Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Illinois’s 10th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2013119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide S001190FEC H2IL10068

Portrait of Brad Schneider, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
24
votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 95.0%, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 96.4%). 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

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 Schneider voted with the majority of House Democrats; it is ranked among House Democrats. The count covers every roll call where Schneider voted opposite that majority.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 12% of Schneider’s statements use bipartisan language, in the top half of House Democrats (average 9.8%). Schneider sits at −0.79 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 76% of House Democrats.

The measures on which Schneider 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.

Party unity

95.0%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 175th of 217 · 24 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Bipartisanship

12%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 56th of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.79

More conservative than 76% of House Democrats · ± 0.01

Small donations, 2026

5.7%

House Democrats’ median 13% · ranks 163rd of 214

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.65

House Democrats average 0.67 · ranks 162nd of 216

Raised, 2026

$3.7M

House Democrats’ median $2.0M · ranks 56th of 214

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Schneider says

Schneider attacks opponents personally more than 71% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 8.3% of 1,164 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 62nd of 216.

An AI model reads each of Schneider’s 1,164 statements in the 119th Congress (961 posts on X, 133 press releases, 39 newsletters, 31 Congressional Record speeches) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Schneider
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion816 statements
70%
73%
152nd of 216
Policy criticism368 statements
32%
28%
83rd of 216
Credit claiming213 statements
18%
23%
144th of 216
Bipartisanship135 statements
12%
10%
56th of 216
Personal attacks97 statements
8%
7%
62nd of 216
Show the data
Schneider's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowSchneiderPeers
Policy discussion70%73%
Policy criticism32%28%
Credit claiming18%23%
Bipartisanship12%10%
Personal attacks8%7%
1,164

statements classified

961 posts on X, 133 press releases, 39 newsletters, 31 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 961 (82.6%)posts on X 961press releases: 133 (11.4%)newsletters: 39 (3.4%)Congressional Record speeches: 31 (2.7%)
Show the data
Schneider's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X961
press releases133
newsletters39
Congressional Record speeches31
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Schneider used extreme labels in 1.6% of statements, below the peer average. 19 statements, most often aimed at Republicans; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”10

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Republicans3
  2. Trump2
  3. actions1
  4. CBP1
  5. curricula1
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: 652025-02: 602025-03: 652025-04: 802025-05: 742025-06: 542025-07: 582025-08: 502025-09: 522025-10: 532025-11: 352025-12: 462026-01: 482026-02: 472026-03: 392026-04: 182026-05: 212026-06: 602026-07: 662026-08: 542026-09: 602026-10: 59peak 80 · Apr ’25Personal attackspeak 15.2% · Dec ’25 · latest 6.8%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 7.7% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-02: 13.3% of 60Personal attacks, 2025-03: 3.1% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-04: 11.3% of 80Personal attacks, 2025-05: 4.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2025-06: 9.3% of 54Personal attacks, 2025-07: 8.6% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-08: 6.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2025-09: 11.5% of 52Personal attacks, 2025-10: 3.8% of 53Personal attacks, 2025-11: 8.6% of 35Personal attacks, 2025-12: 15.2% of 46Personal attacks, 2026-01: 8.3% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-02: 8.5% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-03: 10.3% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-04: 11.1% of 18Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 21Personal attacks, 2026-06: 11.7% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-07: 10.6% of 66Personal attacks, 2026-08: 1.8% of 54Personal attacks, 2026-09: 10.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-10: 6.8% of 59Policy criticismpeak 45.7% · Nov ’25 · latest 10.2%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.2% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-02: 33.3% of 60Policy criticism, 2025-03: 32.3% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-04: 30.0% of 80Policy criticism, 2025-05: 32.4% of 74Policy criticism, 2025-06: 35.2% of 54Policy criticism, 2025-07: 41.4% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-08: 32.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2025-09: 34.6% of 52Policy criticism, 2025-10: 41.5% of 53Policy criticism, 2025-11: 45.7% of 35Policy criticism, 2025-12: 28.3% of 46Policy criticism, 2026-01: 14.6% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-02: 40.4% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-03: 43.6% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-04: 16.7% of 18Policy criticism, 2026-05: 23.8% of 21Policy criticism, 2026-06: 40.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-07: 28.8% of 66Policy criticism, 2026-08: 29.6% of 54Policy criticism, 2026-09: 30.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-10: 10.2% of 59Policy discussionpeak 90.7% · Aug ’26 · latest 67.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 64.6% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-02: 58.3% of 60Policy discussion, 2025-03: 52.3% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-04: 68.8% of 80Policy discussion, 2025-05: 59.5% of 74Policy discussion, 2025-06: 87.0% of 54Policy discussion, 2025-07: 70.7% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-08: 68.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2025-09: 59.6% of 52Policy discussion, 2025-10: 73.6% of 53Policy discussion, 2025-11: 74.3% of 35Policy discussion, 2025-12: 73.9% of 46Policy discussion, 2026-01: 79.2% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-02: 57.5% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-03: 64.1% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-04: 66.7% of 18Policy discussion, 2026-05: 66.7% of 21Policy discussion, 2026-06: 71.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-07: 81.8% of 66Policy discussion, 2026-08: 90.7% of 54Policy discussion, 2026-09: 86.7% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-10: 67.8% of 59Bipartisanshippeak 38.9% · Apr ’26 · latest 6.8%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 23.1% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 1.7% of 60Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 6.2% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.3% of 80Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.4% of 74Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 18.5% of 54Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 1.7% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 14.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 7.7% of 52Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 15.1% of 53Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 11.4% of 35Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 19.6% of 46Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 12.5% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 6.4% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 7.7% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 38.9% of 18Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 14.3% of 21Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 13.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 16.7% of 66Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 7.4% of 54Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 16.7% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 6.8% of 59Credit claimingpeak 38.9% · Apr ’26 · latest 10.2%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 38.5% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-02: 16.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2025-03: 15.4% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-04: 23.8% of 80Credit claiming, 2025-05: 9.5% of 74Credit claiming, 2025-06: 13.0% of 54Credit claiming, 2025-07: 3.5% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-08: 24.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2025-09: 13.5% of 52Credit claiming, 2025-10: 7.5% of 53Credit claiming, 2025-11: 31.4% of 35Credit claiming, 2025-12: 19.6% of 46Credit claiming, 2026-01: 16.7% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-02: 21.3% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-03: 10.3% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-04: 38.9% of 18Credit claiming, 2026-05: 23.8% of 21Credit claiming, 2026-06: 18.3% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-07: 27.3% of 66Credit claiming, 2026-08: 16.7% of 54Credit claiming, 2026-09: 20.0% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-10: 10.2% of 59Extreme labelspeak 4.6% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 1.5% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2025-03: 4.6% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.8% of 80Extreme labels, 2025-05: 2.7% of 74Extreme labels, 2025-06: 1.8% of 54Extreme labels, 2025-07: 3.5% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-08: 2.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2025-09: 3.9% of 52Extreme labels, 2025-10: 1.9% of 53Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 35Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 46Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-02: 4.3% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 18Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.7% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 59Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Schneider, 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 ’25657.7%26.2%64.6%23.1%38.5%1.5%
Feb ’256013.3%33.3%58.3%1.7%16.7%0.0%
Mar ’25653.1%32.3%52.3%6.2%15.4%4.6%
Apr ’258011.3%30.0%68.8%11.3%23.8%3.8%
May ’25744.0%32.4%59.5%5.4%9.5%2.7%
Jun ’25549.3%35.2%87.0%18.5%13.0%1.8%
Jul ’25588.6%41.4%70.7%1.7%3.5%3.5%
Aug ’25506.0%32.0%68.0%14.0%24.0%2.0%
Sep ’255211.5%34.6%59.6%7.7%13.5%3.9%
Oct ’25533.8%41.5%73.6%15.1%7.5%1.9%
Nov ’25358.6%45.7%74.3%11.4%31.4%0.0%
Dec ’254615.2%28.3%73.9%19.6%19.6%0.0%
Jan ’26488.3%14.6%79.2%12.5%16.7%0.0%
Feb ’26478.5%40.4%57.5%6.4%21.3%4.3%
Mar ’263910.3%43.6%64.1%7.7%10.3%0.0%
Apr ’261811.1%16.7%66.7%38.9%38.9%0.0%
May ’26210.0%23.8%66.7%14.3%23.8%0.0%
Jun ’266011.7%40.0%71.7%13.3%18.3%1.7%
Jul ’266610.6%28.8%81.8%16.7%27.3%0.0%
Aug ’26541.8%29.6%90.7%7.4%16.7%0.0%
Sep ’266010.0%30.0%86.7%16.7%20.0%0.0%
Oct ’26596.8%10.2%67.8%6.8%10.2%0.0%
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.

In Schneider’s words

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

Credit claiming

SCHNEIDER, KELLY INTRODUCE BIPARTISAN BREWS TO BARNS ACT” TO SUPPORT SMALL BREWERIES & LOCAL FARMERS, STRENGTHEN LOCAL SUPPLY CHAINS LINCOLNSHIRE, IL - Today, U.S. RepresentativesBrad Schneider (IL-10), a member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax, and Mike Kelly (PA-16), Chairman of the Ways…

Oct 23, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Commerce; Environmental Protection; Taxation · Source

Personal attacks

SCHNEIDER, RANKING MEMBER MORELLE CONVENE ELECTION SECURITY ROUNDTABLE TO HEAR FROM LOCAL OFFICIALS AND ORGANIZATIONS LINCOLNSHIRE, IL – Today, Congressman Brad Schneider (IL-10) and Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Joseph D. Morelle (NY-25) convened a roundtable in Winnetka to hear…

Oct 22, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Government Operations and Politics; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 25, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “extreme” aimed at extremists · 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. Press releases

    SCHNEIDER, RANKING MEMBER MORELLE CONVENE ELECTION SECURITY ROUNDTABLE TO HEAR FROM LOCAL OFFICIALS AND ORGANIZATIONS LINCOLNSHIRE, IL – Today, Congressman Brad Schneider (IL-10) and Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Joseph D. Morelle (NY-25) convened a roundtable in Winnetka to hear from local officials and organizations focused on civics about concerns surrounding election security and free and fair…

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

  2. 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 · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Pete HegsethSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · Economics and Public Finance · 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 · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Pete HegsethSource

  5. Press releases

    SCHNEIDER, GILLIBRAND CALL FOR HEARINGS AFTER NAVY DISCLOSES 8 ATTEMPTED SUICIDES BY SAILORS IN USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN CARRIER STRIKE GROUP Trump Dismissed Previous Concerns About Deteriorating Ship Conditions And Soldiers’ Well-Being As “Fake News” Washington, D.C. – Today, Representative Brad Schneider (D-IL-10), a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), a member o…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Health · target: Trump, HegsethSource

All 1,164 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: 961 posts on X, 133 press releases, 39 newsletters, 31 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Schneider talks about most: 29% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 162nd 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 Schneider talks about. The bills Schneider sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Schneider talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Schneider
Peers
Health234 statements
29%
26%
Economics and Public Finance192 statements
24%
20%
Armed Forces and National Security171 statements
21%
16%
International Affairs153 statements
19%
8%
Government Operations and Politics132 statements
16%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Schneider talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowSchneiderPeers
Health29%26%
Economics and Public Finance24%20%
Armed Forces and National Security21%16%
International Affairs19%8%
Government Operations and Politics16%20%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

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

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 29% (House Democrats 26%)29%Health, legislates on: 17% (House Democrats 16%)17%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 24% (House Democrats 20%)24%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 21% (House Democrats 16%)21%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 7%)4%International AffairsInternational Affairs, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 8%)19%International Affairs, legislates on: 15% (House Democrats 8%)15%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 20%)16%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 6% (House Democrats 11%)6%
Show the data
Schneider's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health29%26%17%16%
Economics and Public Finance24%20%0%1%
Armed Forces and National Security21%16%4%7%
International Affairs19%8%15%8%
Government Operations and Politics16%20%6%11%
0.65

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 162nd of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Schneider sits at −0.79 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 76% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.80 to −0.77, which understates the uncertainty; from 8,345 donors and 6,173 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”.

−0.79

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.80 to −0.77. From 8,345 donors and 6,173 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Schneider −0.8House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Schneider, 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 Schneider’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 Schneider sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Schneider −0.8All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Schneider's CSIP score of −0.79 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Schneider
House Democrats217−1.076%
All House439+0.337%
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 Schneider 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 Schneider.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Schneider raised $3.7M in the 2026 cycle, 1.8 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 5.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 56% of itemized individual money came from Illinois.

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
$3.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,193 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.8M (49.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.2K (3.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.2K (3.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $110.2K (3.0%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.6M (43.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $130.6K (3.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $130.6K (3.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $130.6K (3.6%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)50 squares$1.8M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$110.2K
  • PACs and other committees44 squares$1.6M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)3 squares$130.6K
Show the data
Sources of Schneider's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.8M49.6%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$110.2K3.0%
PACs and other committees$1.6M43.8%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$130.6K3.6%
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.

2020 cycle: $3.6M$3.6M20202022 cycle: $3.8M$3.8M20222024 cycle: $3.9M$3.9M20242026 cycle: $3.7M$3.7M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Schneider's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.6M
2022 cycle$3.8M
2024 cycle$3.9M
2026 cycle$3.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 56% came from Illinois.

  1. Illinois$905.4K
  2. California$166.1K
  3. Florida$77.6K
  4. New York$72.6K
  5. Massachusetts$46.1K

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%
Schneider
Median
2026
6%
13%
2024
9%
13%
2022
10%
13%
2020
14%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowSchneiderMedian
2026 cycle6%13%
2024 cycle9%13%
2022 cycle10%13%
2020 cycle14%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $144AKMaine: $500MEVermont: $1,000VTNew Hampshire: $4,000NHWashington: $3,250WAIdaho: $1,000IDMontana: $30MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $1,250MNIllinois: $905.4KILWisconsin: $1,760WIMichigan: $19.8KMINew York: $72.6KNYRhode Island: $1,808RIMassachusetts: $46.1KMAOregon: $3,500ORNevada: $250NVWyoming: $3,000WYSouth Dakota: $4,500SDIowa: $3,500IAIndiana: $8,000INOhio: $6,300OHPennsylvania: $14.5KPANew Jersey: $40.1KNJConnecticut: $33.9KCTCalifornia: $166.1KCAUtah: $10.1KUTColorado: $36.7KCONebraska: $1,000NEMissouri: $3,600MOKentucky: $500KYWest Virginia: $1,000WVVirginia: $14.8KVAMaryland: $20.3KMDDelaware: $1,000DEArizona: $5,800AZNew Mexico: $500NMKansas: $1,500KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $3,144TNNorth Carolina: $3,250NCSouth Carolina: $1,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $42.5KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $1,500LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $2,500ALGeorgia: $5,500GAHawaii: $1,500HITexas: $22.3KTXFlorida: $77.6KFL
Show the data
Schneider's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Illinois$905.4K
California$166.1K
Florida$77.6K
New York$72.6K
Massachusetts$46.1K
District of Columbia$42.5K
New Jersey$40.1K
Colorado$36.7K
Connecticut$33.9K
Texas$22.3K
Maryland$20.3K
Michigan$19.8K
Virginia$14.8K
Pennsylvania$14.5K
Utah$10.1K
Indiana$8,000
Ohio$6,300
Arizona$5,800
Georgia$5,500
South Dakota$4,500
New Hampshire$4,000
Missouri$3,600
Oregon$3,500
Iowa$3,500
Washington$3,250
North Carolina$3,250
Tennessee$3,144
Wyoming$3,000
Alabama$2,500
Rhode Island$1,808
Wisconsin$1,760
Kansas$1,500
Louisiana$1,500
Hawaii$1,500
Minnesota$1,250
Vermont$1,000
Idaho$1,000
Nebraska$1,000
West Virginia$1,000
Delaware$1,000
South Carolina$1,000
Maine$500
Kentucky$500
New Mexico$500
Nevada$250
Alaska$144
Montana$30
North DakotaNo data
ArkansasNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
1,193

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

56%

from Illinois

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.2%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 12%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 51%51%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 13%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 5.9%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 6.7%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 6.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 3.2%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 1.5%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Schneider's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 12% between −1.25 and −1.00, 51% between −1.00 and −0.75, 13% between −0.75 and −0.50, 5.9% between −0.50 and −0.25, 6.7% between −0.25 and 0.00, 6.3% between 0.00 and +0.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.2%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0012%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7551%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.5013%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.255.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.006.7%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.256.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.503.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.751.5%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Schneider’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Schneider’s own score is −0.79.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$403.7K 351 donors
  2. ATTORNEY$171.3K 116 donors
  3. CEO$60.2K 32 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$56.6K 21 donors
  5. NOT EMPLOYED$48.0K 50 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. ABBVIE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  4. AMEREN CORPORATION FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMEREN FEDPAC)$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AXPPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NEW YORK LIFE$16.5K 6 donors
  2. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP$12.9K 4 donors
  3. APOLLO$10.5K 3 donors
  4. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$9,500 3 donors
  5. WINGED KEEL GROUP$7,000 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Schneider voted with the majority of House Democrats on 95.0% of party-line votes and missed 1.9% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Schneider voted against the majority of House Democrats 24 times.

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

24

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 95.0%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 175th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Schneider
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.0%
96.9%
113th of 217
Party unity
95.0%
96.4%
175th of 217
Show the data
Schneider's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowSchneiderPeers
Attendance98.0%96.9%
Party unity95.0%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
NayAgainst majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
NayWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Schneider most often

  1. Sheila Cherfilus-MccormickD459 shared votes98%
  2. Pete AguilarD655 shared votes98%
  3. Lois FrankelD632 shared votes98%
  4. George LatimerD646 shared votes98%
  5. James WalkinshawD422 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Schneider least often

  1. Chip RoyR620 shared votes18%
  2. Eric BurlisonR628 shared votes20%
  3. Andy BiggsR594 shared votes21%
  4. Josh BrecheenR627 shared votes21%
  5. Keith SelfR645 shared votes21%
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

Schneider sponsored 30 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 407 others. 3.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 107th of 207).

The bills Schneider 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

Sponsored30 billsSponsored, Introduced: 3030Sponsored, In committee: 3030Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored407 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 407407Cosponsored, In committee: 407407Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2424Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Schneider sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored3030100
Cosponsored4074072463
How to read the blocks

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

3.3%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 107th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Jimmy Panetta47
  2. Thomas Suozzi36
  3. Brian Fitzpatrick35
  4. Danny Davis32
  5. Josh Gottheimer29
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 Schneider’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10877To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 establish a credit against the excise tax on beer for brewers that donate spent grain for local agricultural use.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Oct 22, 2026
H.R. 10828To impose sanctions with respect to oil and gas extraction and refinement by the Russian Federation, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10832IRAN ActCosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10805Don’t Block LGBTQ Act of 2026SponsorOct 13, 2026In committeeScience, Technology, CommunicationsReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 13, 2026
H.R. 10787Access to Medical Supplies ActCosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 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 9, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 98 times in 90 days. Schneider’s official site had 38 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Schneider posted on Oct 22, 2026.

The lab crawls Schneider’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 Schneider 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 Schneider posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A blue graphic celebrating a perfect score on a congressional scorecard, with a photograph of the U.S. Capitol building and an American flag. A human rights campaign logo appears near the bottom. There is prominent text.
    A blue graphic celebrating a perfect score on a congressional scorecard, with a photograph of the U.S. Capitol building and an American flag. A human rights campaign logo appears near the bottom. There is prominent text.View post
  • A formal statement graphic with a dark blue and gold border, containing a bold headline and several paragraphs about suspicious mail received at a congressional office. It is primarily text.
    A formal statement graphic with a dark blue and gold border, containing a bold headline and several paragraphs about suspicious mail received at a congressional office. It is primarily text.View post
  • A formal statement presented on a white page with a navy-and-gold decorative border. It discusses threatening mail sent to congressional offices, the response by local police and fire personnel, and an ongoing FBI investigation. The page contains a bold headline and several paragraphs of text.
    A formal statement presented on a white page with a navy-and-gold decorative border. It discusses threatening mail sent to congressional offices, the response by local police and fire personnel, and an ongoing FBI investigation. The page contains a bold headline and several paragraphs of text.View post
  • A black memorial-style graphic with several paragraphs of white text about the October 7 attack in Israel, remembrance of victims and hostages, and support for peace and security. A date appears near the bottom, beside an image of several lit candles.
    A black memorial-style graphic with several paragraphs of white text about the October 7 attack in Israel, remembrance of victims and hostages, and support for peace and security. A date appears near the bottom, beside an image of several lit candles.View post
  • A man and a woman sit in chairs on a stage during a discussion, with an audience in the foreground. A branded backdrop is behind them, and a lectern stands at the left. Text appears on the backdrop.
    A man and a woman sit in chairs on a stage during a discussion, with an audience in the foreground. A branded backdrop is behind them, and a lectern stands at the left. Text appears on the backdrop.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 Schneider 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
S001190
Bioguide
S001190
FEC candidate ids
H2IL10068

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