Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, New Jersey’s 8th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M001226FEC H2NJ08232

Portrait of Robert Menendez Jr., rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.3%
of individual money in gifts of $200 or less, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats

2.3% of individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less; the median for House Democrats is 13%. Ranks 197th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. $2.2M raised in all.

Campaigns report every donor who gives more than $200 by name and smaller gifts only as one total; this is that small-gift total as a share of all money from individuals, from the FEC’s committee summaries, ranked among House Democrats. It understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 67% of Menendez’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 73%). 5.4% of Menendez’s statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 9.8%).

The measures on which Menendez sits furthest from the middle of House Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Attendance

100%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 10th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Small donations, 2026

2.3%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 197th of 214

Policy discussion

67%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 180th of 216

Bipartisanship

5.4%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 178th of 216

Personal attacks

2.0%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 174th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.97

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.03

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Menendez says

Menendez attacks opponents personally less than 80% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 2.0% of 2,145 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 174th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Menendez’s 2,145 statements in the 119th Congress (1,953 posts on X, 84 press releases, 75 newsletters, 33 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 House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Menendez
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,431 statements
67%
73%
180th of 216
Policy criticism596 statements
28%
28%
120th of 216
Credit claiming570 statements
27%
23%
64th of 216
Bipartisanship115 statements
5%
10%
178th of 216
Personal attacks42 statements
2%
7%
174th of 216
Show the data
Menendez's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowMenendezPeers
Policy discussion67%73%
Policy criticism28%28%
Credit claiming27%23%
Bipartisanship5%10%
Personal attacks2%7%
2,145

statements classified

1,953 posts on X, 84 press releases, 75 newsletters, 33 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,953 (91.0%)posts on X 1,953press releases: 84 (3.9%)newsletters: 75 (3.5%)Congressional Record speeches: 33 (1.5%)
Show the data
Menendez's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,953
press releases84
newsletters75
Congressional Record speeches33
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Menendez used extreme labels in 0.9% of statements, below the peer average. 20 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”7
  2. “MAGA”1
  3. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans2
  2. Trump2
  3. administration1
  4. ICE1
  5. MAGA1
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: 552025-02: 822025-03: 832025-04: 942025-05: 1402025-06: 1032025-07: 842025-08: 582025-09: 972025-10: 1322025-11: 802025-12: 1052026-01: 1042026-02: 1352026-03: 1332026-04: 1372026-05: 982026-06: 1112026-07: 862026-08: 812026-09: 752026-10: 72peak 140 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 5.2% · Feb ’26 · latest 1.4%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.6% of 55Personal attacks, 2025-02: 2.4% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.4% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.1% of 94Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.1% of 140Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.2% of 84Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 97Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 132Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-12: 4.8% of 105Personal attacks, 2026-01: 4.8% of 104Personal attacks, 2026-02: 5.2% of 135Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.8% of 133Personal attacks, 2026-04: 4.4% of 137Personal attacks, 2026-05: 2.0% of 98Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.9% of 111Personal attacks, 2026-07: 2.3% of 86Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 81Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 75Personal attacks, 2026-10: 1.4% of 72Policy criticismpeak 42.2% · Mar ’25 · latest 8.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 32.7% of 55Policy criticism, 2025-02: 36.6% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-03: 42.2% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-04: 34.0% of 94Policy criticism, 2025-05: 42.1% of 140Policy criticism, 2025-06: 27.2% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-07: 36.9% of 84Policy criticism, 2025-08: 25.9% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-09: 28.9% of 97Policy criticism, 2025-10: 39.4% of 132Policy criticism, 2025-11: 40.0% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-12: 19.1% of 105Policy criticism, 2026-01: 13.5% of 104Policy criticism, 2026-02: 29.6% of 135Policy criticism, 2026-03: 28.6% of 133Policy criticism, 2026-04: 21.2% of 137Policy criticism, 2026-05: 22.4% of 98Policy criticism, 2026-06: 26.1% of 111Policy criticism, 2026-07: 19.8% of 86Policy criticism, 2026-08: 11.1% of 81Policy criticism, 2026-09: 16.0% of 75Policy criticism, 2026-10: 8.3% of 72Policy discussionpeak 80.0% · Sep ’26 · latest 68.1%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 70.9% of 55Policy discussion, 2025-02: 72.0% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-03: 66.3% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-04: 69.2% of 94Policy discussion, 2025-05: 65.0% of 140Policy discussion, 2025-06: 55.3% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-07: 66.7% of 84Policy discussion, 2025-08: 55.2% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-09: 65.0% of 97Policy discussion, 2025-10: 64.4% of 132Policy discussion, 2025-11: 71.3% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-12: 66.7% of 105Policy discussion, 2026-01: 71.2% of 104Policy discussion, 2026-02: 61.5% of 135Policy discussion, 2026-03: 66.9% of 133Policy discussion, 2026-04: 75.9% of 137Policy discussion, 2026-05: 66.3% of 98Policy discussion, 2026-06: 58.6% of 111Policy discussion, 2026-07: 65.1% of 86Policy discussion, 2026-08: 70.4% of 81Policy discussion, 2026-09: 80.0% of 75Policy discussion, 2026-10: 68.1% of 72Bipartisanshippeak 10.3% · Sep ’25 · latest 4.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 7.3% of 55Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.1% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.2% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.3% of 94Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 6.4% of 140Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 2.9% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 3.6% of 84Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 6.9% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 10.3% of 97Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 9.1% of 132Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.3% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 6.7% of 105Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 1.0% of 104Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.2% of 135Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 7.5% of 133Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.3% of 137Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 3.1% of 98Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 3.6% of 111Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 5.8% of 86Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 1.2% of 81Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 2.7% of 75Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 4.2% of 72Credit claimingpeak 45.5% · Jan ’25 · latest 22.2%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 45.5% of 55Credit claiming, 2025-02: 31.7% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-03: 22.9% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-04: 21.3% of 94Credit claiming, 2025-05: 23.6% of 140Credit claiming, 2025-06: 11.7% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-07: 22.6% of 84Credit claiming, 2025-08: 34.5% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-09: 34.0% of 97Credit claiming, 2025-10: 21.2% of 132Credit claiming, 2025-11: 21.3% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-12: 28.6% of 105Credit claiming, 2026-01: 16.4% of 104Credit claiming, 2026-02: 25.2% of 135Credit claiming, 2026-03: 39.1% of 133Credit claiming, 2026-04: 38.0% of 137Credit claiming, 2026-05: 33.7% of 98Credit claiming, 2026-06: 29.7% of 111Credit claiming, 2026-07: 23.3% of 86Credit claiming, 2026-08: 16.1% of 81Credit claiming, 2026-09: 24.0% of 75Credit claiming, 2026-10: 22.2% of 72Extreme labelspeak 3.6% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-03: 3.6% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 94Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.4% of 140Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.9% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 84Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 97Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 132Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.9% of 105Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.0% of 104Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.5% of 135Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.8% of 133Extreme labels, 2026-04: 2.9% of 137Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 98Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.8% of 111Extreme labels, 2026-07: 1.2% of 86Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 81Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 75Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 72Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Menendez, 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 ’25553.6%32.7%70.9%7.3%45.5%0.0%
Feb ’25822.4%36.6%72.0%6.1%31.7%0.0%
Mar ’25832.4%42.2%66.3%7.2%22.9%3.6%
Apr ’25942.1%34.0%69.2%5.3%21.3%0.0%
May ’251402.1%42.1%65.0%6.4%23.6%1.4%
Jun ’251030.0%27.2%55.3%2.9%11.7%2.9%
Jul ’25841.2%36.9%66.7%3.6%22.6%0.0%
Aug ’25580.0%25.9%55.2%6.9%34.5%0.0%
Sep ’25970.0%28.9%65.0%10.3%34.0%0.0%
Oct ’251320.0%39.4%64.4%9.1%21.2%0.0%
Nov ’25800.0%40.0%71.3%6.3%21.3%0.0%
Dec ’251054.8%19.1%66.7%6.7%28.6%0.9%
Jan ’261044.8%13.5%71.2%1.0%16.4%1.0%
Feb ’261355.2%29.6%61.5%2.2%25.2%1.5%
Mar ’261330.8%28.6%66.9%7.5%39.1%0.8%
Apr ’261374.4%21.2%75.9%7.3%38.0%2.9%
May ’26982.0%22.4%66.3%3.1%33.7%0.0%
Jun ’261110.9%26.1%58.6%3.6%29.7%1.8%
Jul ’26862.3%19.8%65.1%5.8%23.3%1.2%
Aug ’26810.0%11.1%70.4%1.2%16.1%0.0%
Sep ’26750.0%16.0%80.0%2.7%24.0%0.0%
Oct ’26721.4%8.3%68.1%4.2%22.2%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 Menendez’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Menendez and Krishnamoorthi Push for Stronger Energy Drink Safety Rules to Protect Kids WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressmen Rob Menendez (NJ-08) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08) sent a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calling on HHS to update…

Oct 13, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Families; Commerce · Source

Personal attacks

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

Oct 16, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; Foreign Trade and International Finance; target: Republicans · Source

Extreme label

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

Jul 23, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Immigration; Health; Labor and Employment; extreme label “extreme” aimed at 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 · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: RepublicansSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · target: Jeff Van DrewSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Law · Government Operations and Politics · target: Todd BlancheSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: TrumpSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Transportation and Public Works · Economics and Public Finance · target: AdministrationSource

All 2,145 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: 1,953 posts on X, 84 press releases, 75 newsletters, 33 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Immigration is what Menendez talks about most: 26% of policy statements, 2.5 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 61st of 216).

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 Menendez talks about. The bills Menendez sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Menendez talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Menendez
Peers
Immigration369 statements
26%
11%
Health285 statements
20%
26%
Government Operations and Politics197 statements
14%
20%
Transportation and Public Works157 statements
11%
5%
Economics and Public Finance139 statements
10%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Menendez talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowMenendezPeers
Immigration26%11%
Health20%26%
Government Operations and Politics14%20%
Transportation and Public Works11%5%
Economics and Public Finance10%20%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Menendez’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House 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 House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 26% (House Democrats 11%)26%Immigration, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 4%)7%HealthHealth, talks about: 20% (House Democrats 26%)20%Health, legislates on: 14% (House Democrats 16%)14%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 20%)14%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 11%)7%Transportation and PublicWorksTransportation and Public Works, talks about: 11% (House Democrats 5%)11%Transportation and Public Works, legislates on: 7% (House Democrats 3%)7%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 10% (House Democrats 20%)10%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%
Show the data
Menendez's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Immigration26%11%7%4%
Health20%26%14%16%
Government Operations and Politics14%20%7%11%
Transportation and Public Works11%5%7%3%
Economics and Public Finance10%20%1%1%
0.70

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 61st of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Menendez sits at −0.97 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 55% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.99 to −0.94, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,964 donors and 1,892 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”.

−0.97

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.99 to −0.94. From 1,964 donors and 1,892 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Menendez −1.0House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Menendez, 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 Menendez’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 Menendez sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Menendez −1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Menendez's CSIP score of −0.97 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Menendez
House Democrats217−1.054%
All House439+0.327%
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 Menendez 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 Menendez.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Menendez raised $2.2M in the 2026 cycle, close to the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 2.3% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 44% 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
$2.2M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 735 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.2M (54.7%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $28.6K (1.3%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)PACs and other committees: $886.1K (39.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $98.6K (4.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $98.6K (4.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $98.6K (4.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $98.6K (4.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)55 squares$1.2M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$28.6K
  • PACs and other committees40 squares$886.1K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)4 squares$98.6K
Show the data
Sources of Menendez's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.2M54.7%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$28.6K1.3%
PACs and other committees$886.1K39.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$98.6K4.4%
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $1.8M$1.8M20222024 cycle: $2.4M$2.4M20242026 cycle: $2.2M$2.2M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Menendez's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$1.8M
2024 cycle$2.4M
2026 cycle$2.2M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 44% came from New Jersey.

  1. New Jersey$479.0K
  2. New York$266.9K
  3. District of Columbia$72.8K
  4. California$67.4K
  5. Maryland$64.3K

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Democrats’ median.

0%60%
Menendez
Median
2026
2%
13%
2024
1%
13%
2022
1%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowMenendezMedian
2026 cycle2%13%
2024 cycle1%13%
2022 cycle1%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $250WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $1,250ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $1,643MINew York: $266.9KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $12.8KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $1,500NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $3,500INOhio: $3,143OHPennsylvania: $13.3KPANew Jersey: $479.0KNJConnecticut: $18.8KCTCalifornia: $67.4KCAUtah: $500UTColorado: no dataCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $29.3KVAMaryland: $64.3KMDDelaware: $1,000DEArizona: $3,500AZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: $1,500KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $1,000NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $72.8KDCOklahoma: $7,000OKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $750GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $10.0KTXFlorida: $19.8KFL
Show the data
Menendez's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New Jersey$479.0K
New York$266.9K
District of Columbia$72.8K
California$67.4K
Maryland$64.3K
Virginia$29.3K
Florida$19.8K
Connecticut$18.8K
Pennsylvania$13.3K
Massachusetts$12.8K
Texas$10.0K
Oklahoma$7,000
Indiana$3,500
Arizona$3,500
Ohio$3,143
Michigan$1,643
Nevada$1,500
Kansas$1,500
Illinois$1,250
Delaware$1,000
North Carolina$1,000
Georgia$750
Utah$500
Washington$250
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
ColoradoNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
New MexicoNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
South CarolinaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
735

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

44%

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 −1.25 to −1.00: 12%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 48%48%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 13%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 9.9%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 8.9%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 5.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.9%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Menendez's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.00: 12% between −1.25 and −1.00, 48% between −1.00 and −0.75, 13% between −0.75 and −0.50, 9.9% between −0.50 and −0.25, 8.9% between −0.25 and 0.00, 5.3% between 0.00 and +0.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0012%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7548%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5013%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.259.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.008.9%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.255.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.9%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Menendez’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Menendez’s own score is −0.97.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ATTORNEY$113.7K 83 donors
  2. CONSULTANT$66.8K 53 donors
  3. RETIRED$61.9K 55 donors
  4. PARTNER$52.0K 35 donors
  5. NOT EMPLOYED$51.5K 30 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. ARRAY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE, INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. CARPENTERS LEGISLATIVE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS$10.0K
  5. CHC BOLD PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP$25.0K 13 donors
  2. LEFRAK$21.0K 3 donors
  3. LINDE-GRIFFITH$15.0K 3 donors
  4. BGR GROUP$14.0K 12 donors
  5. BLACKSTONE$14.0K 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Menendez voted with the majority of House Democrats on 98.7% of party-line votes and missed none of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Menendez voted against the majority of House Democrats 19 times.

674 roll calls Menendez could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House 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 Menendez voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

19

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 98.7%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 95th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Menendez
Peers
Rank
Attendance
100%
96.9%
10th of 217
Party unity
98.7%
96.4%
95th of 217
Show the data
Menendez's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowMenendezPeers
Attendance100%96.9%
Party unity98.7%96.4%
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 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
NayAgainst majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaAgainst majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
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 Menendez most often

  1. Christian MenefeeD256 shared votes99%
  2. Sydney Kamlager-DoveD652 shared votes99%
  3. LaMonica McIverD671 shared votes99%
  4. Bonnie Watson ColemanD667 shared votes99%
  5. Robin KellyD661 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Menendez least often

  1. Chip RoyR635 shared votes16%
  2. Ralph NormanR598 shared votes17%
  3. Eric BurlisonR643 shared votes18%
  4. Andy BiggsR609 shared votes18%
  5. Keith SelfR660 shared votes18%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Menendez sponsored 22 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 325 others. 4.5% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 85th of 207).

The bills Menendez 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

Sponsored22 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2222Sponsored, In committee: 2222Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored325 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 325325Cosponsored, In committee: 325325Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1515Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Menendez sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2222100
Cosponsored3253251511
How to read the blocks

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

4.5%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 85th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton26
  2. LaMonica McIver22
  3. Bonnie Watson Coleman18
  4. Troy Carter17
  5. Rashida Tlaib16
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 Menendez’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
H.R. 10851Socket Full of Sunshine ActSponsorOct 19, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 19, 2026
H.Res. 1627Reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives to preserve and expand pathways to citizenship.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026
H.Con.Res. 123Recognizing the disparity in wages paid to Latinas and the impact of that disparity on women, families, the economy, and the United States.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeLabor and EmploymentReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 6, 2026
H.R. 10695United States Submarine Cable Security Policy Act of 2026CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10705Stop SIM Box Scams ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 94 times in 90 days. Menendez’s official site had 30 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Menendez posted on Oct 26, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Social accounts

Images Menendez posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • An orange Halloween infographic shows a jack-o’-lantern candy bucket overflowing with assorted sweets, with a white ghost beside it. Large lettering and a percentage graphic describe an increase in Halloween candy costs; there is also a small source attribution.
    An orange Halloween infographic shows a jack-o’-lantern candy bucket overflowing with assorted sweets, with a white ghost beside it. Large lettering and a percentage graphic describe an increase in Halloween candy costs; there is also a small source attribution.View post
  • An orange Halloween-themed political graphic with a jack-o’-lantern candy bucket overflowing with assorted sweets and a ghost behind it. Large headline text fills the upper portion, with an arrow and swipe prompt beneath it.
    An orange Halloween-themed political graphic with a jack-o’-lantern candy bucket overflowing with assorted sweets and a ghost behind it. Large headline text fills the upper portion, with an arrow and swipe prompt beneath it.View post
  • Two men stand talking inside a sports merchandise shop. One man in a suit has his arms crossed while the other gestures as he speaks. Sports scarves, hats, clothing, and balls are displayed around them. There is text on signs and merchandise.
    Two men stand talking inside a sports merchandise shop. One man in a suit has his arms crossed while the other gestures as he speaks. Sports scarves, hats, clothing, and balls are displayed around them. There is text on signs and merchandise.View post
  • A group of people talk on a tree-lined city sidewalk beside parked cars and storefronts. One man gestures while speaking, and another person at the edge of the scene holds up a phone. Text is visible on storefront signs and a tote bag.
    A group of people talk on a tree-lined city sidewalk beside parked cars and storefronts. One man gestures while speaking, and another person at the edge of the scene holds up a phone. Text is visible on storefront signs and a tote bag.View post
  • A street scene showing two men talking on a sidewalk beside parked cars and storefronts. Another person stands behind them. There are trees, roadwork barriers, and signs with text.
    A street scene showing two men talking on a sidewalk beside parked cars and storefronts. Another person stands behind them. There are trees, roadwork barriers, and signs 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 Menendez is most unusual among House 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
M001226
Bioguide
M001226
FEC candidate ids
H2NJ08232

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