Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, Illinois’s 17th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide S001225FEC H2IL17147

Portrait of Eric Sorensen, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
0.3%
of statements use an extreme label, in the bottom tenth of House Democrats

0.3% of 1,177 statements use an extreme label (3 statements); the average for House Democrats is 1.9%. Ranks 195th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at climate research.

An AI model reads each of Sorensen’s Congressional Record speeches, press releases, posts on X and newsletters and marks whether it calls a politician, party or policy far left, far right, MAGA, extreme, radical, woke, fascist or communist. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. Sorensen voted against the majority of House Democrats 39 times; party unity 92.1%, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 96.4%). 1.2% of Sorensen’s statements contain a personal attack, in the bottom quarter of House Democrats (average 6.6%).

The measures on which Sorensen 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.

Extreme labels

0.3%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 195th of 216

Party unity

92.1%

House Democrats average 96.4% · ranks 190th of 217 · 39 votes against the majority of House Democrats

Personal attacks

1.2%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 191st of 216

Credit claiming

32%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 31st of 216

Bipartisanship

13%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 43rd of 216

CSIP ideology

−0.74

More conservative than 81% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Sorensen says

Sorensen attacks opponents personally less than 87% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 1.2% of 1,177 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 191st of 216.

An AI model reads each of Sorensen’s 1,177 statements in the 119th Congress (964 posts on X, 169 press releases, 22 Congressional Record speeches, 22 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%
Sorensen
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion819 statements
70%
73%
156th of 216
Credit claiming372 statements
32%
23%
31st of 216
Policy criticism211 statements
18%
28%
172nd of 216
Bipartisanship153 statements
13%
10%
43rd of 216
Personal attacks14 statements
1%
7%
191st of 216
Show the data
Sorensen's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowSorensenPeers
Policy discussion70%73%
Credit claiming32%23%
Policy criticism18%28%
Bipartisanship13%10%
Personal attacks1%7%
1,177

statements classified

964 posts on X, 169 press releases, 22 Congressional Record speeches, 22 newsletters.

posts on X: 964 (81.9%)posts on X 964press releases: 169 (14.4%)Congressional Record speeches: 22 (1.9%)newsletters: 22 (1.9%)
Show the data
Sorensen's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X964
press releases169
Congressional Record speeches22
newsletters22
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Sorensen used extreme labels in 0.3% of statements, 13% of the peer average. 3 statements, most often aimed at climate research; peers 1.9%.

  1. “extreme”2
  2. “radical”1
  3. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. climate research1
  2. extreme right1
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: 482025-02: 362025-03: 542025-04: 772025-05: 732025-06: 652025-07: 692025-08: 572025-09: 682025-10: 642025-11: 512025-12: 442026-01: 422026-02: 482026-03: 722026-04: 642026-05: 622026-06: 462026-07: 452026-08: 332026-09: 382026-10: 21peak 77 · Apr ’25Personal attackspeak 6.5% · Jun ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 36Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 54Personal attacks, 2025-04: 1.3% of 77Personal attacks, 2025-05: 2.7% of 73Personal attacks, 2025-06: 3.1% of 65Personal attacks, 2025-07: 0.0% of 69Personal attacks, 2025-08: 1.8% of 57Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 68Personal attacks, 2025-10: 0.0% of 64Personal attacks, 2025-11: 2.0% of 51Personal attacks, 2025-12: 2.3% of 44Personal attacks, 2026-01: 2.4% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 48Personal attacks, 2026-03: 1.4% of 72Personal attacks, 2026-04: 1.6% of 64Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 62Personal attacks, 2026-06: 6.5% of 46Personal attacks, 2026-07: 0.0% of 45Personal attacks, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 38Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 21Policy criticismpeak 34.7% · Mar ’26 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 10.4% of 48Policy criticism, 2025-02: 27.8% of 36Policy criticism, 2025-03: 24.1% of 54Policy criticism, 2025-04: 24.7% of 77Policy criticism, 2025-05: 20.5% of 73Policy criticism, 2025-06: 20.0% of 65Policy criticism, 2025-07: 17.4% of 69Policy criticism, 2025-08: 19.3% of 57Policy criticism, 2025-09: 16.2% of 68Policy criticism, 2025-10: 31.3% of 64Policy criticism, 2025-11: 33.3% of 51Policy criticism, 2025-12: 9.1% of 44Policy criticism, 2026-01: 7.1% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-02: 20.8% of 48Policy criticism, 2026-03: 34.7% of 72Policy criticism, 2026-04: 10.9% of 64Policy criticism, 2026-05: 11.3% of 62Policy criticism, 2026-06: 13.0% of 46Policy criticism, 2026-07: 6.7% of 45Policy criticism, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Policy criticism, 2026-09: 0.0% of 38Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 21Policy discussionpeak 94.7% · Sep ’26 · latest 90.5%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 68.8% of 48Policy discussion, 2025-02: 75.0% of 36Policy discussion, 2025-03: 68.5% of 54Policy discussion, 2025-04: 70.1% of 77Policy discussion, 2025-05: 60.3% of 73Policy discussion, 2025-06: 69.2% of 65Policy discussion, 2025-07: 63.8% of 69Policy discussion, 2025-08: 64.9% of 57Policy discussion, 2025-09: 69.1% of 68Policy discussion, 2025-10: 60.9% of 64Policy discussion, 2025-11: 64.7% of 51Policy discussion, 2025-12: 56.8% of 44Policy discussion, 2026-01: 85.7% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-02: 64.6% of 48Policy discussion, 2026-03: 72.2% of 72Policy discussion, 2026-04: 84.4% of 64Policy discussion, 2026-05: 66.1% of 62Policy discussion, 2026-06: 67.4% of 46Policy discussion, 2026-07: 62.2% of 45Policy discussion, 2026-08: 78.8% of 33Policy discussion, 2026-09: 94.7% of 38Policy discussion, 2026-10: 90.5% of 21Bipartisanshippeak 27.1% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 27.1% of 48Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 8.3% of 36Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 9.3% of 54Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.7% of 77Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 12.3% of 73Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 21.5% of 65Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 11.6% of 69Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 8.8% of 57Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 22.1% of 68Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 9.4% of 64Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 11.8% of 51Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 15.9% of 44Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 11.9% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 10.4% of 48Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 12.5% of 72Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 14.1% of 64Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 11.3% of 62Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 13.0% of 46Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 17.8% of 45Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 10.5% of 38Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 21Credit claimingpeak 56.3% · Jan ’25 · latest 9.5%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 56.3% of 48Credit claiming, 2025-02: 38.9% of 36Credit claiming, 2025-03: 24.1% of 54Credit claiming, 2025-04: 29.9% of 77Credit claiming, 2025-05: 27.4% of 73Credit claiming, 2025-06: 35.4% of 65Credit claiming, 2025-07: 36.2% of 69Credit claiming, 2025-08: 35.1% of 57Credit claiming, 2025-09: 38.2% of 68Credit claiming, 2025-10: 15.6% of 64Credit claiming, 2025-11: 31.4% of 51Credit claiming, 2025-12: 27.3% of 44Credit claiming, 2026-01: 33.3% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-02: 33.3% of 48Credit claiming, 2026-03: 36.1% of 72Credit claiming, 2026-04: 29.7% of 64Credit claiming, 2026-05: 33.9% of 62Credit claiming, 2026-06: 37.0% of 46Credit claiming, 2026-07: 31.1% of 45Credit claiming, 2026-08: 12.1% of 33Credit claiming, 2026-09: 26.3% of 38Credit claiming, 2026-10: 9.5% of 21Extreme labelspeak 2.9% · Jul ’25 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 36Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 54Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.3% of 77Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 73Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 65Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.9% of 69Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 57Extreme labels, 2025-09: 0.0% of 68Extreme labels, 2025-10: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2025-11: 0.0% of 51Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 44Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 48Extreme labels, 2026-03: 0.0% of 72Extreme labels, 2026-04: 0.0% of 64Extreme labels, 2026-05: 0.0% of 62Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 46Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.0% of 45Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.0% of 33Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 38Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 21Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Sorensen, 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 ’25480.0%10.4%68.8%27.1%56.3%0.0%
Feb ’25360.0%27.8%75.0%8.3%38.9%0.0%
Mar ’25540.0%24.1%68.5%9.3%24.1%0.0%
Apr ’25771.3%24.7%70.1%11.7%29.9%1.3%
May ’25732.7%20.5%60.3%12.3%27.4%0.0%
Jun ’25653.1%20.0%69.2%21.5%35.4%0.0%
Jul ’25690.0%17.4%63.8%11.6%36.2%2.9%
Aug ’25571.8%19.3%64.9%8.8%35.1%0.0%
Sep ’25680.0%16.2%69.1%22.1%38.2%0.0%
Oct ’25640.0%31.3%60.9%9.4%15.6%0.0%
Nov ’25512.0%33.3%64.7%11.8%31.4%0.0%
Dec ’25442.3%9.1%56.8%15.9%27.3%0.0%
Jan ’26422.4%7.1%85.7%11.9%33.3%0.0%
Feb ’26480.0%20.8%64.6%10.4%33.3%0.0%
Mar ’26721.4%34.7%72.2%12.5%36.1%0.0%
Apr ’26641.6%10.9%84.4%14.1%29.7%0.0%
May ’26620.0%11.3%66.1%11.3%33.9%0.0%
Jun ’26466.5%13.0%67.4%13.0%37.0%0.0%
Jul ’26450.0%6.7%62.2%17.8%31.1%0.0%
Aug ’26330.0%0.0%78.8%0.0%12.1%0.0%
Sep ’26380.0%0.0%94.7%10.5%26.3%0.0%
Oct ’26210.0%0.0%90.5%0.0%9.5%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 Sorensen’s words

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

Policy criticism

Congressman Eric Sorensen Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Help Rural Communities Prepare for Flooding WASHINGTON, DC — Congressman Eric Sorensen (IL-17) joined Congressman Pat Harrigan (NC-10) in introducing the Strengthening Access to Flood-resilient Environments for Rural Communities Act (SAFE Rural…

Jul 30, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Emergency Management; Economics and Public Finance; Water Resources Development; Transportation and Public Works · Source

Personal attacks

Congressman Sorensen Introduces Plan to Put Money Back in Your Pocket Sorensen visits local pharmacy to discuss his plan to lower costs for IL families Watch the press conference here ROCKFORD, IL — Today Congressman Eric Sorensen (IL-17) toured Downtown Discount Pharmacy in Rockford and introduced…

Jun 18, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Energy; Health; Water Resources Development; Housing and Community Development; target: Trump · Source

Extreme label

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

Jul 31, 2025 · Posts on X · extreme label “extreme” aimed at extreme right · 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

    Congressman Sorensen Introduces Plan to Put Money Back in Your Pocket Sorensen visits local pharmacy to discuss his plan to lower costs for IL families Watch the press conference here ROCKFORD, IL — Today Congressman Eric Sorensen (IL-17) toured Downtown Discount Pharmacy in Rockford and introduced his Plan to Put Money Back in Your Pocket—a package of five bipartisan bills that will help lower costs for Illinois fam…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Agriculture and Food · Energy · Health · Water Resources Development · Housing and Community Development · target: TrumpSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Pete HegsethSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Agriculture and Food · target: Secretary of AgricultureSource

  4. Press releases

    WATCH: Sorensen Presses Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Watch here WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Eric Sorensen (IL-17), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, pressed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on his decision to move jobs away from Rock Island Arsenal while the United States depletes its munitions supply because of Trump’s war in Iran. His questioning comes after weeks of advocating for workers at Ro…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · International Affairs · Labor and Employment · target: Pete HegsethSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · Emergency Management · target: Kristi NoemSource

All 1,177 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: 964 posts on X, 169 press releases, 22 Congressional Record speeches, 22 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Health is what Sorensen talks about most: 19% of policy statements, below the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.70 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 54th 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 Sorensen talks about. The bills Sorensen sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Sorensen talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Sorensen
Peers
Health155 statements
19%
26%
Agriculture and Food153 statements
19%
9%
Armed Forces and National Security147 statements
18%
16%
Economics and Public Finance129 statements
16%
20%
Government Operations and Politics85 statements
10%
20%
Show the data
Policy areas Sorensen talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowSorensenPeers
Health19%26%
Agriculture and Food19%9%
Armed Forces and National Security18%16%
Economics and Public Finance16%20%
Government Operations and Politics10%20%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

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

Talks aboutLegislates onHealthHealth, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 26%)19%Health, legislates on: 14% (House Democrats 16%)14%Agriculture and FoodAgriculture and Food, talks about: 19% (House Democrats 9%)19%Agriculture and Food, legislates on: 10% (House Democrats 4%)10%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 18% (House Democrats 16%)18%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 13% (House Democrats 7%)13%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 16% (House Democrats 20%)16%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 10% (House Democrats 20%)10%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (House Democrats 11%)8%
Show the data
Sorensen's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Health19%26%14%16%
Agriculture and Food19%9%10%4%
Armed Forces and National Security18%16%13%7%
Economics and Public Finance16%20%0%1%
Government Operations and Politics10%20%8%11%
0.70

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 54th of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Sorensen sits at −0.74 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 81% of House Democrats. Approximate range −0.77 to −0.72, which understates the uncertainty; from 3,742 donors and 1,844 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”.

−0.74

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −0.77 to −0.72. From 3,742 donors and 1,844 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Sorensen −0.7House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Sorensen, 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 Sorensen’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 Sorensen sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Sorensen −0.7All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Sorensen's CSIP score of −0.74 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Sorensen
House Democrats217−1.081%
All House439+0.340%
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 Sorensen 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 Sorensen.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Sorensen raised $2.7M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 15% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 44% of itemized individual money came from Illinois.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$2.7M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 795 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.3M (48.0%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.4K (8.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.4K (8.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.4K (8.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.4K (8.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.4K (8.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.4K (8.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.4K (8.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $222.4K (8.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)PACs and other committees: $1.0M (38.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $137.5K (5.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $137.5K (5.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $137.5K (5.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $137.5K (5.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $137.5K (5.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)48 squares$1.3M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)8 squares$222.4K
  • PACs and other committees39 squares$1.0M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)5 squares$137.5K
Show the data
Sources of Sorensen's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.3M48.0%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$222.4K8.4%
PACs and other committees$1.0M38.4%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$137.5K5.2%
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, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Democrats’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $3.1M$3.1M20222024 cycle: $5.0M$5.0M20242026 cycle: $2.7M$2.7M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Sorensen's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$3.1M
2024 cycle$5.0M
2026 cycle$2.7M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 44% came from Illinois.

  1. Illinois$471.0K
  2. New York$117.0K
  3. California$109.0K
  4. Massachusetts$83.3K
  5. District of Columbia$60.5K

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%
Sorensen
Median
2026
15%
13%
2024
14%
13%
2022
24%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowSorensenMedian
2026 cycle15%13%
2024 cycle14%13%
2022 cycle24%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $3,100MEVermont: $1,000VTNew Hampshire: $3,466NHWashington: $8,355WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $3,500MTNorth Dakota: $405NDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $471.0KILWisconsin: $1,350WIMichigan: $200MINew York: $117.0KNYRhode Island: $500RIMassachusetts: $83.3KMAOregon: $5,900ORNevada: $3,500NVWyoming: $1,100WYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: $5,250IAIndiana: $12.4KINOhio: $5,000OHPennsylvania: $34.1KPANew Jersey: $8,129NJConnecticut: $7,050CTCalifornia: $109.0KCAUtah: $5,250UTColorado: $11.6KCONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: $10.0KMOKentucky: $7,000KYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $9,510VAMaryland: $32.4KMDDelaware: $500DEArizona: $1,425AZNew Mexico: $2,350NMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: $845ARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $270NCSouth Carolina: $4,820SCDistrict of Columbia: $60.5KDCOklahoma: no dataOKLouisiana: $80LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: $500GAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $38.6KTXFlorida: $11.5KFL
Show the data
Sorensen's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Illinois$471.0K
New York$117.0K
California$109.0K
Massachusetts$83.3K
District of Columbia$60.5K
Texas$38.6K
Pennsylvania$34.1K
Maryland$32.4K
Indiana$12.4K
Colorado$11.6K
Florida$11.5K
Missouri$10.0K
Virginia$9,510
Washington$8,355
New Jersey$8,129
Connecticut$7,050
Kentucky$7,000
Oregon$5,900
Iowa$5,250
Utah$5,250
Ohio$5,000
South Carolina$4,820
Montana$3,500
Nevada$3,500
New Hampshire$3,466
Maine$3,100
New Mexico$2,350
Arizona$1,425
Wisconsin$1,350
Wyoming$1,100
Vermont$1,000
Arkansas$845
Rhode Island$500
Delaware$500
Georgia$500
North Dakota$405
North Carolina$270
Michigan$200
Louisiana$80
AlaskaNo data
IdahoNo data
MinnesotaNo data
South DakotaNo data
NebraskaNo data
West VirginiaNo data
KansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
OklahomaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
HawaiiNo data
795

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

44%

from Illinois

Of itemized individual dollars

How to read the map

Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Illinois. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 0.1%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 1.2%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 29%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 52%52%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 8.9%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 1.6%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 1.4%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 3.6%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 1.6%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 0.6%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Sorensen's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.75 to +0.75: 29% between −1.25 and −1.00, 52% between −1.00 and −0.75, 8.9% between −0.75 and −0.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.75 to −1.500.1%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.251.2%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0029%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7552%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.508.9%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.251.6%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.001.4%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.253.6%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.501.6%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.750.6%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Sorensen’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Sorensen’s own score is −0.74.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$337.3K 326 donors
  2. RETIRED$175.3K 126 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$82.0K 40 donors
  4. CONSULTANT$33.6K 26 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$32.2K 10 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMEREN CORPORATION FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AMEREN FEDPAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION$10.0K
  5. AMERIPAC: THE FUND FOR A GREATER AMERICA$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. MARQUIS MANAGEMENT INC.$21.0K 4 donors
  2. STATE OF ILLINOIS$9,250 3 donors
  3. THE ROOSEVELT GROUP$5,750 3 donors
  4. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY$1,600 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Sorensen voted with the majority of House Democrats on 92.1% of party-line votes and missed 0.7% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Sorensen voted against the majority of House Democrats 39 times.

674 roll calls Sorensen 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 Sorensen 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 92.1%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 190th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Sorensen
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.2%
96.9%
57th of 217
Party unity
92.1%
96.4%
190th of 217
Show the data
Sorensen's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowSorensenPeers
Attendance99.2%96.9%
Party unity92.1%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 Sorensen most often

  1. Nicole (Nikki) BudzinskiD669 shared votes97%
  2. Chris PappasD665 shared votes97%
  3. Kim SchrierD661 shared votes97%
  4. Maggie GoodlanderD663 shared votes97%
  5. Greg StantonD654 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Sorensen least often

  1. Chip RoyR630 shared votes20%
  2. Eric BurlisonR638 shared votes22%
  3. Josh BrecheenR637 shared votes22%
  4. Andy BiggsR604 shared votes23%
  5. Ralph NormanR595 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

Sorensen sponsored 12 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 398 others. 8.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 38th of 207).

The bills Sorensen 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

Sponsored12 billsSponsored, Introduced: 1212Sponsored, In committee: 1212Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 11Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored398 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 398398Cosponsored, In committee: 398398Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2121Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 44Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Sorensen sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored1212100
Cosponsored3983982143
How to read the blocks

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

8.3%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 38th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Brian Fitzpatrick38
  2. Eugene Vindman31
  3. Nicole (Nikki) Budzinski30
  4. Michael Lawler30
  5. Donald Davis24
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 Sorensen’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. 10770To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to temporarily limit the use of rebates under the 340B Program.CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10605SUNRAY for Energy ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Sep 24, 2026
H.R. 10486Relief Without Delay ActCosponsorSep 17, 2026In committeeEmergency ManagementReferred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Science, Space, and Technology, and Financial 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 17, 2026
H.R. 10429To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 901 Lake Street in Oak Park, Illinois, as the "Detective Allan Reddins Post Office Building".CosponsorSep 16, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Sep 16, 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 45 times in 90 days. Sorensen’s official site had 33 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Sorensen posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Sorensen’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 Sorensen 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 Sorensen posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A woman gestures while speaking with a man in a blazer in what appears to be a clinic or office reception area. There is some text visible on equipment.
    A woman gestures while speaking with a man in a blazer in what appears to be a clinic or office reception area. There is some text visible on equipment.View post
  • A group of people pose for a photo indoors in front of a wall-mounted organization logo. There is text on the wall behind them.
    A group of people pose for a photo indoors in front of a wall-mounted organization logo. There is text on the wall behind them.View post
  • A framed plaque containing a mission statement sits on a countertop against a green wall. A light switch is visible above it.
    A framed plaque containing a mission statement sits on a countertop against a green wall. A light switch is visible above it.View post
  • A woman and a man are talking in a dental examination room. A dental chair and equipment are visible, along with cabinets, wall art, and decorations. Some text is present on objects in the room.
    A woman and a man are talking in a dental examination room. A dental chair and equipment are visible, along with cabinets, wall art, and decorations. Some text is present on objects in the room.View post
  • Several adults sit around tables in a meeting, writing notes and listening to one another. There is some visible text on papers and a wall sign.
    Several adults sit around tables in a meeting, writing notes and listening to one another. There is some visible text on papers and a wall sign.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 Sorensen 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
S001225
Bioguide
S001225
FEC candidate ids
H2IL17147

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