of roll calls missed, the lowest attendance of 53 Senate Republicans
Attendance 85%; the average among Senate Republicans is 97.1%. Ranks 53rd of 53, where 1st has the highest attendance. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance is the share of the roll calls McConnell could vote on where a yea, nay or present was recorded, ranked among Senate Republicans. A missed vote has many causes, from illness to campaigning; the number says how often, not why.
0
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Republicans. 64% of the 14 bills McConnell sponsored got out of committee, in the top 5% of Senate Republicans. The policy areas McConnell talks about and legislates on agree at 0.45 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans.
The measures on which McConnell 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.
Attendance
85%
Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 53rd of 53 · 915 roll calls
Out of committee
64%
Senate Republicans average 22% · ranks 2nd of 51
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.45
Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 50th of 52
Raised, 2026
$278.7K
Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 50th of 51
Party unity
96.5%
Senate Republicans average 98.4% · ranks 47th of 53 · 26 votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
CSIP ideology
+0.77
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 McConnell, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which McConnell is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
McConnell stresses bipartisanship more than 80% of Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 18% of 431 statements, against 13% for the average Senate Republican; 10th of 52.
An AI model reads each of McConnell’s 431 statements in the 119th Congress (204 posts on X, 178 press releases, 49 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
McConnell
Senate Republicans, average of 52
0%20%40%60%80%
McConnell
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion339 statements
79%
70%
10th of 52
Credit claiming173 statements
40%
36%
18th of 52
Policy criticism83 statements
19%
17%
17th of 52
Bipartisanship77 statements
18%
13%
10th of 52
Personal attacks7 statements
2%
2%
24th of 52
+ Show the data
McConnell's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
Row
McConnell
Peers
Policy discussion
79%
70%
Credit claiming
40%
36%
Policy criticism
19%
17%
Bipartisanship
18%
13%
Personal attacks
2%
2%
431
statements classified
204 posts on X, 178 press releases, 49 Congressional Record speeches.
posts on X
press releases
Congressional Record speeches
+ Show the data
McConnell's statements by source
Part
Value
posts on X
204
press releases
178
Congressional Record speeches
49
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is McConnell; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Republicans. A longer thick bar means McConnell does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
McConnell used extreme labels in 1.2% of statements, below the peer average. 5 statements, most often aimed at climate policies; peers 2.9%.
“radical”2
“communist”1
“woke”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
climate policies1
initiatives1
+ − What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
+ Show the data
Monthly rates for McConnell, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
Column
Statements
Personal attacks
Policy criticism
Policy discussion
Bipartisanship
Credit claiming
Extreme labels
Jan ’25
47
6.4%
23.4%
89.4%
25.5%
31.9%
6.4%
Feb ’25
41
2.4%
9.8%
82.9%
17.1%
43.9%
2.4%
Mar ’25
32
0.0%
18.8%
71.9%
15.6%
34.4%
0.0%
Apr ’25
22
0.0%
13.6%
68.2%
27.3%
22.7%
0.0%
May ’25
31
0.0%
9.7%
80.7%
29.0%
41.9%
0.0%
Jun ’25
35
0.0%
25.7%
71.4%
8.6%
22.9%
2.9%
Jul ’25
26
0.0%
23.1%
84.6%
7.7%
53.8%
0.0%
Aug ’25
11
0.0%
18.2%
72.7%
9.1%
45.5%
0.0%
Sep ’25
10
0.0%
10.0%
80.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
Oct ’25
21
0.0%
42.9%
76.2%
23.8%
33.3%
0.0%
Nov ’25
30
0.0%
16.7%
76.7%
10.0%
46.7%
0.0%
Dec ’25
21
0.0%
14.3%
71.4%
23.8%
57.1%
0.0%
Jan ’26
15
20.0%
40.0%
86.7%
26.7%
40.0%
0.0%
Feb ’26
28
0.0%
7.1%
85.7%
3.6%
78.6%
0.0%
Mar ’26
15
0.0%
20.0%
80.0%
46.7%
26.7%
0.0%
Apr ’26
13
0.0%
38.5%
84.6%
23.1%
38.5%
0.0%
May ’26
8
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
Jun ’26
2
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
Jul ’26
7
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
Aug ’26
3
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’26
10
0.0%
10.0%
70.0%
0.0%
30.0%
0.0%
Oct ’26
3
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
— (fewer than 10 statements)
+ − 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%. 5 months are hatched here.
In McConnell’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
Madam President, hard power is the cornerstone of US national security. It is the credibility behind our commitments to defend our core interests, and investing accordingly is one of Congress' core responsibilities. I am proud that the Senate will uphold that responsibility today by passing a full-y…
Jan 30, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance · Source
Bipartisanship
Bipartisan Senators Call on Trump to Rescind Russian Diesel Deal and Implement Sanctions Authorized by Congress Last Month on Enablers of Putin’s War Against Ukraine
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH),…
Oct 13, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Energy; International Affairs; Armed Forces and National Security; Foreign Trade and International Finance · Source
Extreme label
Mr. President, when Iran's proxies launched a full- scale war on Israel, October 7, 2023, President Biden pledged an unwavering commitment to Israel's security. That was the right message in the moment. But as I warned publicly at the time, Israel needed more than just rhetorical solidarity. Like Uk…
Jun 24, 2025 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Armed Forces and National Security; International Affairs; extreme label “extreme” · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
·Congressional Record
Madam President, hard power is the cornerstone of US national security. It is the credibility behind our commitments to defend our core interests, and investing accordingly is one of Congress' core responsibilities. I am proud that the Senate will uphold that responsibility today by passing a full-year Defense appropriation for the fiscal year 2026. Our action today is urgent, important, overdue, and yet insufficient…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public FinanceSource ↗
·Press releases
McConnell Comments on War Powers, Next Steps in Venezuela
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) submitted the following remarks for the record today ahead of the Senate’s roll call vote on the motion to discharge from Foreign Relations Committee, S.J.Res.98, Kaine War Powers Resolution (Venezuela):
“I’d like to make just a few brief observations ahead of the vote on Senator Kaine’s War Powers resolu…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Law · target: Barack ObamaSource ↗
·Congressional Record
Mr. President, I would like to make just a few brief observations ahead of the vote on Senator Kaine's War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Act is not the law I would have written, and there are reasonable questions about its constitutionality. But it has been the law now for over 50 years. And it is important to remember what it was designed to prevent--and, even more importantly, what it wasn't. Back in 1973, the…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Law · Government Operations and PoliticsSource ↗
·Press releases
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued the following statement today on the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to serve as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services:
“I'm a survivor of childhood polio. In my lifetime, I've watched vaccines save millions of lives from devastating diseases across America and around the world. I will not condone the re-litigation of proven cures, and neither w…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · target: Robert KennedySource ↗
·Press releases
Washington, DC – US Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) delivered the following remarks today on the Senate floor regarding the Biden Administration’s foreign policy and assessing the work ahead: “Earlier this week, President Biden went to the State Department and offered a final assessment of his record on foreign policy. “He insisted that his leadership had, ‘increased America’s power in every dimension’. That we were,…
personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · International Affairs · Armed Forces and National Security · Environmental Protection · Economics and Public FinanceSource ↗
All 431 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: 204 posts on X, 178 press releases, 49 Congressional Record speeches.
Armed Forces and National Security is what McConnell talks about most: 45% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.45 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 50th 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 McConnell talks about. The bills McConnell sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What McConnell talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
McConnell
Senate Republicans average
0%12%25%37%50%
McConnell
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security153 statements
45%
25%
Economics and Public Finance88 statements
26%
17%
International Affairs86 statements
25%
11%
Agriculture and Food51 statements
15%
9%
Health44 statements
13%
15%
+ Show the data
Policy areas McConnell talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
Row
McConnell
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security
45%
25%
Economics and Public Finance
26%
17%
International Affairs
25%
11%
Agriculture and Food
15%
9%
Health
13%
15%
+ − How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of McConnell’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 50%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.
Statements
Bills
Senate Republicans
+ Show the data
McConnell's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
Area
Talks about
Senate Republicans, talks about
Legislates on
Senate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security
45%
25%
5%
8%
Economics and Public Finance
26%
17%
3%
1%
International Affairs
25%
11%
10%
8%
Agriculture and Food
15%
9%
4%
4%
Health
13%
15%
4%
11%
0.45
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 50th of 52.
+ − What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means McConnell legislates on exactly the areas McConnell 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 McConnell sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
McConnell sits at +0.77 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 77% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.76 to +0.78, which understates the uncertainty; from 61,763 donors and 4,831 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”.
+0.77
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range +0.76 to +0.78. From 61,763 donors and 4,831 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is McConnell, 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 McConnell’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 McConnell sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Republicans51 · median +1.0
All Senate98 · median +0.4
+ Show the data
McConnell's CSIP score of +0.77 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
Group
Officials
Median
Share left of McConnell
Senate Republicans
51
+1.0
22%
All Senate
98
+0.4
59%
+ − 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 McConnell 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 McConnell.
McConnell raised $278.7K in the 2026 cycle, 8.7% of the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 7.8% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less.
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.
$278.7K
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 313 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)6 squares$17.2K
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$1,453
PACs and other committees5 squares$15.0K
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)88 squares$245.0K
+ Show the data
Sources of McConnell's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
Source
Amount
Share
Itemized individual (over $200)
$17.2K
6.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)
$1,453
0.5%
PACs and other committees
$15.0K
5.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)
$245.0K
87.9%
+ − 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.
+ Show the data
McConnell's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
Item
Value
2020 cycle
$68.1M
2022 cycle
$6.5M
2024 cycle
$1.2M
2026 cycle
$278.7K
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state.
New Hampshire$500
New Mexico$206
Alaska$190
Maine$160
Puerto Rico$140
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.
McConnell
Median
0%20%40%60%
McConnell
Median
2026
8%
17%
2024
7%
17%
2022
26%
17%
2020
46%
17%
+ Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
Row
McConnell
Median
2026 cycle
8%
17%
2024 cycle
7%
17%
2022 cycle
26%
17%
2020 cycle
46%
17%
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Itemized dollars$130$500no data
+ Show the data
McConnell's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
State
Value
New Hampshire
$500
New Mexico
$206
Alaska
$190
Maine
$160
Montana
$130
Vermont
No data
Washington
No data
Idaho
No data
North Dakota
No data
Minnesota
No data
Illinois
No data
Wisconsin
No data
Michigan
No data
New York
No data
Rhode Island
No data
Massachusetts
No data
Oregon
No data
Nevada
No data
Wyoming
No data
South Dakota
No data
Iowa
No data
Indiana
No data
Ohio
No data
Pennsylvania
No data
New Jersey
No data
Connecticut
No data
California
No data
Utah
No data
Colorado
No data
Nebraska
No data
Missouri
No data
Kentucky
No data
West Virginia
No data
Virginia
No data
Maryland
No data
Delaware
No data
Arizona
No data
Kansas
No data
Arkansas
No data
Tennessee
No data
North Carolina
No data
South Carolina
No data
District of Columbia
No data
Oklahoma
No data
Louisiana
No data
Mississippi
No data
Alabama
No data
Georgia
No data
Hawaii
No data
Texas
No data
Florida
No data
313
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
No itemized individual money.
+ − 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 Kentucky. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
+ Show the data
Ideology of McConnell's itemized donors in 2026, from +0.25 to +1.50: 7.0% between +0.50 and +0.75, 82% between +0.75 and +1.00, 9.0% between +1.00 and +1.25.
Item
Value
CSIP +0.25 to +0.50
1.5%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.75
7.0%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.00
82%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.25
9.0%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.50
0.1%
+ − How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of McConnell’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; McConnell’s own score is +0.77.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
RETIRED$24.0K 211 donors
CONSULTANT$1,818 3 donors
ENGINEER$993 8 donors
OWNER$963 5 donors
REALTOR$756 4 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
FREEDOM FUND$10.0K
JOHNSON & JOHNSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
TOMORROW IS MEANINGFUL PAC$5,000
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
No employers reported.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
McConnell voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 96.5% of party-line votes and missed 15% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, McConnell voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 26 times.
915 roll calls McConnell 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 McConnell voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
26
votes against the majority of Senate Republicans
Party unity 96.5%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 47th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is McConnell, the thin grey bar the Senate Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
McConnell
Senate Republicans, average of 53
80%90%100%
McConnell
Peers
Rank
Attendance
85%
97.1%
53rd of 53
Party unity
96.5%
98.4%
47th of 53
+ Show the data
McConnell's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
Row
McConnell
Peers
Attendance
85%
97.1%
Party unity
96.5%
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
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
Yea
With majority
Bill Passed
D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay
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
Nay
With majority
Concurrent Resolution Rejected
D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay
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
Did not vote
—
Bill Passed
D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
Did not vote
—
Resolution Agreed to
D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay
close vote
+ − How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as McConnell most often
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.
McConnell sponsored 14 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 68 others. 64% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 2nd of 51).
The bills McConnell 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
Sponsored
Cosponsored
+ Show the data
Bills McConnell sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
Role
Introduced
In committee
Passed one chamber
Passed both chambers
Became law
Sponsored
14
14
8
2
1
Cosponsored
68
67
32
1
1
+ − How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills McConnell sponsored, ochre blocks bills McConnell cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
64%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 2nd of 51.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with McConnell, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
Democrat
Republican
Chuck Grassley11
Christopher Coons9
Alex Padilla9
Marsha Blackburn7
Shelley Capito7
+ − 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 McConnell’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week".
Cosponsor
Sep 29, 2026
Passed one chamber
Agriculture and Food
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026
A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.
Cosponsor
Sep 28, 2026
Passed one chamber
Government Operations and Politics
Submitted 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
A resolution designating October 30, 2026, as a national day of remembrance for the workers of the nuclear weapons program of the United States.
Cosponsor
Sep 24, 2026
Passed one chamber
Armed Forces and National Security
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5020; text: CR S5008) Sep 24, 2026
A resolution honoring the life, service, and legacy of the Honorable Jon Llewellyn Kyl, former Senator for the State of Arizona.
Cosponsor
Sep 23, 2026
Passed one chamber
Government Operations and Politics
Submitted 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
A site that changed 75 times in 90 days. McConnell’s official site had 35 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images McConnell posted on Sep 11, 2026.
The lab crawls McConnell’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 McConnell posts with a vision model.
“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.
A commemorative image showing rescue workers amid the rubble of the World Trade Center, with a large American flag raised beside the remains of a building. There is prominent text overlaid on the image.View post ↗
02
A plain white background displaying a large black text statement expressing condolences over Lindsey Graham’s death. No other imagery is visible.View post ↗
03
A formal government hearing room with two suited senators seated behind a wooden dais. Several people are visible in the foreground, with microphones and a camera in front of the dais. Nameplates and other text are present.View post ↗
04
Four men sit behind a long table at a presentation or press event. U.S. and state flags hang behind them, and display boards with architectural renderings and plans stand around the room. Text appears on the boards and table placards.View post ↗
05
Four men in formal suits pose for a photograph in an ornate room with flags, wood paneling, and a chandelier. No visible text.View post ↗
+ − About the descriptions
Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
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 McConnell 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 …”).
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.
Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.
How the measures work
What politicians say
Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
Extreme labels
A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
Policy areas and agreement
Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology (CSIP)
Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
Campaign money
Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
Votes and key votes
Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
Peers and ranks
Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
