 42nd of 45, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Kim’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it stresses working across party lines. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. 4.2% of the 48 bills Kim sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of Senate Democrats. 31% of Kim’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom quarter of Senate Democrats (average 37%).

The measures on which Kim 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.

Bipartisanship

7.9%

Senate Democrats average 18% · ranks 42nd of 45

Out of committee

4.2%

Senate Democrats average 14% · ranks 42nd of 45

Policy criticism

31%

Senate Democrats average 37% · ranks 40th of 45

CSIP ideology

−0.91

More conservative than 88% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.02

Credit claiming

16%

Senate Democrats average 26% · ranks 39th of 45

Policy discussion

71%

Senate Democrats average 78% · ranks 37th of 45

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Kim says

Kim stresses bipartisanship less than 91% of Senate Democrats. Bipartisanship in 7.9% of 2,860 statements, against 18% for the average Senate Democrat; 42nd of 45.

An AI model reads each of Kim’s 2,860 statements in the 119th Congress (2,372 posts on X, 317 press releases, 108 newsletters, 63 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Kim
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,039 statements
71%
78%
37th of 45
Policy criticism882 statements
31%
37%
40th of 45
Credit claiming457 statements
16%
26%
39th of 45
Personal attacks263 statements
9%
11%
25th of 45
Bipartisanship226 statements
8%
18%
42nd of 45
Show the data
Kim's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowKimPeers
Policy discussion71%78%
Policy criticism31%37%
Credit claiming16%26%
Personal attacks9%11%
Bipartisanship8%18%
2,860

statements classified

2,372 posts on X, 317 press releases, 108 newsletters, 63 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 2,372 (82.9%)posts on X 2,372press releases: 317 (11.1%)newsletters: 108 (3.8%)Congressional Record speeches: 63 (2.2%)
Show the data
Kim's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,372
press releases317
newsletters108
Congressional Record speeches63
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Kim used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, 36% of the peer average. 24 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 2.4%.

  1. “extreme”10
  2. “MAGA”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump8
  2. Trump4
  3. administration1
  4. Democratic Party1
  5. DHS1
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: 402025-02: 762025-03: 1012025-04: 1072025-05: 1182025-06: 1432025-07: 1372025-08: 882025-09: 1262025-10: 2112025-11: 1312025-12: 1312026-01: 1692026-02: 2192026-03: 2582026-04: 702026-05: 1482026-06: 1442026-07: 1062026-08: 1132026-09: 1392026-10: 85peak 258 · Mar ’26Personal attackspeak 19.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 7.1%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 10.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-02: 19.7% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-03: 10.9% of 101Personal attacks, 2025-04: 9.3% of 107Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.9% of 118Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.5% of 143Personal attacks, 2025-07: 8.0% of 137Personal attacks, 2025-08: 2.3% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-09: 6.3% of 126Personal attacks, 2025-10: 14.2% of 211Personal attacks, 2025-11: 11.5% of 131Personal attacks, 2025-12: 8.4% of 131Personal attacks, 2026-01: 15.4% of 169Personal attacks, 2026-02: 12.8% of 219Personal attacks, 2026-03: 7.8% of 258Personal attacks, 2026-04: 15.7% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-05: 9.5% of 148Personal attacks, 2026-06: 5.6% of 144Personal attacks, 2026-07: 7.5% of 106Personal attacks, 2026-08: 7.1% of 113Personal attacks, 2026-09: 7.9% of 139Personal attacks, 2026-10: 7.1% of 85Policy criticismpeak 44.7% · Feb ’25 · latest 2.4%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 27.5% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-02: 44.7% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-03: 25.7% of 101Policy criticism, 2025-04: 35.5% of 107Policy criticism, 2025-05: 33.9% of 118Policy criticism, 2025-06: 41.3% of 143Policy criticism, 2025-07: 40.2% of 137Policy criticism, 2025-08: 30.7% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-09: 35.7% of 126Policy criticism, 2025-10: 39.3% of 211Policy criticism, 2025-11: 41.2% of 131Policy criticism, 2025-12: 24.4% of 131Policy criticism, 2026-01: 13.6% of 169Policy criticism, 2026-02: 32.0% of 219Policy criticism, 2026-03: 42.3% of 258Policy criticism, 2026-04: 40.0% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-05: 32.4% of 148Policy criticism, 2026-06: 34.7% of 144Policy criticism, 2026-07: 16.0% of 106Policy criticism, 2026-08: 14.2% of 113Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.8% of 139Policy criticism, 2026-10: 2.4% of 85Policy discussionpeak 91.1% · Aug ’26 · latest 81.2%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 65.0% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-02: 60.5% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-03: 60.4% of 101Policy discussion, 2025-04: 67.3% of 107Policy discussion, 2025-05: 62.7% of 118Policy discussion, 2025-06: 83.9% of 143Policy discussion, 2025-07: 75.2% of 137Policy discussion, 2025-08: 77.3% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-09: 69.0% of 126Policy discussion, 2025-10: 64.0% of 211Policy discussion, 2025-11: 67.2% of 131Policy discussion, 2025-12: 71.0% of 131Policy discussion, 2026-01: 76.9% of 169Policy discussion, 2026-02: 62.1% of 219Policy discussion, 2026-03: 68.6% of 258Policy discussion, 2026-04: 74.3% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-05: 75.7% of 148Policy discussion, 2026-06: 69.4% of 144Policy discussion, 2026-07: 75.5% of 106Policy discussion, 2026-08: 91.1% of 113Policy discussion, 2026-09: 77.0% of 139Policy discussion, 2026-10: 81.2% of 85Bipartisanshippeak 14.3% · Apr ’26 · latest 3.5%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 12.5% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 7.9% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 4.0% of 101Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 2.8% of 107Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 13.6% of 118Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 9.1% of 143Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 11.7% of 137Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 3.4% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 7.1% of 126Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 12.3% of 211Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 9.2% of 131Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 7.6% of 131Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.3% of 169Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 6.9% of 219Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 10.8% of 258Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 14.3% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 4.7% of 148Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 5.6% of 144Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 8.5% of 106Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 6.2% of 113Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 5.0% of 139Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 3.5% of 85Credit claimingpeak 28.6% · Apr ’26 · latest 14.1%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 7.5% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-02: 9.2% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-03: 7.9% of 101Credit claiming, 2025-04: 15.9% of 107Credit claiming, 2025-05: 14.4% of 118Credit claiming, 2025-06: 16.8% of 143Credit claiming, 2025-07: 17.5% of 137Credit claiming, 2025-08: 13.6% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-09: 15.9% of 126Credit claiming, 2025-10: 4.7% of 211Credit claiming, 2025-11: 9.2% of 131Credit claiming, 2025-12: 17.6% of 131Credit claiming, 2026-01: 8.3% of 169Credit claiming, 2026-02: 14.6% of 219Credit claiming, 2026-03: 21.3% of 258Credit claiming, 2026-04: 28.6% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-05: 23.6% of 148Credit claiming, 2026-06: 22.2% of 144Credit claiming, 2026-07: 25.5% of 106Credit claiming, 2026-08: 22.1% of 113Credit claiming, 2026-09: 20.1% of 139Credit claiming, 2026-10: 14.1% of 85Extreme labelspeak 3.3% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.3% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-03: 2.0% of 101Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.9% of 107Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 118Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 143Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 137Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.8% of 126Extreme labels, 2025-10: 3.3% of 211Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.8% of 131Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.8% of 131Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 169Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.9% of 219Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.8% of 258Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.7% of 148Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.7% of 144Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.9% of 106Extreme labels, 2026-08: 1.8% of 113Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 139Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 85Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Kim, 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 ’254010.0%27.5%65.0%12.5%7.5%0.0%
Feb ’257619.7%44.7%60.5%7.9%9.2%1.3%
Mar ’2510110.9%25.7%60.4%4.0%7.9%2.0%
Apr ’251079.3%35.5%67.3%2.8%15.9%0.9%
May ’251180.9%33.9%62.7%13.6%14.4%0.0%
Jun ’251433.5%41.3%83.9%9.1%16.8%0.0%
Jul ’251378.0%40.2%75.2%11.7%17.5%0.0%
Aug ’25882.3%30.7%77.3%3.4%13.6%0.0%
Sep ’251266.3%35.7%69.0%7.1%15.9%0.8%
Oct ’2521114.2%39.3%64.0%12.3%4.7%3.3%
Nov ’2513111.5%41.2%67.2%9.2%9.2%0.8%
Dec ’251318.4%24.4%71.0%7.6%17.6%0.8%
Jan ’2616915.4%13.6%76.9%5.3%8.3%0.0%
Feb ’2621912.8%32.0%62.1%6.9%14.6%0.9%
Mar ’262587.8%42.3%68.6%10.8%21.3%0.8%
Apr ’267015.7%40.0%74.3%14.3%28.6%0.0%
May ’261489.5%32.4%75.7%4.7%23.6%0.7%
Jun ’261445.6%34.7%69.4%5.6%22.2%0.7%
Jul ’261067.5%16.0%75.5%8.5%25.5%1.9%
Aug ’261137.1%14.2%91.1%6.2%22.1%1.8%
Sep ’261397.9%10.8%77.0%5.0%20.1%0.0%
Oct ’26857.1%2.4%81.2%3.5%14.1%0.0%
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.

In Kim’s words

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

Credit claiming

Fighting for Universal Care and an End to Corruption [Andy Kim, U.S. Senator]<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenKim&crop=15921.66077076.7998573.7423588&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.kim.senate.gov&redir_log=251187231773184> Weekly Newsletter From the Office of…

Oct 23, 2026 · Newsletters · policy discussion; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; Health

Bipartisanship

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

Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Health · Source

Extreme label

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

Aug 4, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Donald Trump · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · target: TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National SecuritySource

  3. Newsletters

    Fighting for Affordable Housing and Announcing a NEW NJ Office at the Jersey Shore! [Andy Kim, U.S. Senator]<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenKim&crop=15931.64697986.7966365.7423588&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.kim.senate.gov&redir_log=251187231773184> Weekly Newsletter From the Office of Senator Andy Kim Hey New Jersey, This week, Senator Kim was in New Jersey, meeting with…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Housing and Community Development · Government Operations and Politics · Labor and Employment · Families · Health · Water Resources Development · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Commerce · Emergency Management · Science, Technology, Communications · Education · Law · target: Donald Trump

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: TrumpSource

  5. Newsletters

    Fighting for Your Safety, Questioning AI Experts, and Working to Lower Costs [Andy Kim, U.S. Senator]<https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextranet/iqClickTrk.aspx?&cid=SenKim&crop=15794.64008215.7949482.7423588&report_id=&redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.kim.senate.gov&redir_log=251187231773184> Weekly Newsletter From the Office of Senator Andy Kim Hey New Jersey, This week, Senator Kim was at the Capitol, fighting to reasse…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Labor and Employment · Agriculture and Food · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Science, Technology, Communications · Economics and Public Finance · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Education · Immigration · Transportation and Public Works · Families · Energy · Government Operations and Politics · Housing and Community Development · target: Trump

All 2,860 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: 2,372 posts on X, 317 press releases, 108 newsletters, 63 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Kim talks about most: 26% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 30th 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 Kim talks about. The bills Kim sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Kim talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Kim
Peers
Health528 statements
26%
27%
Armed Forces and National Security440 statements
22%
21%
Government Operations and Politics404 statements
20%
22%
Economics and Public Finance372 statements
18%
24%
International Affairs331 statements
16%
12%
Show the data
Policy areas Kim talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowKimPeers
Health26%27%
Armed Forces and National Security22%21%
Government Operations and Politics20%22%
Economics and Public Finance18%24%
International Affairs16%12%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Kim’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 26% (Senate Democrats 27%)26%Health, legislates on: 11% (Senate Democrats 14%)11%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 22% (Senate Democrats 21%)22%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 7%)6%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 20% (Senate Democrats 22%)20%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 15% (Senate Democrats 9%)15%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 18% (Senate Democrats 24%)18%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Democrats 0%)0%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 16% (Senate Democrats 12%)16%International Affairs, legislates on: 8% (Senate Democrats 8%)8%
Show the data
Kim's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Health26%27%11%14%
Armed Forces and National Security22%21%6%7%
Government Operations and Politics20%22%15%9%
Economics and Public Finance18%24%0%0%
International Affairs16%12%8%8%
0.65

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 30th of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Kim sits at −0.91 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 88% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.93 to −0.90, which understates the uncertainty; from 8,584 donors and 3,047 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”.

−0.91

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.93 to −0.90. From 8,584 donors and 3,047 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Kim −0.9Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Kim, 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 Kim’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 Kim sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Kim −0.9All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Kim's CSIP score of −0.91 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Kim
Senate Democrats45−1.187%
All Senate98+0.441%
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 Kim 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 Kim.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Kim raised $1.9M in the 2026 cycle, below the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 26% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 34% of itemized individual money came from New Jersey.

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
$1.9M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,028 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): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (61.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $415.0K (21.9%)PACs and other committees: $77.5K (4.1%)PACs and other committees: $77.5K (4.1%)PACs and other committees: $77.5K (4.1%)PACs and other committees: $77.5K (4.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $247.6K (13.1%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)61 squares$1.2M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)22 squares$415.0K
  • PACs and other committees4 squares$77.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)13 squares$247.6K
Show the data
Sources of Kim's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.2M61.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$415.0K21.9%
PACs and other committees$77.5K4.1%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$247.6K13.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $7.4M$7.4M20202022 cycle: $7.1M$7.1M20222024 cycle: $12.4M$12.4M20242026 cycle: $1.9M$1.9M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Kim's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$7.4M
2022 cycle$7.1M
2024 cycle$12.4M
2026 cycle$1.9M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 34% came from New Jersey.

  1. New Jersey$370.2K
  2. California$229.8K
  3. New York$125.4K
  4. Virginia$96.7K
  5. District of Columbia$77.2K

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%
Kim
Median
2026
26%
35%
2024
26%
35%
2022
15%
35%
2020
17%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowKimMedian
2026 cycle26%35%
2024 cycle26%35%
2022 cycle15%35%
2020 cycle17%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: $1,125VTNew Hampshire: $350NHWashington: $2,965WAIdaho: $100IDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $615MNIllinois: $6,915ILWisconsin: $493WIMichigan: $8,210MINew York: $125.4KNYRhode Island: $250RIMassachusetts: $24.0KMAOregon: $1,255ORNevada: $6,160NVWyoming: $250WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $700INOhio: $2,085OHPennsylvania: $29.8KPANew Jersey: $370.2KNJConnecticut: $14.4KCTCalifornia: $229.8KCAUtah: $190UTColorado: $100CONebraska: $3,500NEMissouri: $160MOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $96.7KVAMaryland: $45.5KMDDelaware: $14.1KDEArizona: $265AZNew Mexico: $605NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $50TNNorth Carolina: $1,475NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $77.2KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $11.4KGAHawaii: $690HITexas: $15.4KTXFlorida: $13.1KFL
Show the data
Kim's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New Jersey$370.2K
California$229.8K
New York$125.4K
Virginia$96.7K
District of Columbia$77.2K
Maryland$45.5K
Pennsylvania$29.8K
Massachusetts$24.0K
Texas$15.4K
Connecticut$14.4K
Delaware$14.1K
Florida$13.1K
Georgia$11.4K
Michigan$8,210
Illinois$6,915
Nevada$6,160
Nebraska$3,500
Washington$2,965
Ohio$2,085
North Carolina$1,475
Oregon$1,255
Vermont$1,125
Indiana$700
Hawaii$690
Minnesota$615
New Mexico$605
Wisconsin$493
New Hampshire$350
Arizona$265
Rhode Island$250
Wyoming$250
Utah$190
Missouri$160
Idaho$100
Colorado$100
Tennessee$50
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
South CarolinaNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
1,028

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

34%

from New Jersey

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.8%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 68%68%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 25%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.9%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.9%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.4%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Kim's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +0.50: 68% between −1.25 and −1.00, 25% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.8%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0068%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7525%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.9%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.9%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.4%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Kim’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Kim’s own score is −0.91.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$267.0K 399 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$95.6K 52 donors
  3. RETIRED$89.2K 99 donors
  4. CEO$66.2K 24 donors
  5. PHYSICIAN$44.0K 31 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$7,500
  2. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION - COPE$5,000
  3. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  4. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE I$5,000
  5. UNITED POSTMASTERS AND MANAGERS OF AMERICA POLITICAL FUND$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ASTERA CANCER CARE$13.5K 12 donors
  2. TURBO AIR INC$13.5K 4 donors
  3. BGR GROUP$11.5K 10 donors
  4. VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES$10.5K 8 donors
  5. MINDSET$4,000 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Kim voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 95.9% of party-line votes and missed 1.0% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Kim voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 57 times.

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

57

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 95.9%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 24th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Kim
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.0%
97.0%
9th of 45
Party unity
95.9%
95.3%
24th of 45
Show the data
Kim's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowKimPeers
Attendance99.0%97.0%
Party unity95.9%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
NayAgainst majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
YeaWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
NayWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Kim most often

  1. Adam SchiffD885 shared votes95%
  2. Cory BookerD860 shared votes95%
  3. Angela AlsobrooksD892 shared votes95%
  4. Alex PadillaD873 shared votes95%
  5. Patty MurrayD855 shared votes95%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Kim least often

  1. Marsha BlackburnR853 shared votes7.6%
  2. Cynthia LummisR876 shared votes7.9%
  3. Tommy TubervilleR848 shared votes7.9%
  4. Ron JohnsonR894 shared votes7.9%
  5. Mike LeeR879 shared votes8.1%
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

Kim sponsored 48 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 459 others. 4.2% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 42nd of 45).

The bills Kim 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

Sponsored48 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4848Sponsored, In committee: 4848Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored459 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 459459Cosponsored, In committee: 458458Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4949Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Kim sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored4848000
Cosponsored4594584922
How to read the blocks

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

4.2%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 42nd of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Cory Booker144
  2. Richard Blumenthal143
  3. Chris Van Hollen118
  4. Tammy Duckworth105
  5. Jeff Merkley104
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 Kim’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. 5618Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeLawRead twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5634SPELL ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEducationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S5265) Sep 30, 2026
S. 5675Nutrition Continuity for Military Families Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityRead twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5574NEST ActSponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeHealthRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 29, 2026
S. 5576Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act of 2026CosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsRead twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Sep 29, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 36 times in 90 days. Kim’s official site had 22 pages when last crawled on Oct 4, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Kim posted on Oct 25, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    www.kim.senate.gov

    Last crawled Oct 4, 2026

    22

    pages crawled

    36

    changes in 90 days

How to read the counts

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

Images Kim posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Two men in suits stand for a photograph in a formal auditorium or conference chamber with rows of empty chairs behind them. There is a small amount of text on a sign or emblem in the background.
    Two men in suits stand for a photograph in a formal auditorium or conference chamber with rows of empty chairs behind them. There is a small amount of text on a sign or emblem in the background.View post
  • Four formally dressed people sit facing one another across tables in a large assembly or conference room, appearing to hold a meeting. One person is writing notes. Rows of empty chairs and a central lectern are visible behind them. There is text on the lectern emblem, but it is not legible.
    Four formally dressed people sit facing one another across tables in a large assembly or conference room, appearing to hold a meeting. One person is writing notes. Rows of empty chairs and a central lectern are visible behind them. There is text on the lectern emblem, but it is not legible.View post
  • A pale green informational poster about requesting a vote-by-mail ballot in New Jersey, with deadlines and instructions. A photograph of a mailbox containing envelopes appears at the bottom right, and a senator’s signature and title appear at the bottom left. The poster contains text.
    A pale green informational poster about requesting a vote-by-mail ballot in New Jersey, with deadlines and instructions. A photograph of a mailbox containing envelopes appears at the bottom right, and a senator’s signature and title appear at the bottom left. The poster contains text.View post
  • An informational election flyer explaining three ways to return a vote-by-mail ballot. It has a pale green background, green and orange text, a senator’s signature, and an illustration of an official ballot drop box.
    An informational election flyer explaining three ways to return a vote-by-mail ballot. It has a pale green background, green and orange text, a senator’s signature, and an illustration of an official ballot drop box.View post
  • A green political voting infographic featuring a large airmail-style postcard, voting options, ballot drop boxes, an I Voted sticker, and a campaign signature. Text appears throughout the image.
    A green political voting infographic featuring a large airmail-style postcard, voting options, ballot drop boxes, an I Voted sticker, and a campaign signature. Text appears throughout the image.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 Kim 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
K000394
Bioguide
K000394
FEC candidate ids
H8NJ03206, S4NJ00466

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