Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, South Dakota

Serving since Jan 6, 2015119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide R000605FEC S4SD00049

Portrait of Mike Rounds, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
93%
of Senate Republicans score to the right of Rounds on the CSIP scale

CSIP score +0.70 (approximate range +0.68 to +0.71, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 3,869 donors and 4,021 roll calls.

CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Rounds sits among Senate Republicans, not how far from the centre.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 0.3% of Rounds’s statements use an extreme label, in the bottom tenth of Senate Republicans (average 2.9%). 9.2% of the 65 bills Rounds sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom quarter of Senate Republicans.

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

CSIP ideology

+0.70

More liberal than 93% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01

Extreme labels

0.3%

Senate Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 48th of 52

Out of committee

9.2%

Senate Republicans average 22% · ranks 45th of 51

Policy criticism

11%

Senate Republicans average 17% · ranks 45th of 52

From South Dakota, 2026

9.9%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 43rd of 50 Senate Republicans

Credit claiming

29%

Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 43rd of 52

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Rounds says

Rounds attacks opponents personally less than 76% of Senate Republicans. Personal attacks in 0.3% of 1,189 statements, against 2.1% for the average Senate Republican; 41st of 52.

An AI model reads each of Rounds’s 1,189 statements in the 119th Congress (880 posts on X, 210 press releases, 60 newsletters, 39 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Rounds
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion767 statements
65%
70%
41st of 52
Credit claiming341 statements
29%
36%
43rd of 52
Policy criticism125 statements
11%
17%
45th of 52
Bipartisanship92 statements
8%
13%
40th of 52
Personal attacks3 statements
0%
2%
41st of 52
Show the data
Rounds's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowRoundsPeers
Policy discussion65%70%
Credit claiming29%36%
Policy criticism11%17%
Bipartisanship8%13%
Personal attacks0%2%
1,189

statements classified

880 posts on X, 210 press releases, 60 newsletters, 39 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 880 (74.0%)posts on X 880press releases: 210 (17.7%)newsletters: 60 (5.0%)Congressional Record speeches: 39 (3.3%)
Show the data
Rounds's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X880
press releases210
newsletters60
Congressional Record speeches39
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Rounds used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 8.7% of the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “communist”1
  2. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats1
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: 762025-02: 802025-03: 1142025-04: 952025-05: 792025-06: 702025-07: 512025-08: 182025-09: 572025-10: 492025-11: 282025-12: 452026-01: 302026-02: 622026-03: 742026-04: 652026-05: 302026-06: 342026-07: 412026-08: 382026-09: 312026-10: 22peak 114 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 5.3% · Aug ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 114Personal attacks, 2025-04: 0.0% of 95Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 79Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 18Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2025-11: 0.0% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-08: 5.3% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 22Policy criticismpeak 40.8% · Oct ’25 · latest 4.5%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 5.3% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-02: 18.8% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-03: 14.0% of 114Policy criticism, 2025-04: 17.9% of 95Policy criticism, 2025-05: 5.1% of 79Policy criticism, 2025-06: 5.7% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-07: 9.8% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-08: 5.6% of 18Policy criticism, 2025-09: 8.8% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-10: 40.8% of 49Policy criticism, 2025-11: 3.6% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-12: 6.7% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-01: 10.0% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-02: 8.1% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-03: 9.5% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-04: 4.6% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-05: 6.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2026-06: 8.8% of 34Policy criticism, 2026-07: 4.9% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-08: 2.6% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-09: 9.7% of 31Policy criticism, 2026-10: 4.5% of 22Policy discussionpeak 90.0% · Jan ’26 · latest 50.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 52.6% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-02: 72.5% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-03: 64.9% of 114Policy discussion, 2025-04: 53.7% of 95Policy discussion, 2025-05: 51.9% of 79Policy discussion, 2025-06: 40.0% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-07: 68.6% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-08: 50.0% of 18Policy discussion, 2025-09: 64.9% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-10: 73.5% of 49Policy discussion, 2025-11: 67.9% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-12: 77.8% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-01: 90.0% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-02: 69.3% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-03: 68.9% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-04: 76.9% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-05: 63.3% of 30Policy discussion, 2026-06: 70.6% of 34Policy discussion, 2026-07: 68.3% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-08: 65.8% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-09: 83.9% of 31Policy discussion, 2026-10: 50.0% of 22Bipartisanshippeak 21.1% · Aug ’26 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 7.9% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 12.5% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 10.5% of 114Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 10.5% of 95Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 1.3% of 79Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 1.4% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 7.8% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 5.6% of 18Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 12.3% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 10.2% of 49Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 10.7% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 6.7% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 0.0% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 1.6% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 13.5% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 3.3% of 30Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 5.9% of 34Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 12.2% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 21.1% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 6.5% of 31Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 22Credit claimingpeak 50.0% · Feb ’25 · latest 4.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 26.3% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-02: 50.0% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-03: 32.5% of 114Credit claiming, 2025-04: 27.4% of 95Credit claiming, 2025-05: 17.7% of 79Credit claiming, 2025-06: 12.9% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-07: 31.4% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-08: 5.6% of 18Credit claiming, 2025-09: 24.6% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-10: 30.6% of 49Credit claiming, 2025-11: 25.0% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-12: 46.7% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-01: 46.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-02: 37.1% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-03: 24.3% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-04: 26.2% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-05: 26.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2026-06: 29.4% of 34Credit claiming, 2026-07: 21.9% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-08: 28.9% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-09: 32.3% of 31Credit claiming, 2026-10: 4.5% of 22Extreme labelspeak 2.9% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-02: 1.3% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.9% of 114Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 95Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 79Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-07: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2026-06: 2.9% of 34Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 31Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 22Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Rounds, 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 ’25760.0%5.3%52.6%7.9%26.3%0.0%
Feb ’25800.0%18.8%72.5%12.5%50.0%1.3%
Mar ’251140.0%14.0%64.9%10.5%32.5%0.9%
Apr ’25950.0%17.9%53.7%10.5%27.4%0.0%
May ’25790.0%5.1%51.9%1.3%17.7%0.0%
Jun ’25700.0%5.7%40.0%1.4%12.9%0.0%
Jul ’25510.0%9.8%68.6%7.8%31.4%0.0%
Aug ’25180.0%5.6%50.0%5.6%5.6%0.0%
Sep ’25570.0%8.8%64.9%12.3%24.6%0.0%
Oct ’25490.0%40.8%73.5%10.2%30.6%0.0%
Nov ’25280.0%3.6%67.9%10.7%25.0%0.0%
Dec ’25450.0%6.7%77.8%6.7%46.7%0.0%
Jan ’26300.0%10.0%90.0%0.0%46.7%0.0%
Feb ’26620.0%8.1%69.3%1.6%37.1%0.0%
Mar ’26740.0%9.5%68.9%13.5%24.3%0.0%
Apr ’26650.0%4.6%76.9%0.0%26.2%0.0%
May ’26300.0%6.7%63.3%3.3%26.7%0.0%
Jun ’26342.9%8.8%70.6%5.9%29.4%2.9%
Jul ’26410.0%4.9%68.3%12.2%21.9%0.0%
Aug ’26385.3%2.6%65.8%21.1%28.9%0.0%
Sep ’26310.0%9.7%83.9%6.5%32.3%0.0%
Oct ’26220.0%4.5%50.0%0.0%4.5%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 Rounds’s words

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

Policy criticism

Rounds Calls for Federal Gas and Diesel Tax Suspension to Lower Prices at Pump, President Trump to Invoke Defense Production Act PIERRE – Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) called for a suspension of the federal gas and diesel tax for 90 days in a letter today to President Donald Trump. Additionally, Roun…

Oct 2, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; Energy; Taxation; Transportation and Public Works; Economics and Public Finance; Government Operations and Politics · Source

Personal attacks

Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns with the US Postal Service operations in South Dakota, my home State. Over the past year or so, my team has heard from thousands of South Dakotans expressing their frustrations and, frankly, anger about poor mail delivery in our State. We have heard…

Aug 7, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Armed Forces and National Security; Taxation; target: Postal Service leaders · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 30, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “woke” aimed at Democrats · 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. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns with the US Postal Service operations in South Dakota, my home State. Over the past year or so, my team has heard from thousands of South Dakotans expressing their frustrations and, frankly, anger about poor mail delivery in our State. We have heard from veterans who are not getting their medication on time; we have heard from individuals who are having to pay late f…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Armed Forces and National Security · Taxation · target: Postal Service leadersSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns with the US Postal Service operations in South Dakota, my home State. Over the past year or so, my team has heard from thousands of South Dakotans expressing their frustrations and, frankly, anger about poor mail delivery in our State. We have heard from veterans who are not getting their medication on time; we have heard from individuals who are having to pay late f…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Economics and Public Finance · target: Postal ServiceSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: Postmaster GeneralSource

All 1,189 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: 880 posts on X, 210 press releases, 60 newsletters, 39 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Rounds talks about most: 24% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 19th of 52).

Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Rounds talks about. The bills Rounds sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Rounds talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Rounds
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security181 statements
24%
25%
Agriculture and Food142 statements
19%
9%
Government Operations and Politics124 statements
16%
19%
Health124 statements
16%
15%
Education108 statements
14%
8%
Show the data
Policy areas Rounds talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowRoundsPeers
Armed Forces and National Security24%25%
Agriculture and Food19%9%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%
Health16%15%
Education14%8%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

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

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 24% (Senate Republicans 25%)24%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 18% (Senate Republicans 8%)18%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 19% (Senate Republicans 9%)19%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 10% (Senate Republicans 4%)10%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 16% (Senate Republicans 19%)16%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 11%)8%HealthHealth, talks about: 16% (Senate Republicans 15%)16%Health, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 11%)8%EducationEducation, talks about: 14% (Senate Republicans 8%)14%Education, legislates on: 2% (Senate Republicans 4%)2%
Show the data
Rounds's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security24%25%18%8%
Agriculture and Food19%9%10%4%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%8%11%
Health16%15%8%11%
Education14%8%2%4%
0.67

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 19th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Rounds sits at +0.70 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 93% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.68 to +0.71, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,869 donors and 4,021 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”.

+0.70

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.68 to +0.71. From 3,869 donors and 4,021 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Rounds +0.7Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Rounds, 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 Rounds’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 Rounds sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Rounds +0.7All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Rounds's CSIP score of +0.70 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Rounds
Senate Republicans51+1.06%
All Senate98+0.451%
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 Rounds 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 Rounds.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Rounds raised $3.8M in the 2026 cycle, above the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 3.1% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 9.9% of itemized individual money came from South Dakota.

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
$3.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 586 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.5M (40.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $49.6K (1.3%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (42.9%)Party committees: $62.0K (1.6%)Party committees: $62.0K (1.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $528.6K (13.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)40 squares$1.5M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)1 squares$49.6K
  • PACs and other committees43 squares$1.6M
  • Party committees2 squares$62.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)14 squares$528.6K
Show the data
Sources of Rounds's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.5M40.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$49.6K1.3%
PACs and other committees$1.6M42.9%
Party committees$62.0K1.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$528.6K13.9%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $3.7M$3.7M20202022 cycle: $253.1K$253.1K20222024 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20242026 cycle: $3.8M$3.8M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Rounds's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.7M
2022 cycle$253.1K
2024 cycle$1.1M
2026 cycle$3.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 9.9% came from South Dakota.

  1. California$352.3K
  2. Texas$141.6K
  3. South Dakota$135.5K
  4. New York$110.3K
  5. Virginia$105.5K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Rounds
Median
2026
3%
17%
2024
7%
17%
2022
21%
17%
2020
16%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowRoundsMedian
2026 cycle3%17%
2024 cycle7%17%
2022 cycle21%17%
2020 cycle16%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $1,600NHWashington: $24.8KWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $260MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $5,544MNIllinois: $40.9KILWisconsin: $2,024WIMichigan: $25.8KMINew York: $110.3KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $14.3KMAOregon: no dataORNevada: $32.8KNVWyoming: $3,000WYSouth Dakota: $135.5KSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: no dataINOhio: $14.3KOHPennsylvania: $35.6KPANew Jersey: $23.7KNJConnecticut: $7,000CTCalifornia: $352.3KCAUtah: $10.6KUTColorado: $15.5KCONebraska: $1,000NEMissouri: $1,000MOKentucky: $250KYWest Virginia: $7,000WVVirginia: $105.5KVAMaryland: $53.8KMDDelaware: $1,000DEArizona: $14.5KAZNew Mexico: $11NMKansas: $1,500KSArkansas: $7,000ARTennessee: $408TNNorth Carolina: $12.9KNCSouth Carolina: $10.3KSCDistrict of Columbia: $70.4KDCOklahoma: $7,000OKLouisiana: $660LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $2,307ALGeorgia: $12.5KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $141.6KTXFlorida: $64.3KFL
Show the data
Rounds's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$352.3K
Texas$141.6K
South Dakota$135.5K
New York$110.3K
Virginia$105.5K
District of Columbia$70.4K
Florida$64.3K
Maryland$53.8K
Illinois$40.9K
Pennsylvania$35.6K
Nevada$32.8K
Michigan$25.8K
Washington$24.8K
New Jersey$23.7K
Colorado$15.5K
Arizona$14.5K
Massachusetts$14.3K
Ohio$14.3K
North Carolina$12.9K
Georgia$12.5K
Utah$10.6K
South Carolina$10.3K
Connecticut$7,000
West Virginia$7,000
Arkansas$7,000
Oklahoma$7,000
Minnesota$5,544
Wyoming$3,000
Alabama$2,307
Wisconsin$2,024
New Hampshire$1,600
Kansas$1,500
Nebraska$1,000
Missouri$1,000
Delaware$1,000
Louisiana$660
Tennessee$408
Montana$260
Kentucky$250
New Mexico$11
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
IowaNo data
IndianaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
586

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

9.9%

from South Dakota

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 1.2%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.9%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 7.4%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 10.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 9.4%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 7.9%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 25%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 35%35%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 2.3%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Rounds's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.25: 7.4% between −0.50 and −0.25, 10.0% between −0.25 and 0.00, 9.4% between 0.00 and +0.25, 7.9% between +0.25 and +0.50, 25% between +0.50 and +0.75, 35% between +0.75 and +1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.751.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.9%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.257.4%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.0010.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.259.4%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.507.9%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7525%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0035%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.252.3%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Rounds’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Rounds’s own score is +0.70.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$121.9K 110 donors
  2. CEO$88.1K 35 donors
  3. CONSULTANT$61.1K 29 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$61.0K 19 donors
  5. EXECUTIVE$54.9K 16 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NRSC$62.0K
  2. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (MORPAC)$48.3K
  3. AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$10.0K
  4. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  5. AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. GOOGLE$48.8K 9 donors
  2. ANTHROPIC$47.6K 9 donors
  3. MARQUIS MANAGEMENT, INC.$30.0K 6 donors
  4. BLACKSTONE$23.6K 3 donors
  5. LEIDOS$20.7K 35 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Rounds voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.0% of party-line votes and missed 0.9% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Rounds voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 10 times.

915 roll calls Rounds could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate Republicans. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Rounds voted with the majority of Senate Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

10

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.0%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 41st of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Rounds
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.1%
97.1%
10th of 53
Party unity
99.0%
98.4%
41st of 53
Show the data
Rounds's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowRoundsPeers
Attendance99.1%97.1%
Party unity99.0%98.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
NayWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
YeaWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Rounds most often

  1. Markwayne MullinR679 shared votes100%
  2. John BoozmanR893 shared votes100%
  3. Pete RickettsR898 shared votes99%
  4. Shelley CapitoR890 shared votes99%
  5. Lindsey O. GrahamR786 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Rounds least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD900 shared votes3.7%
  2. Bernie SandersI844 shared votes3.8%
  3. Elizabeth WarrenD893 shared votes3.9%
  4. Christopher MurphyD882 shared votes4.4%
  5. Chris Van HollenD893 shared votes5.4%
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

Rounds sponsored 65 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 276 others. 9.2% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 45th of 51).

The bills Rounds 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

Sponsored65 billsSponsored, Introduced: 6565Sponsored, In committee: 6565Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 33Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored276 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 276276Cosponsored, In committee: 273273Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 6868Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 44IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Rounds sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored6565300
Cosponsored2762736844
How to read the blocks

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

9.2%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 45th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Kevin Cramer57
  2. Steve Daines39
  3. Thom Tillis39
  4. Pete Ricketts38
  5. Ted Budd37
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 Rounds’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S. 5629Gene Murphy Veterans’ Bill of Rights Act of 2026SponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityRead twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5639Portal for Appraisal Licensing Act of 2026SponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeFinance and Financial SectorRead twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 934A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 945A resolution designating November 7, 2026, as "National Bison Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberEnvironmental ProtectionSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 912A resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 28, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (consideration: CR S5074) Sep 28, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 79 times in 90 days. Rounds’s official site had 41 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Rounds posted on Oct 23, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Images Rounds posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Four adults pose for a group photo in an office, with several flags and an official seal displayed behind them. There is text on badges, the seal, and clothing.
    Four adults pose for a group photo in an office, with several flags and an official seal displayed behind them. There is text on badges, the seal, and clothing.View post
  • A group of men pose with shovels during a groundbreaking ceremony beside a body of water, with hills and a bridge in the background. No prominent text is visible.
    A group of men pose with shovels during a groundbreaking ceremony beside a body of water, with hills and a bridge in the background. No prominent text is visible.View post
  • A large group of adults and teenagers poses for a photograph outdoors on a leafy path under trees. Several people wear matching black shirts with printed designs, and other visitors are visible in the background. There is text on the shirts.
    A large group of adults and teenagers poses for a photograph outdoors on a leafy path under trees. Several people wear matching black shirts with printed designs, and other visitors are visible in the background. There is text on the shirts.View post
  • An outdoor public event beside a highway, with a man speaking to an audience seated in folding chairs and mobility scooters. Officials and event signage are visible near a small podium, with trees, parked vehicles, distant hills, and a bright blue sky in the background. Text appears on signs and equipment.
    An outdoor public event beside a highway, with a man speaking to an audience seated in folding chairs and mobility scooters. Officials and event signage are visible near a small podium, with trees, parked vehicles, distant hills, and a bright blue sky in the background. Text appears on signs and equipment.View post
  • A group of seven people—six young men and an older man—stand together smiling for a photo in a bright indoor room. Large windows are behind them, with wall art and a bookshelf nearby. Several people wear clothing with visible text and logos.
    A group of seven people—six young men and an older man—stand together smiling for a photo in a bright indoor room. Large windows are behind them, with wall art and a bookshelf nearby. Several people wear clothing with visible text and logos.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 Rounds is most unusual among Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
R000605
Bioguide
R000605
FEC candidate ids
S4SD00049

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