Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Delaware at large

Serving since Jan 3, 2025119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide M001238FEC H4DE00045

Portrait of Sarah McBride, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
82%
of statements discuss policy, in the top tenth of House Democrats

82% of 1,049 statements discuss policy (858 statements); the average for House Democrats is 73%. Ranks 21st of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of McBride’s Congressional Record speeches, press releases, posts on X and newsletters and marks whether it discusses a specific policy. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 26% of McBride’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Delaware, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats. 15% of McBride’s statements criticize a policy, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 28%).

The measures on which McBride 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.

Policy discussion

82%

House Democrats average 73% · ranks 21st of 216

From Delaware, 2026

26%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 192nd of 214 House Democrats

Policy criticism

15%

House Democrats average 28% · ranks 187th of 216

Raised, 2026

$5.6M

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 30th of 214

Small donations, 2026

31%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 31st of 214

CSIP ideology

−1.07

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What McBride says

McBride criticizes policies less than 86% of House Democrats. Policy criticism in 15% of 1,049 statements, against 28% for the average House Democrat; 187th of 216.

An AI model reads each of McBride’s 1,049 statements in the 119th Congress (859 posts on X, 69 newsletters, 66 Congressional Record speeches, 55 press releases) 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%
McBride
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion858 statements
82%
73%
21st of 216
Credit claiming220 statements
21%
23%
116th of 216
Policy criticism154 statements
15%
28%
187th of 216
Bipartisanship135 statements
13%
10%
44th of 216
Personal attacks59 statements
6%
7%
110th of 216
Show the data
McBride's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowMcBridePeers
Policy discussion82%73%
Credit claiming21%23%
Policy criticism15%28%
Bipartisanship13%10%
Personal attacks6%7%
1,049

statements classified

859 posts on X, 69 newsletters, 66 Congressional Record speeches, 55 press releases.

posts on X: 859 (81.9%)posts on X 859newsletters: 69 (6.6%)Congressional Record speeches: 66 (6.3%)press releases: 55 (5.2%)
Show the data
McBride's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X859
newsletters69
Congressional Record speeches66
press releases55
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

McBride used extreme labels in 1.3% of statements, below the peer average. 14 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “MAGA”8
  2. “extreme”5

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans7
  2. Big Ugly Bill1
  3. insurrectionists1
  4. MAGA1
  5. MAGA base1
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: 262025-02: 672025-03: 632025-04: 762025-05: 852025-06: 522025-07: 532025-08: 342025-09: 402025-10: 352025-11: 352025-12: 472026-01: 552026-02: 342026-03: 612026-04: 572026-05: 442026-06: 572026-07: 382026-08: 312026-09: 382026-10: 21peak 85 · May ’25Personal attackspeak 14.7% · Feb ’26 · latest 9.5%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.9% of 26Personal attacks, 2025-02: 3.0% of 67Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.2% of 63Personal attacks, 2025-04: 4.0% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 85Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.9% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-07: 1.9% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-08: 8.8% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-09: 10.0% of 40Personal attacks, 2025-10: 11.4% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-11: 11.4% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-12: 4.3% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-01: 7.3% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-02: 14.7% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-03: 4.9% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-04: 10.5% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-05: 4.5% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-06: 5.3% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-07: 5.3% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-08: 6.5% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-09: 5.3% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-10: 9.5% of 21Policy criticismpeak 20.8% · Jul ’25 · latest 4.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 15.4% of 26Policy criticism, 2025-02: 11.9% of 67Policy criticism, 2025-03: 12.7% of 63Policy criticism, 2025-04: 13.2% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-05: 17.6% of 85Policy criticism, 2025-06: 9.6% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-07: 20.8% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-08: 14.7% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-09: 15.0% of 40Policy criticism, 2025-10: 20.0% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-11: 20.0% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-12: 19.1% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-01: 5.5% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-02: 17.6% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-03: 19.7% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-04: 14.0% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-05: 18.2% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-06: 15.8% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-07: 15.8% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-08: 6.5% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-09: 10.5% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-10: 4.8% of 21Policy discussionpeak 90.6% · Jul ’25 · latest 71.4%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 69.2% of 26Policy discussion, 2025-02: 79.1% of 67Policy discussion, 2025-03: 85.7% of 63Policy discussion, 2025-04: 82.9% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-05: 83.5% of 85Policy discussion, 2025-06: 82.7% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-07: 90.6% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-08: 88.2% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-09: 77.5% of 40Policy discussion, 2025-10: 88.6% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-11: 77.1% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-12: 74.5% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-01: 80.0% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-02: 70.6% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-03: 85.3% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-04: 80.7% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-05: 86.4% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-06: 84.2% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-07: 86.8% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-08: 80.7% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-09: 76.3% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-10: 71.4% of 21Bipartisanshippeak 28.6% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 0.0% of 26Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 4.5% of 67Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 9.5% of 63Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 10.5% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 10.6% of 85Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 17.3% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 13.2% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 11.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 20.0% of 40Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 28.6% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 20.0% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 17.0% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 14.5% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 8.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 16.4% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 12.3% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 18.2% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 12.3% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 15.8% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 9.7% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 10.5% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 21Credit claimingpeak 33.3% · Jun ’26 · latest 23.8%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 3.9% of 26Credit claiming, 2025-02: 10.4% of 67Credit claiming, 2025-03: 12.7% of 63Credit claiming, 2025-04: 23.7% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-05: 15.3% of 85Credit claiming, 2025-06: 19.2% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-07: 18.9% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-08: 20.6% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-09: 25.0% of 40Credit claiming, 2025-10: 17.1% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-11: 20.0% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-12: 25.5% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-01: 30.9% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-02: 17.6% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-03: 21.3% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-04: 26.3% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-05: 20.4% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-06: 33.3% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-07: 21.1% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-08: 25.8% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-09: 28.9% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-10: 23.8% of 21Extreme labelspeak 4.0% · Apr ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 3.9% of 26Extreme labels, 2025-02: 3.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 63Extreme labels, 2025-04: 4.0% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-05: 1.2% of 85Extreme labels, 2025-06: 3.9% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.9% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.5% of 40Extreme labels, 2025-10: 2.9% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.6% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.8% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 21Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for McBride, 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 ’25263.9%15.4%69.2%0.0%3.9%3.9%
Feb ’25673.0%11.9%79.1%4.5%10.4%3.0%
Mar ’25633.2%12.7%85.7%9.5%12.7%0.0%
Apr ’25764.0%13.2%82.9%10.5%23.7%4.0%
May ’25850.0%17.6%83.5%10.6%15.3%1.2%
Jun ’25523.9%9.6%82.7%17.3%19.2%3.9%
Jul ’25531.9%20.8%90.6%13.2%18.9%1.9%
Aug ’25348.8%14.7%88.2%11.8%20.6%0.0%
Sep ’254010.0%15.0%77.5%20.0%25.0%2.5%
Oct ’253511.4%20.0%88.6%28.6%17.1%2.9%
Nov ’253511.4%20.0%77.1%20.0%20.0%0.0%
Dec ’25474.3%19.1%74.5%17.0%25.5%0.0%
Jan ’26557.3%5.5%80.0%14.5%30.9%0.0%
Feb ’263414.7%17.6%70.6%8.8%17.6%0.0%
Mar ’26614.9%19.7%85.3%16.4%21.3%1.6%
Apr ’265710.5%14.0%80.7%12.3%26.3%0.0%
May ’26444.5%18.2%86.4%18.2%20.4%0.0%
Jun ’26575.3%15.8%84.2%12.3%33.3%1.8%
Jul ’26385.3%15.8%86.8%15.8%21.1%0.0%
Aug ’26316.5%6.5%80.7%9.7%25.8%0.0%
Sep ’26385.3%10.5%76.3%10.5%28.9%0.0%
Oct ’26219.5%4.8%71.4%0.0%23.8%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 McBride’s words

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

Bipartisanship

ICYMI: Rep. McBride Presses State Department Over Delay of Annual Trafficking in Persons Report WILMINGTON, Del. — In case you missed it, last week, U.S. Representative Sarah McBride (D-Del.), member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, led 20 of her Democratic colleagues in writing to Secretary…

Sep 25, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Crime and Law Enforcement; International Affairs; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Policy criticism

USPS responds to Delaware delegation on future of Ocean View Post Office USPS confirms search for potential new location as delegation continues push for permanent solution, greater transparency OCEAN VIEW, Del. — U.S. Representative Sarah McBride and U.S. Senators Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochest…

Oct 9, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 25, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Immigration; Law; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Supreme Court · 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 · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

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

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · target: Donald TrumpSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · Housing and Community Development · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Donald TrumpSource

All 1,049 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: 859 posts on X, 69 newsletters, 66 Congressional Record speeches, 55 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what McBride talks about most: 35% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 140th 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 McBride talks about. The bills McBride sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What McBride talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%38%
McBride
Peers
Health298 statements
35%
26%
Economics and Public Finance214 statements
25%
20%
Government Operations and Politics177 statements
21%
20%
Labor and Employment159 statements
19%
7%
Armed Forces and National Security147 statements
17%
16%
Show the data
Policy areas McBride talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowMcBridePeers
Health35%26%
Economics and Public Finance25%20%
Government Operations and Politics21%20%
Labor and Employment19%7%
Armed Forces and National Security17%16%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of McBride’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 38%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 35% (House Democrats 26%)35%Health, legislates on: 19% (House Democrats 16%)19%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 25% (House Democrats 20%)25%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 20%)21%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 11%)6%Labor and EmploymentLabor and Employment, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 7%)19%Labor and Employment, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 5%)6%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 17% (House Democrats 16%)17%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 7%)8%
Show the data
McBride's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health35%26%19%16%
Economics and Public Finance25%20%0%1%
Government Operations and Politics21%20%6%11%
Labor and Employment19%7%6%5%
Armed Forces and National Security17%16%8%7%
0.67

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 140th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

McBride sits at −1.07 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 62% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.09 to −1.04, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,282 donors and 918 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

−1.07

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.09 to −1.04. From 5,282 donors and 918 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0McBride −1.1House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is McBride, 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 McBride’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 McBride sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0McBride −1.1All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
McBride's CSIP score of −1.07 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of McBride
House Democrats217−1.038%
All House439+0.319%
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 McBride 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 McBride.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

McBride raised $5.6M in the 2026 cycle, 2.8 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 31% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 26% of itemized individual money came from Delaware.

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
$5.6M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 3,167 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): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Itemized individual (over $200): $3.3M (59.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $1.4M (26.1%)PACs and other committees: $577.1K (10.4%)PACs and other committees: $577.1K (10.4%)PACs and other committees: $577.1K (10.4%)PACs and other committees: $577.1K (10.4%)PACs and other committees: $577.1K (10.4%)PACs and other committees: $577.1K (10.4%)PACs and other committees: $577.1K (10.4%)PACs and other committees: $577.1K (10.4%)PACs and other committees: $577.1K (10.4%)PACs and other committees: $577.1K (10.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $245.5K (4.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $245.5K (4.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $245.5K (4.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $245.5K (4.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $245.5K (4.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)59 squares$3.3M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)26 squares$1.4M
  • PACs and other committees10 squares$577.1K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)5 squares$245.5K
Show the data
Sources of McBride's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$3.3M59.1%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$1.4M26.1%
PACs and other committees$577.1K10.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$245.5K4.4%
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, 2024 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2024 cycle: $4.1M$4.1M20242026 cycle: $5.6M$5.6M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
McBride's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2024 cycle$4.1M
2026 cycle$5.6M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 26% came from Delaware.

  1. Delaware$771.2K
  2. California$525.5K
  3. New York$514.8K
  4. District of Columbia$172.0K
  5. Massachusetts$158.0K

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%
McBride
Median
2026
31%
13%
2024
13%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowMcBrideMedian
2026 cycle31%13%
2024 cycle13%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,048AKMaine: $14.4KMEVermont: $15.7KVTNew Hampshire: $10.3KNHWashington: $56.1KWAIdaho: $635IDMontana: $1,909MTNorth Dakota: $125NDMinnesota: $101.9KMNIllinois: $69.5KILWisconsin: $25.3KWIMichigan: $6,715MINew York: $514.8KNYRhode Island: $2,122RIMassachusetts: $158.0KMAOregon: $8,458ORNevada: $1,097NVWyoming: $330WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $100IAIndiana: $1,830INOhio: $10.5KOHPennsylvania: $92.6KPANew Jersey: $43.6KNJConnecticut: $36.1KCTCalifornia: $525.5KCAUtah: $16.4KUTColorado: $23.3KCONebraska: $895NEMissouri: $5,932MOKentucky: $1,930KYWest Virginia: $3,019WVVirginia: $44.8KVAMaryland: $77.5KMDDelaware: $771.2KDEArizona: $8,635AZNew Mexico: $17.6KNMKansas: $3,550KSArkansas: $3,550ARTennessee: $3,726TNNorth Carolina: $11.6KNCSouth Carolina: $2,300SCDistrict of Columbia: $172.0KDCOklahoma: $80OKLouisiana: $320LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $3,875ALGeorgia: $20.9KGAHawaii: $1,140HITexas: $49.3KTXFlorida: $71.8KFL
Show the data
McBride's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Delaware$771.2K
California$525.5K
New York$514.8K
District of Columbia$172.0K
Massachusetts$158.0K
Minnesota$101.9K
Pennsylvania$92.6K
Maryland$77.5K
Florida$71.8K
Illinois$69.5K
Washington$56.1K
Texas$49.3K
Virginia$44.8K
New Jersey$43.6K
Connecticut$36.1K
Wisconsin$25.3K
Colorado$23.3K
Georgia$20.9K
New Mexico$17.6K
Utah$16.4K
Vermont$15.7K
Maine$14.4K
North Carolina$11.6K
Ohio$10.5K
New Hampshire$10.3K
Arizona$8,635
Oregon$8,458
Michigan$6,715
Missouri$5,932
Alabama$3,875
Tennessee$3,726
Kansas$3,550
Arkansas$3,550
West Virginia$3,019
South Carolina$2,300
Rhode Island$2,122
Kentucky$1,930
Montana$1,909
Indiana$1,830
Hawaii$1,140
Nevada$1,097
Alaska$1,048
Nebraska$895
Idaho$635
Wyoming$330
Louisiana$320
North Dakota$125
Iowa$100
Oklahoma$80
South DakotaNo data
MississippiNo data
3,167

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

26%

from Delaware

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −2.00 to −1.75: 0%CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.0%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.9%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 64%64%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 31%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.7%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.7%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.5%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.7%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of McBride's itemized donors in 2026, from −2.00 to +0.50: 64% between −1.25 and −1.00, 31% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −2.00 to −1.750%
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.0%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.9%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0064%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7531%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.7%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.7%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.5%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.7%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of McBride’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; McBride’s own score is −1.07.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$1.1M 1,527 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$380.3K 258 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$143.9K 119 donors
  4. CEO$70.8K 41 donors
  5. WRITER$53.8K 32 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OB-GYNS PAC (OB-GYN PAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  4. BLUE HEN FEDERAL PAC$10.0K
  5. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP. ASSOC. POLITICAL FUND$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP$77.5K 31 donors
  2. ANTHROPIC$28.0K 3 donors
  3. INCYTE CORPORATION$13.3K 4 donors
  4. MICROSOFT CORPORATION$10.7K 8 donors
  5. UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE$9,075 11 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

McBride voted with the majority of House Democrats on 97.8% of party-line votes and missed 0.6% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, McBride voted against the majority of House Democrats 20 times.

674 roll calls McBride 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 McBride voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

20

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 97.8%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 124th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
McBride
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.4%
96.9%
49th of 217
Party unity
97.8%
96.4%
124th of 217
Show the data
McBride's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowMcBridePeers
Attendance99.4%96.9%
Party unity97.8%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
YeaWith 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
NayWith 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 McBride most often

  1. Analilia MejiaD187 shared votes98%
  2. Kweisi MfumeD625 shared votes98%
  3. Sarah ElfrethD668 shared votes98%
  4. Christian MenefeeD254 shared votes98%
  5. Robert GarciaD632 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as McBride least often

  1. Chip RoyR630 shared votes18%
  2. Andy BiggsR604 shared votes19%
  3. Eric BurlisonR638 shared votes19%
  4. Ralph NormanR594 shared votes19%
  5. Josh BrecheenR637 shared votes19%
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

McBride sponsored 10 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 689 others. 0% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 171st of 207).

The bills McBride 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

Sponsored10 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1010Sponsored, In committee: 1010Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored689 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 689689Cosponsored, In committee: 689689Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3535Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills McBride sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1010000
Cosponsored6896893554
How to read the blocks

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

0%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 171st of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton74
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick60
  3. Michael Lawler54
  4. Eugene Vindman51
  5. Josh Gottheimer43
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 McBride’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. 10824Stroke Education and EMS Care Improvement Act of 2026CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10828To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10802ASSURE ActCosponsorOct 13, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, Science, Space, and Technology, Armed Services, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 13, 2026
H.R. 10740To designate Ukraine under section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide certain nationals of Ukraine with continued eligibility for temporary protected status, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 5, 2026In committeeImmigrationReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 5, 2026
H.R. 10680Food Access in Community Health Centers Act of 2026CosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Oct 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 97 times in 90 days. McBride’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images McBride posted on Oct 20, 2026.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    mcbride.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    33

    pages crawled

    97

    changes in 90 days

  • Campaign site

    sarahmcbride.com

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    51

    pages crawled

    87

    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 McBride posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A man and a woman look over a large white hot tub in a showroom. The scene includes display signs and other store fixtures. Some text is visible in the background.
    A man and a woman look over a large white hot tub in a showroom. The scene includes display signs and other store fixtures. Some text is visible in the background.View post
  • Two people talk beside a display hot tub in a showroom. Promotional banners and wall displays are visible in the background, along with an American flag. Text appears on the banners and displays.
    Two people talk beside a display hot tub in a showroom. Promotional banners and wall displays are visible in the background, along with an American flag. Text appears on the banners and displays.View post
  • Two women stand together smiling as one takes a photo with a smartphone in a warmly lit dining or event room. Other people are seated nearby, with tables, chairs, and a walker visible. There is text on a wall sign.
    Two women stand together smiling as one takes a photo with a smartphone in a warmly lit dining or event room. Other people are seated nearby, with tables, chairs, and a walker visible. There is text on a wall sign.View post
  • Several adults are chatting in a brightly lit indoor room with framed artwork on the walls and a wooden floor. Some people are wearing name badges and holding papers. There is also a display board with text.
    Several adults are chatting in a brightly lit indoor room with framed artwork on the walls and a wooden floor. Some people are wearing name badges and holding papers. There is also a display board with text.View post
  • Two women stand talking at an indoor gathering. One wears a dark green suit, and the other wears a floral top and holds a booklet with visible text. Other guests sit nearby. A table with drink dispensers, round tables, chairs, window blinds, and framed wall art are also visible.
    Two women stand talking at an indoor gathering. One wears a dark green suit, and the other wears a floral top and holds a booklet with visible text. Other guests sit nearby. A table with drink dispensers, round tables, chairs, window blinds, and framed wall art are also visible.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 McBride 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
M001238
Bioguide
M001238
FEC candidate ids
H4DE00045

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