Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Washington’s 8th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2019119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide S001216FEC H8WA08189

Portrait of Kim Schrier, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
92%
of itemized money from Washington donors, in the top 5% of House Democrats

92% of the itemized money from individuals in the 2026 cycle came from donors with an address in Washington. Ranks 5th of 214, where 1st is the highest share. 1,587 itemized donors.

Only donors who give more than $200 are reported with an address, so this is the share of that itemized money from donors living in Washington, ranked among House Democrats. Small gifts are not counted either way. Candidates running statewide or for federal office often draw more money from out of state.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Schrier voted against the majority of House Democrats 39 times; party unity 92.0%, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 96.4%). 29% of Schrier’s statements claim credit, in the top quarter of House Democrats (average 23%).

The measures on which Schrier 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.

From Washington, 2026

92%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 5th of 214 House Democrats

Party unity

92.0%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 191st of 217 · 39 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Credit claiming

29%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 48th of 216

Bipartisanship

12%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 52nd of 216

Extreme labels

0.8%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 161st of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.91

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Schrier says

Schrier attacks opponents personally less than 72% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 3.3% of 1,416 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 157th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Schrier’s 1,416 statements in the 119th Congress (1,237 posts on X, 131 press releases, 34 Congressional Record speeches, 14 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Schrier
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,048 statements
74%
73%
107th of 216
Credit claiming405 statements
29%
23%
48th of 216
Policy criticism313 statements
22%
28%
158th of 216
Bipartisanship169 statements
12%
10%
52nd of 216
Personal attacks47 statements
3%
7%
157th of 216
Show the data
Schrier's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowSchrierPeers
Policy discussion74%73%
Credit claiming29%23%
Policy criticism22%28%
Bipartisanship12%10%
Personal attacks3%7%
1,416

statements classified

1,237 posts on X, 131 press releases, 34 Congressional Record speeches, 14 newsletters.

posts on X: 1,237 (87.4%)posts on X 1,237press releases: 131 (9.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 34 (2.4%)newsletters: 14 (1.0%)
Show the data
Schrier's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X1,237
press releases131
Congressional Record speeches34
newsletters14
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Schrier used extreme labels in 0.8% of statements, below the peer average. 11 statements, most often aimed at Administration; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”6
  2. “radical”2
  3. “MAGA”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Administration1
  2. Donald Trump1
  3. MAGA1
  4. RFK Jr.1
  5. vaccine schedule1
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: 562025-02: 422025-03: 642025-04: 702025-05: 822025-06: 682025-07: 762025-08: 682025-09: 912025-10: 722025-11: 662025-12: 672026-01: 602026-02: 642026-03: 682026-04: 772026-05: 612026-06: 632026-07: 602026-08: 432026-09: 552026-10: 43peak 91 · Sep ’25Personal attackspeak 14.3% · Feb ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 10.7% of 56Personal attacks, 2025-02: 14.3% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-03: 1.6% of 64Personal attacks, 2025-04: 5.7% of 70Personal attacks, 2025-05: 1.2% of 82Personal attacks, 2025-06: 10.3% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.6% of 76Personal attacks, 2025-08: 2.9% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-09: 3.3% of 91Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 72Personal attacks, 2025-11: 3.0% of 66Personal attacks, 2025-12: 1.5% of 67Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-02: 7.8% of 64Personal attacks, 2026-03: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.3% of 77Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-06: 4.8% of 63Personal attacks, 2026-07: 3.3% of 60Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-09: 1.8% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 43Policy criticismpeak 38.2% · Jul ’25 · latest 11.6%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 14.3% of 56Policy criticism, 2025-02: 26.2% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-03: 23.4% of 64Policy criticism, 2025-04: 27.1% of 70Policy criticism, 2025-05: 37.8% of 82Policy criticism, 2025-06: 20.6% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-07: 38.2% of 76Policy criticism, 2025-08: 26.5% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-09: 25.3% of 91Policy criticism, 2025-10: 18.1% of 72Policy criticism, 2025-11: 25.8% of 66Policy criticism, 2025-12: 16.4% of 67Policy criticism, 2026-01: 10.0% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-02: 25.0% of 64Policy criticism, 2026-03: 19.1% of 68Policy criticism, 2026-04: 19.5% of 77Policy criticism, 2026-05: 16.4% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-06: 28.6% of 63Policy criticism, 2026-07: 21.7% of 60Policy criticism, 2026-08: 7.0% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-09: 9.1% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-10: 11.6% of 43Policy discussionpeak 88.4% · Aug ’26 · latest 69.8%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 57.1% of 56Policy discussion, 2025-02: 66.7% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-03: 68.8% of 64Policy discussion, 2025-04: 71.4% of 70Policy discussion, 2025-05: 75.6% of 82Policy discussion, 2025-06: 69.1% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-07: 81.6% of 76Policy discussion, 2025-08: 79.4% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-09: 68.1% of 91Policy discussion, 2025-10: 75.0% of 72Policy discussion, 2025-11: 72.7% of 66Policy discussion, 2025-12: 82.1% of 67Policy discussion, 2026-01: 80.0% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-02: 71.9% of 64Policy discussion, 2026-03: 69.1% of 68Policy discussion, 2026-04: 74.0% of 77Policy discussion, 2026-05: 67.2% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-06: 77.8% of 63Policy discussion, 2026-07: 85.0% of 60Policy discussion, 2026-08: 88.4% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-09: 78.2% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-10: 69.8% of 43Bipartisanshippeak 29.1% · Sep ’26 · latest 11.6%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 8.9% of 56Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 21.4% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 14.1% of 64Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 17.1% of 70Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 11.0% of 82Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 10.3% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 13.2% of 76Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 1.5% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 8.8% of 91Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 9.7% of 72Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 19.7% of 66Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 14.9% of 67Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 10.0% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 4.7% of 64Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 11.8% of 68Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 7.8% of 77Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 11.5% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 11.1% of 63Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 13.3% of 60Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 7.0% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 29.1% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 11.6% of 43Credit claimingpeak 41.3% · Jun ’26 · latest 20.9%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 26.8% of 56Credit claiming, 2025-02: 33.3% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-03: 39.1% of 64Credit claiming, 2025-04: 35.7% of 70Credit claiming, 2025-05: 21.9% of 82Credit claiming, 2025-06: 35.3% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-07: 25.0% of 76Credit claiming, 2025-08: 32.4% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-09: 29.7% of 91Credit claiming, 2025-10: 20.8% of 72Credit claiming, 2025-11: 34.8% of 66Credit claiming, 2025-12: 29.8% of 67Credit claiming, 2026-01: 18.3% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-02: 26.6% of 64Credit claiming, 2026-03: 26.5% of 68Credit claiming, 2026-04: 20.8% of 77Credit claiming, 2026-05: 34.4% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-06: 41.3% of 63Credit claiming, 2026-07: 26.7% of 60Credit claiming, 2026-08: 11.6% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-09: 34.5% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-10: 20.9% of 43Extreme labelspeak 5.4% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 5.4% of 56Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-03: 3.1% of 64Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 70Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 82Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.3% of 76Extreme labels, 2025-08: 1.5% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 91Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 72Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 66Extreme labels, 2025-12: 1.5% of 67Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.7% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-02: 1.6% of 64Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 77Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-06: 1.6% of 63Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 60Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 43Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Schrier, 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 ’255610.7%14.3%57.1%8.9%26.8%5.4%
Feb ’254214.3%26.2%66.7%21.4%33.3%0.0%
Mar ’25641.6%23.4%68.8%14.1%39.1%3.1%
Apr ’25705.7%27.1%71.4%17.1%35.7%0.0%
May ’25821.2%37.8%75.6%11.0%21.9%0.0%
Jun ’256810.3%20.6%69.1%10.3%35.3%0.0%
Jul ’25762.6%38.2%81.6%13.2%25.0%1.3%
Aug ’25682.9%26.5%79.4%1.5%32.4%1.5%
Sep ’25913.3%25.3%68.1%8.8%29.7%0.0%
Oct ’25720.0%18.1%75.0%9.7%20.8%0.0%
Nov ’25663.0%25.8%72.7%19.7%34.8%0.0%
Dec ’25671.5%16.4%82.1%14.9%29.8%1.5%
Jan ’26600.0%10.0%80.0%10.0%18.3%1.7%
Feb ’26647.8%25.0%71.9%4.7%26.6%1.6%
Mar ’26680.0%19.1%69.1%11.8%26.5%0.0%
Apr ’26771.3%19.5%74.0%7.8%20.8%0.0%
May ’26610.0%16.4%67.2%11.5%34.4%0.0%
Jun ’26634.8%28.6%77.8%11.1%41.3%1.6%
Jul ’26603.3%21.7%85.0%13.3%26.7%0.0%
Aug ’26430.0%7.0%88.4%7.0%11.6%0.0%
Sep ’26551.8%9.1%78.2%29.1%34.5%0.0%
Oct ’26430.0%11.6%69.8%11.6%20.9%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 Schrier’s words

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

Credit claiming

ICYMI: Congresswoman Schrier Hikes Portion of Enchantments with Local Leaders, Urges Trump Administration Again to Address Worsening Conditions LEAVENWORTH, WA – On Friday, Congresswoman Kim Schrier, M.D. (WA-08) joined Chelan County leaders, environmental advocates, and a former U.S. Forest Service…

Oct 26, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Environmental Protection; Government Operations and Politics; Labor and Employment; Public Lands and Natural Resources · Source

Personal attacks

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

Sep 15, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Agriculture and Food; Economics and Public Finance; Energy; Health; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

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

Jun 26, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; Housing and Community Development; extreme label “extreme” aimed at Donald Trump · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Agriculture and Food · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · Health · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Press releases

    Schrier, Alsobrooks Demand Action on Infant Mortality Due to Rising Rate of Vitamin K Refusal WASHINGTON, DC– As reported today in The New York Times, Congresswoman Kim Schrier, M.D. (WA-08) and Senator Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) demanded immediate action to address a growing and preventable public health crisis: the rising rate of vitamin K refusal at birth and resulting vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) among newb…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: RFK Jr.Source

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Health · target: RFK Jr.Source

  4. Press releases

    Congresswomen Schrier, Pettersen Lead Push For USPS to Ensure Timely Delivery of Mail-in Ballots Effort Comes After USPS Postmaster General Indicated USPS Could Withhold Mailed Ballots From States That Do Not Turn Over Lists of Voters Voting By Mail, Which Could Uniquely Impact Washington as a Universal Vote-By-Mail State WASHINGTON, DC – Congresswoman Kim Schrier, M.D. (WA-08) led an effort alongside Congresswoman B…

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

  5. Press releases

    Congresswoman Schrier Votes Against Republican Bill that Sends Billions of Dollars to CBP and ICE with Zero Accountability Congresswoman Kim Schrier (WA-08) released the following statement after voting against the Republican-led funding bill that gives ICE and CBP a blank check and fails to put guardrails in place that will curb their lawlessness or permanently block Trump’s $1 billion ballroom and $1.8 billion slus…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

All 1,416 statements

Newest first, the 119th Congress

The full feed

Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 1,237 posts on X, 131 press releases, 34 Congressional Record speeches, 14 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Schrier talks about most: 43% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.69 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 77th 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 Schrier talks about. The bills Schrier sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Schrier talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%47%
Schrier
Peers
Health452 statements
43%
26%
Emergency Management145 statements
14%
5%
Agriculture and Food130 statements
12%
9%
Economics and Public Finance107 statements
10%
20%
Government Operations and Politics82 statements
8%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Schrier talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowSchrierPeers
Health43%26%
Emergency Management14%5%
Agriculture and Food12%9%
Economics and Public Finance10%20%
Government Operations and Politics8%20%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Schrier’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 47%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 43% (House Democrats 26%)43%Health, legislates on: 30% (House Democrats 16%)30%Emergency ManagementEmergency Management, talks about: 14% (House Democrats 5%)14%Emergency Management, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 12% (House Democrats 9%)12%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 12% (House Democrats 4%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 10% (House Democrats 20%)10%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 1% (House Democrats 1%)1%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 8% (House Democrats 20%)8%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 11%)4%
Show the data
Schrier's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health43%26%30%16%
Emergency Management14%5%1%1%
Agriculture and Food12%9%12%4%
Economics and Public Finance10%20%1%1%
Government Operations and Politics8%20%4%11%
0.69

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 77th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Schrier sits at −0.91 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 61% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.92 to −0.89, which understates the uncertainty; from 11,345 donors and 3,826 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”.

−0.91

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.92 to −0.89. From 11,345 donors and 3,826 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Schrier −0.9House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Schrier, 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 Schrier’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 Schrier sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Schrier −0.9All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Schrier's CSIP score of −0.91 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Schrier
House Democrats217−1.060%
All House439+0.330%
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 Schrier 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 Schrier.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Schrier raised $3.8M in the 2026 cycle, 1.9 times the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 8.7% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 92% of itemized individual money came from Washington.

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
$3.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,587 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): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $2.3M (61.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.9K (5.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.9K (5.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.9K (5.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.9K (5.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.9K (5.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.9K (5.9%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.1M (30.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.7K (1.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $71.7K (1.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)62 squares$2.3M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)6 squares$222.9K
  • PACs and other committees30 squares$1.1M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)2 squares$71.7K
Show the data
Sources of Schrier's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$2.3M61.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$222.9K5.9%
PACs and other committees$1.1M30.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$71.7K1.9%
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: $5.5M$5.5M20202022 cycle: $9.6M$9.6M20222024 cycle: $6.5M$6.5M20242026 cycle: $3.8M$3.8M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Schrier's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$5.5M
2022 cycle$9.6M
2024 cycle$6.5M
2026 cycle$3.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 92% came from Washington.

  1. Washington$1.7M
  2. California$27.1K
  3. District of Columbia$24.1K
  4. New York$20.9K
  5. Virginia$18.2K

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%
Schrier
Median
2026
9%
13%
2024
11%
13%
2022
15%
13%
2020
16%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowSchrierMedian
2026 cycle9%13%
2024 cycle11%13%
2022 cycle15%13%
2020 cycle16%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $250MEVermont: $75VTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: $1.7MWAIdaho: $500IDMontana: $250MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $150MNIllinois: $1,235ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: $3,050MINew York: $20.9KNYRhode Island: $500RIMassachusetts: no dataMAOregon: $870ORNevada: $35NVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $385INOhio: $1,965OHPennsylvania: $1,000PANew Jersey: $572NJConnecticut: $790CTCalifornia: $27.1KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $7,694CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $70MOKentucky: $7,000KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $18.2KVAMaryland: $4,500MDDelaware: $49DEArizona: $2,000AZNew Mexico: $445NMKansas: $250KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: $250TNNorth Carolina: $750NCSouth Carolina: $1,000SCDistrict of Columbia: $24.1KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: no dataLAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $500ALGeorgia: $1,500GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $15.5KTXFlorida: $5,300FL
Show the data
Schrier's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Washington$1.7M
California$27.1K
District of Columbia$24.1K
New York$20.9K
Virginia$18.2K
Texas$15.5K
Colorado$7,694
Kentucky$7,000
Florida$5,300
Maryland$4,500
Michigan$3,050
Arizona$2,000
Ohio$1,965
Georgia$1,500
Illinois$1,235
Pennsylvania$1,000
South Carolina$1,000
Oregon$870
Connecticut$790
North Carolina$750
New Jersey$572
Idaho$500
Rhode Island$500
Alabama$500
New Mexico$445
Indiana$385
Maine$250
Montana$250
Kansas$250
Tennessee$250
Minnesota$150
Vermont$75
Missouri$70
Delaware$49
Nevada$35
AlaskaNo data
New HampshireNo data
North DakotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
MassachusettsNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
ArkansasNo data
OklahomaNo data
LouisianaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
1,587

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

92%

from Washington

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.0%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 0.5%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 33%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 63%63%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.9%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.2%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.6%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.1%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 0.2%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Schrier's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +0.75: 33% between −1.25 and −1.00, 63% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.0%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.250.5%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0033%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7563%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.9%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.2%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.6%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.1%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.500.2%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Schrier’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Schrier’s own score is −0.91.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$691.6K 536 donors
  2. NOT EMPLOYED$476.0K 541 donors
  3. PHYSICIAN$89.2K 97 donors
  4. ATTORNEY$80.7K 68 donors
  5. FINANCIAL ADVISOR$17.2K 5 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SKINPAC)$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (FAMMEDPAC)$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NEUROLOGY BRAINPAC$10.0K
  5. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY ENT PAC$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON$29.1K 41 donors
  2. MICROSOFT$18.0K 15 donors
  3. AMAZON$11.6K 6 donors
  4. KAISER PERMANENTE$10.6K 3 donors
  5. THE DASCHLE GROUP$6,800 5 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Schrier voted with the majority of House Democrats on 92.0% of party-line votes and missed 1.0% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Schrier voted against the majority of House Democrats 39 times.

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

39

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 92.0%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 191st of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Schrier
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.9%
96.9%
66th of 217
Party unity
92.0%
96.4%
191st of 217
Show the data
Schrier's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowSchrierPeers
Attendance98.9%96.9%
Party unity92.0%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
YeaWith 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 Schrier most often

  1. Eric SorensenD661 shared votes97%
  2. Chris PappasD663 shared votes96%
  3. Derek TranD662 shared votes96%
  4. Maggie GoodlanderD661 shared votes96%
  5. Mike LevinD661 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Schrier least often

  1. Chip RoyR627 shared votes20%
  2. Eric BurlisonR635 shared votes22%
  3. Keith SelfR652 shared votes23%
  4. Josh BrecheenR634 shared votes23%
  5. Andy BiggsR601 shared votes23%
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

Schrier sponsored 23 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 379 others. 4.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 88th of 207).

The bills Schrier 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

Sponsored23 billsSponsored, Introduced: 2323Sponsored, In committee: 2323Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored379 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 379379Cosponsored, In committee: 379379Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 1818Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Schrier sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored2323111
Cosponsored3793791831
How to read the blocks

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

4.3%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 88th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eugene Vindman37
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick35
  3. Eleanor Norton33
  4. Michael Lawler24
  5. Suzan DelBene24
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 Schrier’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. 10823Northwest Wetlands Voluntary Incentives Program ActCosponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeEnvironmental ProtectionReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10571Surge to Save Newborns ActCosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10600Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10604Zeus 95 Memorial ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeArmed Forces and National SecurityReferred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10473Justice for Ukrainian Children ActCosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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. Sep 16, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 101 times in 90 days. Schrier’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Schrier posted on Oct 25, 2026.

The lab crawls Schrier’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 Schrier 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.

Social accounts

Images Schrier posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • Two women work together in a laboratory. One wears a suit and glasses while holding a pipette-like instrument; the other wears a lab coat, safety glasses, and gloves and demonstrates another pipette. Laboratory equipment and a partially visible person are in the background. Some text appears on the woman's lanyard.
    Two women work together in a laboratory. One wears a suit and glasses while holding a pipette-like instrument; the other wears a lab coat, safety glasses, and gloves and demonstrates another pipette. Laboratory equipment and a partially visible person are in the background. Some text appears on the woman's lanyard.View post
  • Several people in a laboratory or research workspace smile while looking at a scientific instrument. A woman in a white lab coat and safety glasses is in the foreground, and another person holds a blue folder. There is writing visible on a board in the background.
    Several people in a laboratory or research workspace smile while looking at a scientific instrument. A woman in a white lab coat and safety glasses is in the foreground, and another person holds a blue folder. There is writing visible on a board in the background.View post
  • A group of people in a bright office or reception area, with a smiling woman in a red jacket standing in front of others holding folders. A man in a plaid shirt is seen from behind in the foreground. A whiteboard with handwritten notes is visible in the background.
    A group of people in a bright office or reception area, with a smiling woman in a red jacket standing in front of others holding folders. A man in a plaid shirt is seen from behind in the foreground. A whiteboard with handwritten notes is visible in the background.View post
  • Four people stand outside near a red barn and stacked green crates. Two women in the foreground are shaking hands, while two men stand behind them. A sheep is visible behind a wire fence. There is some text on one person's shirt.
    Four people stand outside near a red barn and stacked green crates. Two women in the foreground are shaking hands, while two men stand behind them. A sheep is visible behind a wire fence. There is some text on one person's shirt.View post
  • Five adults pose for a group photo outdoors in front of a large greenhouse. One person wears a T-shirt with visible text.
    Five adults pose for a group photo outdoors in front of a large greenhouse. One person wears a T-shirt with visible text.View post
About the descriptions

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

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

Methods and sources

How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.

The headline

The headline is the measure on which Schrier 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
S001216
Bioguide
S001216
FEC candidate ids
H8WA08189

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