The median for Senate Democrats is $2.6M. Ranks 45th of 45, where 1st raised the most. 263 itemized donors.
Total receipts of Smith’s campaign committees in the 2026 cycle, from the FEC’s financial summaries, ranked among Senate Democrats. Totals depend on whether the seat is up this cycle and on how costly the race is, so they describe the campaign, not the official’s record.
6 measures against Senate Democrats. 58% of Smith’s statements discuss policy, in the bottom 5% of Senate Democrats (average 78%). 11% of Smith’s statements claim credit, in the bottom 5% of Senate Democrats (average 26%).
The measures on which Smith sits furthest from the middle of Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
Raised, 2026
Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M · ranks 45th of 45
Policy discussion
Senate Democrats average 78% · ranks 44th of 45
Credit claiming
Senate Democrats average 26% · ranks 44th of 45
Party unity
Senate Democrats average 95.3% · ranks 2nd of 45 · 16 votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Policy criticism
Senate Democrats average 37% · ranks 41st of 45
CSIP ideology
Left of 0, the centre of the scale · ± 0.01
Peer group: Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Smith, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Smith is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
Smith claims credit less than 95% of Senate Democrats. Credit claiming in 11% of 1,468 statements, against 26% for the average Senate Democrat; 44th of 45.
An AI model reads each of Smith’s 1,468 statements in the 119th Congress (1,279 posts on X, 133 press releases, 41 Congressional Record speeches, 15 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 Democrats and ranked among them.
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
| Row | Smith | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 58% | 78% |
| Policy criticism | 30% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 11% | 26% |
| Personal attacks | 10% | 11% |
| Bipartisanship | 10% | 18% |
statements classified
1,279 posts on X, 133 press releases, 41 Congressional Record speeches, 15 newsletters.
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 1,279 |
| press releases | 133 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 41 |
| newsletters | 15 |
The thick bar is Smith; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Smith does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Smith used extreme labels in 0.7% of statements, 29% of the peer average. 10 statements, most often aimed at Administration; peers 2.4%.
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
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.
Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 95 | 7.4% | 39.0% | 71.6% | 25.3% | 33.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 92 | 19.6% | 46.7% | 59.8% | 9.8% | 8.7% | 1.1% |
| Mar ’25 | 90 | 15.6% | 27.8% | 47.8% | 3.3% | 10.0% | 1.1% |
| Apr ’25 | 91 | 6.6% | 34.1% | 48.4% | 6.6% | 15.4% | 1.1% |
| May ’25 | 60 | 8.3% | 40.0% | 58.3% | 3.3% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 78 | 11.5% | 42.3% | 55.1% | 3.9% | 5.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 68 | 17.6% | 19.1% | 33.8% | 7.3% | 5.9% | 1.5% |
| Aug ’25 | 28 | 10.7% | 14.3% | 35.7% | 7.1% | 10.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’25 | 65 | 7.7% | 36.9% | 53.8% | 7.7% | 13.9% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’25 | 102 | 4.9% | 34.3% | 52.0% | 13.7% | 2.9% | 1.0% |
| Nov ’25 | 58 | 8.6% | 20.7% | 37.9% | 6.9% | 8.6% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 74 | 10.8% | 17.6% | 51.3% | 12.2% | 5.4% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 117 | 10.3% | 13.7% | 66.7% | 2.6% | 1.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 47 | 6.4% | 40.4% | 48.9% | 0.0% | 2.1% | 0.0% |
| Mar ’26 | 68 | 7.3% | 47.1% | 64.7% | 11.8% | 16.2% | 0.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 64 | 9.4% | 43.8% | 70.3% | 10.9% | 4.7% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 28 | 0.0% | 25.0% | 50.0% | 10.7% | 14.3% | 3.6% |
| Jun ’26 | 69 | 11.6% | 21.7% | 40.6% | 14.5% | 14.5% | 5.8% |
| Jul ’26 | 42 | 9.5% | 19.1% | 83.3% | 19.1% | 21.4% | 0.0% |
| Aug ’26 | 60 | 11.7% | 23.3% | 78.3% | 13.3% | 11.7% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 45 | 4.4% | 22.2% | 95.6% | 22.2% | 17.8% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 27 | 0.0% | 14.8% | 88.9% | 3.7% | 3.7% | 0.0% |
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%.
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
U.S. Senator Tina Smith’s Legislation to Combat Lyme Disease & Other Tick-Borne Diseases Becomes Law Most recent data shows Minnesota recorded 3,551 cases in 2024 alone, a rate that has likely increased in recent years WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tina Smith’s (D-MN) bipartisan bill to expand re…
Sep 30, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Science, Technology, Communications · Source
Credit claiming
U.S. Senator Tina Smith’s Measures to Simplify, Update Tax Filings for Farmers and Consumers Passes Senate WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Tina Smith (D-MN) successfully included two measures to help Minnesotans navigate their taxes in legislation that passed the Senate. Sen. Smith’s first measure wo…
Oct 1, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Taxation · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jun 30, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; Immigration; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Administration · Source
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Press releases
U.S. Senator Tina Smith Hears from Renee Good’s Family Members and Firsthand Witness of Alex Pretti’s Killing in Public Testimony to Congress “We all want our law enforcement officers to perform at the highest standards, but when they don’t, it shouldn’t matter who their employer is. There should be a path to justice for those they harm,” said Brent Ganger, brother of Renee Good. WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senat…
personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · Crime and Law Enforcement · Immigration · Government Operations and Politics · target: Kristi NoemSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Environmental Protection · Health · Energy · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Economics and Public FinanceSource
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 · Government Operations and Politics · target: PresidentSource
Newest first, the 119th Congress
Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,279 posts on X, 133 press releases, 41 Congressional Record speeches, 15 newsletters.
Health is what Smith talks about most: 28% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.67 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 22nd of 45).
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 Smith talks about. The bills Smith sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
| Row | Smith | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Health | 28% | 27% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 22% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 24% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 9% |
| Immigration | 11% | 8% |
The thick bar is the share of Smith’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate 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.
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.
| Area | Talks about | Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 28% | 27% | 19% | 14% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 16% | 22% | 6% | 9% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 16% | 24% | 0% | 0% |
| Crime and Law Enforcement | 11% | 9% | 4% | 6% |
| Immigration | 11% | 8% | 3% | 3% |
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 22nd of 45.
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Smith legislates on exactly the areas Smith 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 Smith sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Smith sits at −1.27 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 70% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.28 to −1.25, which understates the uncertainty; from 15,448 donors and 3,474 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”.
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −1.28 to −1.25. From 15,448 donors and 3,474 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Smith, 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 Smith’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.
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.
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Smith |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Democrats | 45 | −1.1 | 29% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 14% |
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 Smith 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 Smith.
Smith raised $48.9K in the 2026 cycle, 1.9% of the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 23% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less.
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.
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 263 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $11.7K | 23.9% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $3,520 | 7.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $23.0K | 47.1% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $10.7K | 21.8% |
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.
Total receipts, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $16.5M |
| 2022 cycle | $1.5M |
| 2024 cycle | $1.5M |
| 2026 cycle | $48.9K |
Itemized contributions by donor state.
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Democrats’ median.
| Row | Smith | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 23% | 35% |
| 2024 cycle | 33% | 35% |
| 2022 cycle | 54% | 35% |
| 2020 cycle | 39% | 35% |
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| New York | $3,127 |
| Ohio | $75 |
| Mississippi | $75 |
| Indiana | $52 |
| Colorado | $45 |
| Illinois | $30 |
| New Hampshire | $24 |
| North Dakota | $10 |
| Texas | $6 |
| Maine | $5 |
| Iowa | $5 |
| Nebraska | $3 |
| Alaska | No data |
| Vermont | No data |
| Washington | No data |
| Idaho | No data |
| Montana | No data |
| Minnesota | No data |
| Wisconsin | No data |
| Michigan | No data |
| Rhode Island | No data |
| Massachusetts | No data |
| Oregon | No data |
| Nevada | No data |
| Wyoming | No data |
| South Dakota | No data |
| Pennsylvania | No data |
| New Jersey | No data |
| Connecticut | No data |
| California | No data |
| Utah | No data |
| Missouri | No data |
| Kentucky | No data |
| West Virginia | No data |
| Virginia | No data |
| Maryland | No data |
| Delaware | No data |
| Arizona | No data |
| New Mexico | No data |
| Kansas | No data |
| Arkansas | No data |
| Tennessee | No data |
| North Carolina | No data |
| South Carolina | No data |
| District of Columbia | No data |
| Oklahoma | No data |
| Louisiana | No data |
| Alabama | No data |
| Georgia | No data |
| Hawaii | No data |
| Florida | No data |
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
No itemized individual money.
Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Minnesota. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.75 to −1.50 | 0.1% |
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 13% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 65% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 21% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 0.9% |
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Smith’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Smith’s own score is −1.27.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Smith voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 100% of party-line votes and missed 4.6% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Smith voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 16 times.
915 roll calls Smith could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate 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 Smith voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Party unity 100%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 2nd of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
The thick bar is Smith, the thin grey bar the Senate Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
| Row | Smith | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.4% | 97.0% |
| Party unity | 100% | 95.3% |
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.
25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress
| 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party 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 | Yea | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became 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 | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became 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 | Nay | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
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.
The colleagues who voted the same way as Smith most often
The colleagues who voted the same way as Smith least often
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.
119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches
Smith sponsored 49 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 477 others. 14% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 19th of 45).
The bills Smith 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.
Counts for the 119th Congress
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 49 | 49 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 477 | 477 | 77 | 2 | 2 |
Ink blocks are bills Smith sponsored, ochre blocks bills Smith cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 19th of 45.
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Smith, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
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 Smith’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S. 5605 | Employee and Retiree Access to Justice Act | Sponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Labor and Employment | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5656 | Domestic Violence SAFE Notice Act | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Crime and Law Enforcement | Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5669 | End Tax Breaks for Dark Money Act | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Taxation | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.J.Res. 220 | Original Slavery Remembrance Day Resolution | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues | Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 940 | A resolution expressing support for the designation of September 2026 as "Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month" in order to educate communities across the United States about sickle cell disease and the need for research, early detection methods, effective treatments, and preventative care programs w | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Health | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5270) Sep 30, 2026 |
A site that changed 55 times in 90 days. Smith’s official site had 24 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Smith posted on Oct 19, 2026.
The lab crawls Smith’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 Smith posts with a vision model.
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
pages crawled
changes in 90 days
“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.
The latest 24, with model-written 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.
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 is the measure on which Smith is most unusual among Senate 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 …”).
Bulk files with the same data for every official:
America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab
