Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Alaska

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

Bioguide S001198FEC S4AK00214

Portrait of Dan Sullivan, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
49%
of statements claim credit, in the top tenth of Senate Republicans

49% of 1,089 statements claim credit (534 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 36%. Ranks 4th of 52, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Sullivan’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, press releases and newsletters and marks whether it claims credit for an accomplishment. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. Sullivan voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 35 times; party unity 96.0%, in the bottom tenth of Senate Republicans (average 98.4%). Sullivan raised $11.5M in the 2026 cycle, in the top quarter of Senate Republicans (median $3.2M).

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

Credit claiming

49%

Senate Republicans average 36% · ranks 4th of 52

Party unity

96.0%

Senate Republicans average 98.4% · ranks 49th of 53 · 35 votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Raised, 2026

$11.5M

Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M · ranks 7th of 51

Bipartisanship

17%

Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 11th of 52

CSIP ideology

+0.77

More liberal than 79% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.01

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.63

Senate Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 39th of 52

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Sullivan says

Sullivan claims credit more than 92% of Senate Republicans. Credit claiming in 49% of 1,089 statements, against 36% for the average Senate Republican; 4th of 52.

An AI model reads each of Sullivan’s 1,089 statements in the 119th Congress (750 posts on X, 214 press releases, 108 Congressional Record speeches, 17 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Sullivan
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion814 statements
75%
70%
20th of 52
Credit claiming534 statements
49%
36%
4th of 52
Policy criticism197 statements
18%
17%
20th of 52
Bipartisanship183 statements
17%
13%
11th of 52
Personal attacks32 statements
3%
2%
17th of 52
Show the data
Sullivan's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowSullivanPeers
Policy discussion75%70%
Credit claiming49%36%
Policy criticism18%17%
Bipartisanship17%13%
Personal attacks3%2%
1,089

statements classified

750 posts on X, 214 press releases, 108 Congressional Record speeches, 17 newsletters.

posts on X: 750 (68.9%)posts on X 750press releases: 214 (19.7%)Congressional Record speeches: 108 (9.9%)newsletters: 17 (1.6%)
Show the data
Sullivan's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X750
press releases214
Congressional Record speeches108
newsletters17
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Sullivan used extreme labels in 4.2% of statements, above the peer average. 46 statements, most often aimed at far left; peers 2.9%.

  1. “far left”30
  2. “communist”9
  3. “radical”9
  4. “extreme”5
  5. “woke”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. far left7
  2. Democratic Party6
  3. Democrats4
  4. environmental groups4
  5. Chuck Schumer3
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: 662025-02: 452025-03: 542025-04: 512025-05: 562025-06: 452025-07: 342025-08: 272025-09: 482025-10: 862025-11: 692025-12: 562026-01: 392026-02: 642026-03: 702026-04: 452026-05: 452026-06: 412026-07: 482026-08: 332026-09: 472026-10: 20peak 86 · Oct ’25Personal attackspeak 12.1% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 12.1% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-02: 2.2% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-03: 7.4% of 54Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.9% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-05: 3.6% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-06: 6.7% of 45Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-10: 3.5% of 86Personal attacks, 2025-11: 4.3% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-12: 3.6% of 56Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 64Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 70Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-06: 2.4% of 41Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-09: 6.4% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 20Policy criticismpeak 34.8% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 34.8% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-02: 17.8% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-03: 24.1% of 54Policy criticism, 2025-04: 9.8% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-05: 16.1% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-06: 20.0% of 45Policy criticism, 2025-07: 11.8% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-08: 3.7% of 27Policy criticism, 2025-09: 14.6% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-10: 29.1% of 86Policy criticism, 2025-11: 23.2% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-12: 23.2% of 56Policy criticism, 2026-01: 15.4% of 39Policy criticism, 2026-02: 17.2% of 64Policy criticism, 2026-03: 18.6% of 70Policy criticism, 2026-04: 15.6% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-05: 4.4% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-06: 26.8% of 41Policy criticism, 2026-07: 20.8% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-09: 8.5% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 20Policy discussionpeak 93.9% · Aug ’26 · latest 85.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 75.8% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-02: 80.0% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-03: 74.1% of 54Policy discussion, 2025-04: 74.5% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-05: 80.4% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-06: 77.8% of 45Policy discussion, 2025-07: 82.3% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-08: 85.2% of 27Policy discussion, 2025-09: 64.6% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-10: 74.4% of 86Policy discussion, 2025-11: 66.7% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-12: 80.4% of 56Policy discussion, 2026-01: 82.0% of 39Policy discussion, 2026-02: 62.5% of 64Policy discussion, 2026-03: 61.4% of 70Policy discussion, 2026-04: 71.1% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-05: 66.7% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-06: 78.0% of 41Policy discussion, 2026-07: 85.4% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-08: 93.9% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-09: 74.5% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-10: 85.0% of 20Bipartisanshippeak 32.6% · Oct ’25 · latest 10.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 19.7% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 22.2% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 14.8% of 54Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 17.6% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 25.0% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 20.0% of 45Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 16.7% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 32.6% of 86Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 27.5% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 19.6% of 56Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 12.8% of 39Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 15.6% of 64Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 18.6% of 70Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 2.2% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 0.0% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 9.8% of 41Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 12.5% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 12.1% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 10.6% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 10.0% of 20Credit claimingpeak 75.6% · Jun ’26 · latest 55.0%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 39.4% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-02: 51.1% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-03: 55.6% of 54Credit claiming, 2025-04: 33.3% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-05: 48.2% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-06: 40.0% of 45Credit claiming, 2025-07: 55.9% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-08: 48.1% of 27Credit claiming, 2025-09: 50.0% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-10: 59.3% of 86Credit claiming, 2025-11: 46.4% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-12: 62.5% of 56Credit claiming, 2026-01: 41.0% of 39Credit claiming, 2026-02: 37.5% of 64Credit claiming, 2026-03: 41.4% of 70Credit claiming, 2026-04: 40.0% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-05: 42.2% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-06: 75.6% of 41Credit claiming, 2026-07: 68.8% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-08: 42.4% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-09: 51.1% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-10: 55.0% of 20Extreme labelspeak 11.8% · Jul ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 9.1% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-03: 11.1% of 54Extreme labels, 2025-04: 3.9% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-05: 3.6% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-06: 4.4% of 45Extreme labels, 2025-07: 11.8% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-08: 3.7% of 27Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.1% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-10: 9.3% of 86Extreme labels, 2025-11: 7.2% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-12: 3.6% of 56Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 39Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2026-03: 2.9% of 70Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 41Extreme labels, 2026-07: 4.2% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-08: 3.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-09: 4.3% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 20Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Sullivan, 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 ’256612.1%34.8%75.8%19.7%39.4%9.1%
Feb ’25452.2%17.8%80.0%22.2%51.1%0.0%
Mar ’25547.4%24.1%74.1%14.8%55.6%11.1%
Apr ’25513.9%9.8%74.5%17.6%33.3%3.9%
May ’25563.6%16.1%80.4%25.0%48.2%3.6%
Jun ’25456.7%20.0%77.8%20.0%40.0%4.4%
Jul ’25340.0%11.8%82.3%8.8%55.9%11.8%
Aug ’25270.0%3.7%85.2%3.7%48.1%3.7%
Sep ’25480.0%14.6%64.6%16.7%50.0%2.1%
Oct ’25863.5%29.1%74.4%32.6%59.3%9.3%
Nov ’25694.3%23.2%66.7%27.5%46.4%7.2%
Dec ’25563.6%23.2%80.4%19.6%62.5%3.6%
Jan ’26390.0%15.4%82.0%12.8%41.0%0.0%
Feb ’26640.0%17.2%62.5%15.6%37.5%0.0%
Mar ’26700.0%18.6%61.4%18.6%41.4%2.9%
Apr ’26450.0%15.6%71.1%2.2%40.0%0.0%
May ’26450.0%4.4%66.7%0.0%42.2%0.0%
Jun ’26412.4%26.8%78.0%9.8%75.6%0.0%
Jul ’26480.0%20.8%85.4%12.5%68.8%4.2%
Aug ’26330.0%0.0%93.9%12.1%42.4%3.0%
Sep ’26476.4%8.5%74.5%10.6%51.1%4.3%
Oct ’26200.0%0.0%85.0%10.0%55.0%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 Sullivan’s words

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

Personal attacks

Mr. President, there has been no place that has been studied more than the ANWR 1002 plain in terms of environmental laws and environmental impacts, probably in the entire United States. This is something strongly supported by the people I represent, including the people that actually live there, wh…

Sep 30, 2026 · Congressional Record · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy; Environmental Protection; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Government Operations and Politics; target: Martin Heinrich · Source

Credit claiming

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

Oct 24, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy · Source

Extreme label

Democrats Block Alaska’s Right to Produce Act 2.0 WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)today attempted to pass the Alaska’s Right to Produce Act 2.0 on the Senate floor, but the legislation was blocked by Senate Democrats. Authored by Sen. Sullivan, the legislation would protect Arctic Na…

Sep 30, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Labor and Employment; Government Operations and Politics; Health; Armed Forces and National Security; extreme label “far left” aimed at Democrats; target: Joe Biden · 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

    Democrats Block Alaska’s Right to Produce Act 2.0 WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)today attempted to pass the Alaska’s Right to Produce Act 2.0 on the Senate floor, but the legislation was blocked by Senate Democrats. Authored by Sen. Sullivan, the legislation would protect Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) leasing approvals and leases from future administrative reversals, establish a unit agreem…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Energy · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Labor and Employment · Government Operations and Politics · Health · Armed Forces and National Security · extreme label “far left” aimed at Democrats · target: Joe BidenSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, there has been no place that has been studied more than the ANWR 1002 plain in terms of environmental laws and environmental impacts, probably in the entire United States. This is something strongly supported by the people I represent, including the people that actually live there, which is something the Senator from New Mexico constantly forgets. The people I represent actually support this and the ot…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Energy · Environmental Protection · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Government Operations and Politics · target: Martin HeinrichSource

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. President, today, I urge my colleagues to vote for Alaska's Right to Produce Act 2.0, which would provide greater certainty for responsible resource development on the North Slope of Alaska. It would benefit Alaskans, and it would benefit our great working Alaskans, but it would benefit America. As a little bit of background here--and you have heard me talk about this--for years, Alaska, as a resource development…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Energy · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Labor and Employment · Health · Armed Forces and National Security · extreme label “far left” aimed at Democrats · target: Joe Biden, John KerrySource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Chuck SchumerSource

  5. Congressional Record

    Why do our Alaska Native people so strongly support this CRA and the one that we did on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska a couple of weeks ago? Why? I talked about this many times, but I am going to do it again because it is really important. Yes, it is jobs. Yes, it is economic self-determination. All of those are really important. It is having the Federal Government actually work with them and listen to the…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Labor and Employment · Energy · Health · Water Resources Development · Environmental Protection · Agriculture and Food · Education · Law · Economics and Public Finance · Transportation and Public Works · FamiliesSource

All 1,089 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: 750 posts on X, 214 press releases, 108 Congressional Record speeches, 17 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Sullivan talks about most: 43% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.63 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 39th of 52).

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

What Sullivan talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%47%
Sullivan
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security348 statements
43%
25%
Energy164 statements
20%
10%
Public Lands and Natural Resources154 statements
19%
4%
Transportation and Public Works154 statements
19%
7%
Economics and Public Finance120 statements
15%
17%
Show the data
Policy areas Sullivan talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowSullivanPeers
Armed Forces and National Security43%25%
Energy20%10%
Public Lands and Natural Resources19%4%
Transportation and Public Works19%7%
Economics and Public Finance15%17%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 47%. Grey ticks are the Senate Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 43% (Senate Republicans 25%)43%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 15% (Senate Republicans 8%)15%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 20% (Senate Republicans 10%)20%Energy, legislates on: 4% (Senate Republicans 2%)4%Public Lands and NaturalResourcesPublic Lands and Natural Resources, talks about: 19% (Senate Republicans 4%)19%Public Lands and Natural Resources, legislates on: 9% (Senate Republicans 4%)9%Transportation and PublicWorksTransportation and Public Works, talks about: 19% (Senate Republicans 7%)19%Transportation and Public Works, legislates on: 2% (Senate Republicans 3%)2%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 15% (Senate Republicans 17%)15%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (Senate Republicans 1%)1%
Show the data
Sullivan's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security43%25%15%8%
Energy20%10%4%2%
Public Lands and Natural Resources19%4%9%4%
Transportation and Public Works19%7%2%3%
Economics and Public Finance15%17%1%1%
0.63

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 39th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Sullivan sits at +0.77 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more liberal than 79% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +0.75 to +0.78, which understates the uncertainty; from 8,746 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”.

+0.77

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +0.75 to +0.78. From 8,746 donors and 4,199 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Sullivan +0.8Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Sullivan, 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 Sullivan’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 Sullivan sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Sullivan +0.8All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Sullivan's CSIP score of +0.77 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Sullivan
Senate Republicans51+1.020%
All Senate98+0.458%
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 Sullivan 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 Sullivan.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Sullivan raised $11.5M in the 2026 cycle, 3.6 times the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 15% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 21% of itemized individual money came from Alaska.

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
$11.5M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 2,517 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $4.8M (42.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $869.0K (7.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $869.0K (7.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $869.0K (7.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $869.0K (7.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $869.0K (7.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $869.0K (7.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $869.0K (7.6%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $869.0K (7.6%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)PACs and other committees: $2.3M (19.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $3.5M (30.0%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)42 squares$4.8M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)8 squares$869.0K
  • PACs and other committees20 squares$2.3M
  • Party committees$62.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)30 squares$3.5M
Show the data
Sources of Sullivan's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$4.8M42.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$869.0K7.6%
PACs and other committees$2.3M19.9%
Party committees$62.5K0.5%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$3.5M30.0%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Receipts by cycle

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

2020 cycle: $9.0M$9.0M20202022 cycle: $705.2K$705.2K20222024 cycle: $1.9M$1.9M20242026 cycle: $11.5M$11.5M2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Sullivan's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$9.0M
2022 cycle$705.2K
2024 cycle$1.9M
2026 cycle$11.5M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 21% came from Alaska.

  1. Alaska$915.7K
  2. California$473.1K
  3. New York$430.3K
  4. Virginia$366.2K
  5. Florida$355.8K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Sullivan
Median
2026
15%
17%
2024
8%
17%
2022
12%
17%
2020
14%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowSullivanMedian
2026 cycle15%17%
2024 cycle8%17%
2022 cycle12%17%
2020 cycle14%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $915.7KAKMaine: $4,424MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $749NHWashington: $92.9KWAIdaho: $1,105IDMontana: $4,219MTNorth Dakota: $762NDMinnesota: $41.6KMNIllinois: $214.3KILWisconsin: $25.1KWIMichigan: $82.8KMINew York: $430.3KNYRhode Island: $4,500RIMassachusetts: $37.0KMAOregon: $14.6KORNevada: $61.3KNVWyoming: $7,050WYSouth Dakota: $1,593SDIowa: $137IAIndiana: $28.9KINOhio: $97.4KOHPennsylvania: $50.7KPANew Jersey: $121.9KNJConnecticut: $43.1KCTCalifornia: $473.1KCAUtah: $2,242UTColorado: $140.2KCONebraska: $3,466NEMissouri: $15.4KMOKentucky: $4,956KYWest Virginia: $82WVVirginia: $366.2KVAMaryland: $78.7KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $38.4KAZNew Mexico: $5,067NMKansas: $7,359KSArkansas: $27.5KARTennessee: $53.7KTNNorth Carolina: $6,448NCSouth Carolina: $6,869SCDistrict of Columbia: $192.6KDCOklahoma: $15.3KOKLouisiana: $11.9KLAMississippi: $5,767MSAlabama: $11.2KALGeorgia: $61.8KGAHawaii: $1,260HITexas: $178.9KTXFlorida: $355.8KFL
Show the data
Sullivan's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Alaska$915.7K
California$473.1K
New York$430.3K
Virginia$366.2K
Florida$355.8K
Illinois$214.3K
District of Columbia$192.6K
Texas$178.9K
Colorado$140.2K
New Jersey$121.9K
Ohio$97.4K
Washington$92.9K
Michigan$82.8K
Maryland$78.7K
Georgia$61.8K
Nevada$61.3K
Tennessee$53.7K
Pennsylvania$50.7K
Connecticut$43.1K
Minnesota$41.6K
Arizona$38.4K
Massachusetts$37.0K
Indiana$28.9K
Arkansas$27.5K
Wisconsin$25.1K
Missouri$15.4K
Oklahoma$15.3K
Oregon$14.6K
Louisiana$11.9K
Alabama$11.2K
Kansas$7,359
Wyoming$7,050
South Carolina$6,869
North Carolina$6,448
Mississippi$5,767
New Mexico$5,067
Kentucky$4,956
Rhode Island$4,500
Maine$4,424
Montana$4,219
Nebraska$3,466
Utah$2,242
South Dakota$1,593
Hawaii$1,260
Idaho$1,105
North Dakota$762
New Hampshire$749
Iowa$137
West Virginia$82
VermontNo data
DelawareNo data
2,517

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

21%

from Alaska

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 0.0%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.3%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.9%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 6.5%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 6.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 10%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 18%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 50%50%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 5.1%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Sullivan's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.25 to +1.50: 6.5% between −0.25 and 0.00, 6.0% between 0.00 and +0.25, 10% between +0.25 and +0.50, 18% between +0.50 and +0.75, 50% between +0.75 and +1.00, 5.1% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.25 to −1.000.0%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.3%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.006.5%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.256.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5010%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.7518%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0050%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.255.1%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Sullivan’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Sullivan’s own score is +0.77.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$946.6K 942 donors
  2. CEO$258.7K 99 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$199.2K 81 donors
  4. EXECUTIVE$162.7K 61 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$158.6K 58 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NRSC$62.0K
  2. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NABPAC)$10.5K
  3. ABBVIE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  4. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PAC$10.0K
  5. ALABAMA FIRST PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. APOLLO$50.9K 13 donors
  2. BLACKSTONE$35.0K 3 donors
  3. GCI LIBERTY$32.0K 4 donors
  4. ECHOSTAR$29.0K 3 donors
  5. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$24.1K 9 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Sullivan voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 96.0% of party-line votes and missed 3.1% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Sullivan voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 35 times.

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

35

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 96.0%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 49th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Sullivan
Peers
Rank
Attendance
96.9%
97.1%
37th of 53
Party unity
96.0%
98.4%
49th of 53
Show the data
Sullivan's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowSullivanPeers
Attendance96.9%97.1%
Party unity96.0%98.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
Did not vote—Bill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
NayWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
YeaWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Sullivan most often

  1. Markwayne MullinR667 shared votes98%
  2. Jon HustedR879 shared votes97%
  3. Chuck GrassleyR863 shared votes97%
  4. Cindy Hyde-SmithR871 shared votes96%
  5. Tom CottonR874 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Sullivan least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD880 shared votes6.4%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD873 shared votes6.6%
  3. Bernie SandersI824 shared votes6.7%
  4. Christopher MurphyD862 shared votes7.2%
  5. Chris Van HollenD873 shared votes7.9%
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

Sullivan sponsored 73 bills in the 119th Congress; 4 became law. Cosponsored 284 others. 30% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 14th of 51).

The bills Sullivan 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

Sponsored73 billsSponsored, Introduced: 7373Sponsored, In committee: 7171Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 1717Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Sponsored, Became law: 44Cosponsored284 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 284284Cosponsored, In committee: 274274Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 6666Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 66Cosponsored, Became law: 66IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Sullivan sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored73711744
Cosponsored2842746666
How to read the blocks

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

30%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 14th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Lisa Murkowski83
  2. Pete Ricketts47
  3. Rick Scott45
  4. Tim Sheehy42
  5. Marsha Blackburn40
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 Sullivan’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.Res. 950A resolution designating the week of September 14 through September 18, 2026, as "National Clean Energy Week".CosponsorOct 15, 2026IntroducedEnergyUnder authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Oct 15, 2026
S. 5649Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Fulfillment Act of 2026SponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesRead twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 934A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 923A resolution expressing support for the designation of October 4 through October 10, 2026, as "National 4-H Week".CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberAgriculture and FoodSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176) Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 103 times in 90 days. Sullivan’s official site had 25 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Sullivan posted on Oct 20, 2026.

The lab crawls Sullivan’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 Sullivan 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 Sullivan posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Several men stand at a podium during a press briefing. An older man speaks into a microphone while a man in a brown jacket stands beside him. A map is visible in the background, and there is text on the jacket and a logo.
    Several men stand at a podium during a press briefing. An older man speaks into a microphone while a man in a brown jacket stands beside him. A map is visible in the background, and there is text on the jacket and a logo.View post
  • A large crowd gathers indoors for a formal presentation or public event. Several people stand near a podium while attendees watch; cameras and display boards are visible. A wall poster contains text.
    A large crowd gathers indoors for a formal presentation or public event. Several people stand near a podium while attendees watch; cameras and display boards are visible. A wall poster contains text.View post
  • A group of people stand behind and beside a podium during what appears to be a public announcement or press event. Maps, informational displays, and flags are visible in the room, while a video camera and audience members appear in the foreground. There is text on the displays and podium.
    A group of people stand behind and beside a podium during what appears to be a public announcement or press event. Maps, informational displays, and flags are visible in the room, while a video camera and audience members appear in the foreground. There is text on the displays and podium.View post
  • A scenic landscape of an Alaskan wetland with reflective water, golden grasses, distant snow-covered mountains, and a cloudy blue sky. A large greeting and a senator’s campaign-style mark appear over the photograph.
    A scenic landscape of an Alaskan wetland with reflective water, golden grasses, distant snow-covered mountains, and a cloudy blue sky. A large greeting and a senator’s campaign-style mark appear over the photograph.View post
  • Three adults stand talking inside a large industrial facility, with extensive metal machinery in the background. A small amount of text is visible on clothing or equipment.
    Three adults stand talking inside a large industrial facility, with extensive metal machinery in the background. A small amount of text is visible on clothing or equipment.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 Sullivan is most unusual among Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
S001198
Bioguide
S001198
FEC candidate ids
S4AK00214

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