Skip to content

Independent · U.S. Senate, Vermont

Serving since Jan 4, 2007119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 5, 2030

Bioguide S000033FEC H8VT01016, S4VT00033

Portrait of Bernie Sanders, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1,564
statements classified

1,116 posts on X, 203 press releases, 127 newsletters in the 119th Congress. Too little data in the 119th Congress to compare with peers.

Every post, press release, newsletter and floor speech the lab collected and ran through its classifier.

At a glance

What the record holds for Sanders. Sanders has 1,564 classified statements in the 119th Congress.

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

CSIP ideology

−1.34

Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01

Statements

1,564

1,116 posts on X, 203 press releases, 127 newsletters

Roll calls

915

Compared with Senate independents

Bills sponsored

56

and 477 cosponsored

In office since

2007

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Sanders says

Sanders stresses bipartisanship less than any other Senate independent. Bipartisanship in 7.5% of 1,564 statements, against 24% for the average Senate independent; 2nd of 2.

An AI model reads each of Sanders’s 1,564 statements in the 119th Congress (1,116 posts on X, 203 press releases, 127 newsletters, 118 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 independents and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Sanders
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,260 statements
81%
85%
2nd of 2
Policy criticism616 statements
39%
43%
2nd of 2
Credit claiming225 statements
14%
31%
2nd of 2
Personal attacks168 statements
11%
7%
1st of 2
Bipartisanship117 statements
7%
24%
2nd of 2
Show the data
Sanders's share of statements in each category against the Senate independents average.
RowSandersPeers
Policy discussion81%85%
Policy criticism39%43%
Credit claiming14%31%
Personal attacks11%7%
Bipartisanship7%24%
1,564

statements classified

1,116 posts on X, 203 press releases, 127 newsletters, 118 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 1,116 (71.4%)posts on X 1,116press releases: 203 (13.0%)newsletters: 127 (8.1%)Congressional Record speeches: 118 (7.5%)
Show the data
Sanders's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,116
press releases203
newsletters127
Congressional Record speeches118
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Sanders used extreme labels in 5.3% of statements, above the peer average. 83 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 3.3%.

  1. “extreme”34
  2. “radical”26
  3. “far right”2
  4. “woke”2
  5. “MAGA”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump4
  2. Israeli government3
  3. Netanyahu3
  4. Netanyahu government3
  5. AI moratorium2
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: 982025-03: 1242025-04: 1032025-05: 662025-06: 592025-07: 832025-08: 572025-09: 672025-10: 792025-11: 772025-12: 702026-01: 582026-02: 482026-03: 622026-04: 572026-05: 502026-06: 682026-07: 732026-08: 652026-09: 672026-10: 57peak 124 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 21.0% · Mar ’25 · latest 10.5%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 13.2% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-02: 18.4% of 98Personal attacks, 2025-03: 21.0% of 124Personal attacks, 2025-04: 9.7% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-05: 7.6% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-06: 8.5% of 59Personal attacks, 2025-07: 9.6% of 83Personal attacks, 2025-08: 10.5% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-09: 13.4% of 67Personal attacks, 2025-10: 5.1% of 79Personal attacks, 2025-11: 10.4% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-12: 7.1% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-01: 13.8% of 58Personal attacks, 2026-02: 8.3% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-03: 4.8% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.8% of 57Personal attacks, 2026-05: 18.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-07: 8.2% of 73Personal attacks, 2026-08: 9.2% of 65Personal attacks, 2026-09: 13.4% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-10: 10.5% of 57Policy criticismpeak 65.8% · Jan ’25 · latest 19.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 65.8% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-02: 56.1% of 98Policy criticism, 2025-03: 54.8% of 124Policy criticism, 2025-04: 40.8% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-05: 48.5% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-06: 62.7% of 59Policy criticism, 2025-07: 43.4% of 83Policy criticism, 2025-08: 56.1% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-09: 37.3% of 67Policy criticism, 2025-10: 54.4% of 79Policy criticism, 2025-11: 42.9% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-12: 22.9% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-01: 24.1% of 58Policy criticism, 2026-02: 27.1% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-03: 37.1% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-04: 17.5% of 57Policy criticism, 2026-05: 32.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-06: 44.1% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-07: 15.1% of 73Policy criticism, 2026-08: 15.4% of 65Policy criticism, 2026-09: 13.4% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-10: 19.3% of 57Policy discussionpeak 95.4% · Aug ’26 · latest 89.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 85.5% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-02: 71.4% of 98Policy discussion, 2025-03: 79.0% of 124Policy discussion, 2025-04: 84.5% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-05: 84.9% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-06: 76.3% of 59Policy discussion, 2025-07: 83.1% of 83Policy discussion, 2025-08: 84.2% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-09: 86.6% of 67Policy discussion, 2025-10: 88.6% of 79Policy discussion, 2025-11: 67.5% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-12: 85.7% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-01: 87.9% of 58Policy discussion, 2026-02: 72.9% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-03: 64.5% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-04: 71.9% of 57Policy discussion, 2026-05: 74.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-06: 69.1% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-07: 80.8% of 73Policy discussion, 2026-08: 95.4% of 65Policy discussion, 2026-09: 88.1% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-10: 89.5% of 57Bipartisanshippeak 15.3% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 13.2% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 11.2% of 98Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 15.3% of 124Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 6.8% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 9.1% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.8% of 59Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 7.2% of 83Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 7.0% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 4.5% of 67Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 10.1% of 79Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 10.4% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 5.7% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 8.6% of 58Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 6.3% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 6.5% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 5.3% of 57Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 0.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 2.9% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 8.2% of 73Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 1.5% of 65Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 4.5% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 57Credit claimingpeak 23.7% · Jan ’25 · latest 7.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 23.7% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-02: 19.4% of 98Credit claiming, 2025-03: 16.1% of 124Credit claiming, 2025-04: 18.4% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-05: 9.1% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-06: 13.6% of 59Credit claiming, 2025-07: 14.5% of 83Credit claiming, 2025-08: 8.8% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-09: 14.9% of 67Credit claiming, 2025-10: 10.1% of 79Credit claiming, 2025-11: 5.2% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-12: 11.4% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-01: 17.2% of 58Credit claiming, 2026-02: 12.5% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-03: 21.0% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-04: 14.0% of 57Credit claiming, 2026-05: 14.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-06: 14.7% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-07: 11.0% of 73Credit claiming, 2026-08: 13.9% of 65Credit claiming, 2026-09: 19.4% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-10: 7.0% of 57Extreme labelspeak 10.5% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 10.5% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-02: 6.1% of 98Extreme labels, 2025-03: 9.7% of 124Extreme labels, 2025-04: 6.8% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-05: 7.6% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-06: 8.5% of 59Extreme labels, 2025-07: 6.0% of 83Extreme labels, 2025-08: 8.8% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-09: 3.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2025-10: 3.8% of 79Extreme labels, 2025-11: 9.1% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-12: 2.9% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.7% of 58Extreme labels, 2026-02: 4.2% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-03: 1.6% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-04: 1.8% of 57Extreme labels, 2026-05: 6.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.5% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-07: 4.1% of 73Extreme labels, 2026-08: 3.1% of 65Extreme labels, 2026-09: 3.0% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 57Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Sanders, 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 ’257613.2%65.8%85.5%13.2%23.7%10.5%
Feb ’259818.4%56.1%71.4%11.2%19.4%6.1%
Mar ’2512421.0%54.8%79.0%15.3%16.1%9.7%
Apr ’251039.7%40.8%84.5%6.8%18.4%6.8%
May ’25667.6%48.5%84.9%9.1%9.1%7.6%
Jun ’25598.5%62.7%76.3%6.8%13.6%8.5%
Jul ’25839.6%43.4%83.1%7.2%14.5%6.0%
Aug ’255710.5%56.1%84.2%7.0%8.8%8.8%
Sep ’256713.4%37.3%86.6%4.5%14.9%3.0%
Oct ’25795.1%54.4%88.6%10.1%10.1%3.8%
Nov ’257710.4%42.9%67.5%10.4%5.2%9.1%
Dec ’25707.1%22.9%85.7%5.7%11.4%2.9%
Jan ’265813.8%24.1%87.9%8.6%17.2%1.7%
Feb ’26488.3%27.1%72.9%6.3%12.5%4.2%
Mar ’26624.8%37.1%64.5%6.5%21.0%1.6%
Apr ’26571.8%17.5%71.9%5.3%14.0%1.8%
May ’265018.0%32.0%74.0%0.0%14.0%6.0%
Jun ’26682.9%44.1%69.1%2.9%14.7%1.5%
Jul ’26738.2%15.1%80.8%8.2%11.0%4.1%
Aug ’26659.2%15.4%95.4%1.5%13.9%3.1%
Sep ’266713.4%13.4%88.1%4.5%19.4%3.0%
Oct ’265710.5%19.3%89.5%0.0%7.0%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 Sanders’s words

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

Credit claiming

Sanders, Cleaver, Fletcher, 111 Colleagues Demand Trump Stop Illegally Blocking Solar for All BURLINGTON, Vt., Oct. 26 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) today led 111 of their colleagues to demand that the Trump administration immediately…

Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy; Environmental Protection; Labor and Employment; Commerce; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Bipartisanship

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

Sep 28, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Science, Technology, Communications · Source

Extreme label

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

Sep 29, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; International Affairs; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Netanyahu government · 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 · Health · Education · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  2. 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: 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 · Government Operations and Politics · 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 · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Science, Technology, Communications · Commerce · target: TrumpSource

All 1,564 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: 1,116 posts on X, 203 press releases, 127 newsletters, 118 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Sanders talks about most: 42% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (Senate independents average 0.67; 2nd of 2).

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

What Sanders talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%46%
Sanders
Peers
Health530 statements
42%
36%
Economics and Public Finance345 statements
27%
27%
Labor and Employment230 statements
18%
17%
International Affairs221 statements
18%
17%
Armed Forces and National Security216 statements
17%
32%
Show the data
Policy areas Sanders talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate independents average.
RowSandersPeers
Health42%36%
Economics and Public Finance27%27%
Labor and Employment18%17%
International Affairs18%17%
Armed Forces and National Security17%32%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Sanders’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate independents. 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 46%. Grey ticks are the Senate independents averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 42% (Senate independents 36%)42%Health, legislates on: 10% (Senate independents 13%)10%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 27% (Senate independents 27%)27%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate independents 0%)0%Labor and EmploymentLabor and Employment, talks about: 18% (Senate independents 17%)18%Labor and Employment, legislates on: 11% (Senate independents 7%)11%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 18% (Senate independents 17%)18%International Affairs, legislates on: 18% (Senate independents 11%)18%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 17% (Senate independents 32%)17%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 6% (Senate independents 12%)6%
Show the data
Sanders's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate independents, talks aboutLegislates onSenate independents, legislates on
Health42%36%10%13%
Economics and Public Finance27%27%0%0%
Labor and Employment18%17%11%7%
International Affairs18%17%18%11%
Armed Forces and National Security17%32%6%12%
0.65

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate independents average 0.67. Ranks 2nd of 2.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Sanders sits at −1.34 on the CSIP scale, left of 0. Approximate range −1.35 to −1.33, which understates the uncertainty; from 48,507 donors and 4,199 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”.

−1.34

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.35 to −1.33. From 48,507 donors and 4,199 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Sanders −1.3Senate independents −1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Sanders, 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 Sanders’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 Sanders sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate independentsmedian −1.0Sanders −1.3All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Sanders's CSIP score of −1.34 placed against Senate independents, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Sanders
Senate independents2−1.00%
All Senate98+0.49%
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 Sanders 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 Sanders.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Sanders raised $26.5M in the 2026 cycle, 2.0 times the Senate independents’ median of $13.3M. 70% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 3.1% of itemized individual money came from Vermont.

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
$26.5M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 20,101 itemized donors. Senate independents’ median $13.3M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $7.4M (28.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $17.7M (66.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.4M (5.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.4M (5.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.4M (5.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.4M (5.3%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $1.4M (5.3%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)28 squares$7.4M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)67 squares$17.7M
  • PACs and other committees$27
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)5 squares$1.4M
Show the data
Sources of Sanders's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$7.4M28.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$17.7M66.8%
PACs and other committees$270.0%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$1.4M5.3%
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 Senate independents’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $10.8M$10.8M20202022 cycle: $15.3M$15.3M20222024 cycle: $8.2M$8.2M20242026 cycle: $26.5M$26.5M2026Senate independents median $13.3M
Show the data
Sanders's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate independents median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$10.8M
2022 cycle$15.3M
2024 cycle$8.2M
2026 cycle$26.5M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 3.1% came from Vermont.

  1. California$1.5M
  2. New York$520.7K
  3. Massachusetts$461.6K
  4. Washington$397.6K
  5. Florida$227.8K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Sanders
Median
2026
70%
48%
2024
53%
48%
2022
69%
48%
2020
78%
48%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate independents median
RowSandersMedian
2026 cycle70%48%
2024 cycle53%48%
2022 cycle69%48%
2020 cycle78%48%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $31.0KAKMaine: $67.5KMEVermont: $199.5KVTNew Hampshire: $79.0KNHWashington: $397.6KWAIdaho: $29.5KIDMontana: $23.5KMTNorth Dakota: $3,931NDMinnesota: $88.8KMNIllinois: $202.6KILWisconsin: $100.7KWIMichigan: $134.1KMINew York: $520.7KNYRhode Island: $32.1KRIMassachusetts: $461.6KMAOregon: $213.1KORNevada: $36.1KNVWyoming: $8,103WYSouth Dakota: $5,287SDIowa: $25.8KIAIndiana: $60.3KINOhio: $89.4KOHPennsylvania: $181.3KPANew Jersey: $143.6KNJConnecticut: $118.2KCTCalifornia: $1.5MCAUtah: $41.6KUTColorado: $183.1KCONebraska: $18.8KNEMissouri: $54.1KMOKentucky: $22.7KKYWest Virginia: $15.0KWVVirginia: $159.9KVAMaryland: $159.2KMDDelaware: $12.8KDEArizona: $107.5KAZNew Mexico: $70.7KNMKansas: $24.5KKSArkansas: $12.7KARTennessee: $36.5KTNNorth Carolina: $129.1KNCSouth Carolina: $23.0KSCDistrict of Columbia: $48.4KDCOklahoma: $17.1KOKLouisiana: $21.8KLAMississippi: $7,976MSAlabama: $13.7KALGeorgia: $60.3KGAHawaii: $51.7KHITexas: $192.9KTXFlorida: $227.8KFL
Show the data
Sanders's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$1.5M
New York$520.7K
Massachusetts$461.6K
Washington$397.6K
Florida$227.8K
Oregon$213.1K
Illinois$202.6K
Vermont$199.5K
Texas$192.9K
Colorado$183.1K
Pennsylvania$181.3K
Virginia$159.9K
Maryland$159.2K
New Jersey$143.6K
Michigan$134.1K
North Carolina$129.1K
Connecticut$118.2K
Arizona$107.5K
Wisconsin$100.7K
Ohio$89.4K
Minnesota$88.8K
New Hampshire$79.0K
New Mexico$70.7K
Maine$67.5K
Indiana$60.3K
Georgia$60.3K
Missouri$54.1K
Hawaii$51.7K
District of Columbia$48.4K
Utah$41.6K
Tennessee$36.5K
Nevada$36.1K
Rhode Island$32.1K
Alaska$31.0K
Idaho$29.5K
Iowa$25.8K
Kansas$24.5K
Montana$23.5K
South Carolina$23.0K
Kentucky$22.7K
Louisiana$21.8K
Nebraska$18.8K
Oklahoma$17.1K
West Virginia$15.0K
Alabama$13.7K
Delaware$12.8K
Arkansas$12.7K
Wyoming$8,103
Mississippi$7,976
South Dakota$5,287
North Dakota$3,931
20,101

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

3.1%

from Vermont

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −2.25 to −2.00: 0%CSIP −2.00 to −1.75: 0%CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.3%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 42%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 46%46%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 12%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.4%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.1%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.0%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Sanders's itemized donors in 2026, from −2.25 to +1.75: 42% between −1.50 and −1.25, 46% between −1.25 and −1.00, 12% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −2.25 to −2.000%
CSIP −2.00 to −1.750%
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.3%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.2542%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0046%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7512%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.4%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.1%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.0%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Sanders’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Sanders’s own score is −1.34.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$3.5M 10,966 donors
  2. PHYSICIAN$140.2K 354 donors
  3. RETIRED$136.5K 412 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$122.0K 361 donors
  5. SOFTWARE ENGINEER$106.7K 243 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

No committee contributions this cycle.

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. GOOGLE$18.2K 39 donors
  2. AMAZON$9,777 24 donors
  3. MICROSOFT$8,920 22 donors
  4. KAISER PERMANENTE$8,724 23 donors
  5. META$7,349 10 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Sanders voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 7.0% of 915 roll calls. Senate independents on average: 93.4% party unity, 95.7% attendance. Across all roll calls, Sanders voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 47 times.

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

47

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 99.7%, Senate independents average 93.4%, ranks 1st of 2. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Sanders
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.0%
95.7%
2nd of 2
Party unity
99.7%
93.4%
1st of 2
Show the data
Sanders's attendance and party unity against Senate independents.
RowSandersPeers
Attendance93.0%95.7%
Party unity99.7%93.4%
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
NayAgainst 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
YeaWith 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
NayAgainst 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
NayAgainst 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
NayWith 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 Sanders most often

  1. Ed MarkeyD845 shared votes99%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD839 shared votes99%
  3. Christopher MurphyD828 shared votes98%
  4. Jeff MerkleyD844 shared votes97%
  5. Chris Van HollenD838 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Sanders least often

  1. Bernie MorenoR846 shared votes2.4%
  2. Tommy TubervilleR801 shared votes2.5%
  3. Ron JohnsonR840 shared votes2.5%
  4. John CornynR838 shared votes2.5%
  5. Ted BuddR827 shared votes2.5%
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

Sanders sponsored 56 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 477 others. 13% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate independents average 11%; 1st of 2).

The bills Sanders 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

Sponsored56 billsSponsored, Introduced: 5656Sponsored, In committee: 5656Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 00Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored477 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 477477Cosponsored, In committee: 475475Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 3737Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 22Cosponsored, Became law: 22IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Sanders sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored5656000
Cosponsored4774753722
How to read the blocks

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

13%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate independents average 11%. Ranks 1st of 2.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Jeff Merkley218
  2. Ed Markey202
  3. Richard Blumenthal200
  4. Elizabeth Warren197
  5. Cory Booker181
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 Sanders’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. 5626Higher Education Grant Flexibility Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEducationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5651National Institutes of Clean Energy Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEnergyRead twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 931A resolution recognizing the month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and celebrating the history and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to the United States.CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5265-5266) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 946A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026Passed one chamberArmed Forces and National SecuritySubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 920A resolution expressing concern about the growing problem of book banning, and the proliferation of threats to freedom of expression in the United States.CosponsorSep 29, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5175-5176) Sep 29, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 70 times in 90 days. Sanders’s official site had 25 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Sanders posted on Oct 19, 2026.

The lab crawls Sanders’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 Sanders 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 Sanders posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A screenshot of a social media post attributed to Donald J. Trump, with a profile image and verification-style badges above a long text post.
    A screenshot of a social media post attributed to Donald J. Trump, with a profile image and verification-style badges above a long text post.View post
  • A promotional magazine cover featuring an older man speaking into a microphone onstage, raising one hand. Text overlays the image, with a flag visible in the background.
    A promotional magazine cover featuring an older man speaking into a microphone onstage, raising one hand. Text overlays the image, with a flag visible in the background.View post
  • Four adults pose together indoors in front of a large framed painting. There is no visible text.
    Four adults pose together indoors in front of a large framed painting. There is no visible text.View post
  • A group of people sits in an ornate room for a discussion. Two men face each other in armchairs near a fireplace, while other attendees listen and take notes. The room has gilded mirrors, a large painting, decorative furniture, and a patterned rug. There is no clearly readable text.
    A group of people sits in an ornate room for a discussion. Two men face each other in armchairs near a fireplace, while other attendees listen and take notes. The room has gilded mirrors, a large painting, decorative furniture, and a patterned rug. There is no clearly readable text.View post
  • Two older men in suits pose together, smiling and clasping hands in a formal room. Behind them are a large framed painting, a fireplace, and upholstered chairs. There is no visible text.
    Two older men in suits pose together, smiling and clasping hands in a formal room. Behind them are a large framed painting, a fireplace, and upholstered chairs. There is no visible text.View post
About the descriptions

Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

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 Sanders is most unusual among peers, 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. That is the case for Sanders in this window. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
S000033
Bioguide
S000033
FEC candidate ids
H8VT01016, S4VT00033

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 27, 20261 days agoImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.

How the measures work

What politicians say
Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
Extreme labels
A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
Policy areas and agreement
Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology (CSIP)
Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
Campaign money
Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
Votes and key votes
Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
Peers and ranks
Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top