Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 13, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; target: Trump · Source
5.8×
the House Democrat rate of extreme labels
11% of 1,681 statements use an extreme label (185 statements); the average for House Democrats is 1.9%. Ranks 2nd of 216, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at MAGA.
An AI model reads each of Raskin’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. 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. 17% of Raskin’s statements contain a personal attack, 2.6 times the House Democrat average of 6.6%. Raskin sits at −1.43 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 96% of House Democrats.
The measures on which Raskin 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.
Extreme labels
11%
House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 2nd of 216
Personal attacks
17%
House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 11th of 216
CSIP ideology
−1.43
More liberal than 96% of House Democrats · ± 0.01
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.74
House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 8th of 216
Small donations, 2026
47%
House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 12th of 214
Raised, 2026
$9.3M
House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 12th of 214
Peer group: House Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Raskin, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Raskin is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Raskin says
Raskin attacks opponents personally more than 94% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 17% of 1,681 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 11th of 216.
An AI model reads each of Raskin’s 1,681 statements in the 119th Congress (1,166 posts on X, 384 Congressional Record speeches, 113 press releases, 18 newsletters) 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%
Raskin
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,053 statements
63%
73%
198th of 216
Policy criticism440 statements
26%
28%
139th of 216
Personal attacks286 statements
17%
7%
11th of 216
Credit claiming222 statements
13%
23%
193rd of 216
Bipartisanship189 statements
11%
10%
62nd of 216
Show the data
| Row | Raskin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 63% | 73% |
| Policy criticism | 26% | 28% |
| Personal attacks | 17% | 7% |
| Credit claiming | 13% | 23% |
| Bipartisanship | 11% | 10% |
1,681
statements classified
1,166 posts on X, 384 Congressional Record speeches, 113 press releases, 18 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,166 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 384 |
| press releases | 113 |
| newsletters | 18 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Raskin; the thin grey bar is the average House Democrats. A longer thick bar means Raskin does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Raskin used extreme labels in 11% of statements, 5.8 times the peer average. 185 statements, most often aimed at MAGA; peers 1.9%.
- “MAGA”123
- “extreme”17
- “fascist”12
- “radical”10
- “communist”2
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- MAGA53
- Trump11
- MAGA Republicans8
- Republicans4
- Supreme Court4
What an extreme label is
Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.
Month by month
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 108 | 11.1% | 25.9% | 46.3% | 8.3% | 15.7% | 6.5% |
| Feb ’25 | 75 | 33.3% | 30.7% | 61.3% | 6.7% | 9.3% | 10.7% |
| Mar ’25 | 68 | 19.1% | 23.5% | 61.8% | 7.3% | 17.6% | 16.2% |
| Apr ’25 | 132 | 15.9% | 32.6% | 64.4% | 3.8% | 8.3% | 12.9% |
| May ’25 | 149 | 20.8% | 37.6% | 60.4% | 13.4% | 16.1% | 9.4% |
| Jun ’25 | 108 | 21.3% | 19.4% | 57.4% | 11.1% | 15.7% | 11.1% |
| Jul ’25 | 62 | 11.3% | 37.1% | 77.4% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 16.1% |
| Aug ’25 | 46 | 17.4% | 28.3% | 60.9% | 10.9% | 15.2% | 19.6% |
| Sep ’25 | 81 | 17.3% | 27.2% | 44.4% | 16.1% | 13.6% | 12.3% |
| Oct ’25 | 81 | 9.9% | 37.0% | 58.0% | 3.7% | 6.2% | 21.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 73 | 16.4% | 30.1% | 45.2% | 11.0% | 6.9% | 4.1% |
| Dec ’25 | 76 | 5.3% | 17.1% | 69.7% | 14.5% | 19.7% | 7.9% |
| Jan ’26 | 75 | 13.3% | 10.7% | 74.7% | 13.3% | 6.7% | 10.7% |
| Feb ’26 | 52 | 21.1% | 25.0% | 50.0% | 1.9% | 19.2% | 5.8% |
| Mar ’26 | 88 | 23.9% | 39.8% | 67.0% | 14.8% | 19.3% | 10.2% |
| Apr ’26 | 55 | 10.9% | 18.2% | 76.4% | 23.6% | 10.9% | 10.9% |
| May ’26 | 94 | 13.8% | 29.8% | 56.4% | 20.2% | 10.6% | 9.6% |
| Jun ’26 | 64 | 18.8% | 32.8% | 54.7% | 15.6% | 15.6% | 17.2% |
| Jul ’26 | 50 | 18.0% | 6.0% | 82.0% | 14.0% | 20.0% | 12.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 44 | 25.0% | 13.6% | 72.7% | 25.0% | 15.9% | 2.3% |
| Sep ’26 | 71 | 14.1% | 8.5% | 88.7% | 9.9% | 12.7% | 5.6% |
| Oct ’26 | 29 | 17.2% | 0.0% | 89.7% | 0.0% | 17.2% | 13.8% |
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 Raskin’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Personal attacks
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 21, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Law; target: Trump · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 15, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Law; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Trump; target: Trump · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Law · target: TrumpSource
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 · Law · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at Trump · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
Press releases
Raskin Introduces Legislation to Preserve and Document Trump Propaganda and Educate Future Generations on Resistance to Corruption and Authoritarianism WASHINGTON, D.C.— As the Trump Administration prepares propaganda signage to adorn the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, Representative Jamie Raskin (MD-08) introduced legislation to ensure future generations learn about President Donald Trump’s comm…
personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · extreme label “MAGA, radical” aimed at MAGA · target: Donald TrumpSource
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 · target: Donald TrumpSource
All 1,681 statements
Newest first, the 119th Congress
The full feed
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,166 posts on X, 384 Congressional Record speeches, 113 press releases, 18 newsletters.
Policy
Government Operations and Politics is what Raskin talks about most: 37% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.74 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 8th 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 Raskin talks about. The bills Raskin sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Raskin talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%40%
Raskin
Peers
Government Operations and Politics385 statements
37%
20%
Health229 statements
22%
26%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues227 statements
22%
13%
Crime and Law Enforcement208 statements
20%
9%
Law173 statements
16%
5%
Show the data
| Row | Raskin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 37% | 20% |
| Health | 22% | 26% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 22% | 13% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 20% | 9% |
| Law | 16% | 5% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Raskin’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 40%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | House Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | House Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Operations and Politics | 37% | 20% | 20% | 11% |
| Health | 22% | 26% | 14% | 16% |
| Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | 22% | 13% | 4% | 5% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 20% | 9% | 10% | 7% |
| Law | 16% | 5% | 6% | 1% |
0.74
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 8th of 216.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Raskin legislates on exactly the areas Raskin 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 Raskin sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Raskin sits at −1.43 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 96% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.45 to −1.42, which understates the uncertainty; from 12,751 donors and 5,009 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”.
−1.43
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.45 to −1.42. From 12,751 donors and 5,009 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Raskin, 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 Raskin’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 Raskin sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
House Democrats217 · median −1.0
All House439 · median +0.3
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Raskin |
|---|---|---|---|
| House Democrats | 217 | −1.0 | 4% |
| All House | 439 | +0.3 | 2% |
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 Raskin 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 Raskin.
Money
Raskin raised $9.3M in the 2026 cycle, 4.7 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 47% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 34% of itemized individual money came from Maryland.
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.
$9.3M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 6,187 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)47 squares$4.4M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)41 squares$3.8M
- PACs and other committees6 squares$500.2K
- Party committees$1,444
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)6 squares$590.9K
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $4.4M | 47.2% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $3.8M | 41.1% |
| PACs and other committees | $500.2K | 5.4% |
| Party committees | $1,444 | 0.0% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $590.9K | 6.3% |
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 House Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $2.1M |
| 2022 cycle | $4.7M |
| 2024 cycle | $4.8M |
| 2026 cycle | $9.3M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 34% came from Maryland.
- Maryland$1.2M
- California$433.7K
- New York$284.7K
- District of Columbia$237.8K
- Massachusetts$170.1K
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%
Raskin
Median
2026
47%
13%
2024
44%
13%
2022
36%
13%
2020
16%
13%
Show the data
| Row | Raskin | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 47% | 13% |
| 2024 cycle | 44% | 13% |
| 2022 cycle | 36% | 13% |
| 2020 cycle | 16% | 13% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Maryland | $1.2M |
| California | $433.7K |
| New York | $284.7K |
| District of Columbia | $237.8K |
| Massachusetts | $170.1K |
| Florida | $147.3K |
| Pennsylvania | $101.3K |
| Virginia | $91.9K |
| Washington | $81.1K |
| New Jersey | $59.8K |
| Texas | $55.8K |
| Illinois | $53.0K |
| Connecticut | $51.9K |
| Colorado | $39.9K |
| Michigan | $38.5K |
| North Carolina | $37.7K |
| Minnesota | $31.7K |
| Arizona | $28.7K |
| Oregon | $27.3K |
| Wisconsin | $23.4K |
| Maine | $22.0K |
| Ohio | $22.0K |
| Delaware | $18.7K |
| New Mexico | $18.2K |
| Hawaii | $15.8K |
| South Carolina | $13.2K |
| Nevada | $12.8K |
| New Hampshire | $12.6K |
| Tennessee | $11.0K |
| Indiana | $10.2K |
| Vermont | $10.2K |
| Missouri | $10.2K |
| Kansas | $9,901 |
| Georgia | $9,520 |
| Kentucky | $9,375 |
| Idaho | $9,190 |
| Wyoming | $7,000 |
| Rhode Island | $6,045 |
| Iowa | $5,130 |
| Montana | $4,453 |
| Utah | $4,362 |
| Nebraska | $4,300 |
| Alabama | $4,110 |
| Oklahoma | $3,815 |
| Alaska | $3,465 |
| West Virginia | $3,132 |
| Louisiana | $2,399 |
| Arkansas | $1,340 |
| South Dakota | $1,275 |
| Mississippi | $600 |
| North Dakota | $454 |
6,187
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
34%
from Maryland
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 Maryland. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.75 to −1.50 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 28% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 53% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 17% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.9% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 0.2% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 0.3% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 0.1% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 0.1% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 0.3% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.1% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Raskin’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Raskin’s own score is −1.43.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$1.9M 3,762 donors
- RETIRED$320.9K 705 donors
- ATTORNEY$293.3K 312 donors
- PROFESSOR$68.0K 97 donors
- CONSULTANT$63.7K 94 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)$10.0K
- AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
- BMI POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BMI PAC)$10.0K
- DELOITTE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
- MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- AMERICAN UNIVERSITY$17.8K 12 donors
- GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY$8,245 10 donors
- JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY$6,565 4 donors
- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP$6,000 4 donors
- HARVARD UNIVERSITY$5,999 3 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Raskin voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 1.0% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Raskin voted against the majority of House Democrats 10 times.
674 roll calls Raskin 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 Raskin voted with the majority of House Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
10
votes against the majority of House Democrats
Party unity 99.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 54th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Raskin, the thin grey bar the House Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Raskin
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.9%
96.9%
66th of 217
Party unity
99.3%
96.4%
54th of 217
Show the data
| Row | Raskin | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 98.9% | 96.9% |
| Party unity | 99.3% | 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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Nay | With majority | Passed | D 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | close vote | |
| Sep 16, 2026 | Yea | With majority | Passed | D 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | party 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 | Yea | Against majority | Passed | D 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nay | became 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 Raskin most often
- Betty McCollumD653 shared votes99%
- Adam SmithD626 shared votes99%
- Joe NeguseD666 shared votes99%
- Madeleine DeanD658 shared votes99%
- Debbie DingellD646 shared votes99%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Raskin least often
- Chip RoyR629 shared votes16%
- Ralph NormanR592 shared votes17%
- Andy BiggsR602 shared votes18%
- Eric BurlisonR637 shared votes18%
- Keith SelfR653 shared votes18%
How to read the agreement lists
The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.
Full voting record
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Legislation
Raskin sponsored 39 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 343 others. 7.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 46th of 207).
The bills Raskin 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 39 | 39 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 343 | 343 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Raskin sponsored, ochre blocks bills Raskin cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
7.7%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 46th of 207.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Raskin, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Eleanor Norton53
- Hank Johnson Jr.25
- Rashida Tlaib23
- André Carson22
- Pramila Jayapal17
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 Raskin’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| H.R. 10765 | Preserving and Remembering the History of Trump and other Tyrants Act | Sponsor | Oct 6, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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 6, 2026 |
| H.R. 10642 | STS Act | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | International Affairs | Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and Ways and Means, 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 1, 2026 |
| H.R. 10651 | End Tax Breaks for Dark Money Act | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Taxation | Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 1, 2026 |
| H.R. 10700 | Accessible Voting Act of 2026 | Cosponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Referred to the House Committee on House Administration. Oct 1, 2026 |
| H.Res. 1603 | Expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States. | Sponsor | Oct 1, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Workforce, 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 1, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 88 times in 90 days. Raskin’s official site had 44 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Raskin posted on Oct 24, 2026.
The lab crawls Raskin’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 Raskin posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 44
pages crawled
88changes in 90 days
- 5
pages crawled
1changes 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 Raskin posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
Several adults stand outdoors in conversation beside a parked car and a wooden building on a sunny day. Some are wearing suits, while one man wears a dark uniform and gestures as he speaks. There is text on clothing and a vehicle.View post 
Three adults are standing in a small office or facility room and appear to be talking. A woman gestures while speaking to a man in a suit, and a uniformed man listens nearby. There is some text visible on a wall chart and on the uniform.View post 
Three people stand inside a fire station beside a red emergency vehicle. A uniformed man gestures upward while speaking to a woman and a suited man. Text is visible on the vehicle and nearby equipment.View post 
Three people talk inside a fire station or industrial facility. A firefighter in uniform gestures while speaking with a woman and a man in a suit. Ladders, pipes, equipment, and black-and-yellow safety markings are visible. Text appears on clothing and a uniform patch.View post 
A satirical invoice addressed to President Donald Trump, listing bad propaganda commercials and a large overdue charge. It includes a handwritten-style thank-you note and signature, plus a red overdue stamp.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.
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 Raskin 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
- R000606
- Bioguide
- R000606
- FEC candidate ids
- H6MD08457
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