Skip to content

Republican · U.S. Senate, Alabama

Serving since Jan 3, 2021119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide T000278FEC S0AL00230

Portrait of Tommy Tuberville, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
3.6×
the Senate Republican rate of extreme labels

10% of 3,425 statements use an extreme label (352 statements); the average for Senate Republicans is 2.9%. Ranks 1st of 52, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at Democrats.

An AI model reads each of Tuberville’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches, newsletters and press releases 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 Senate Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Republicans. 3.8% of Tuberville’s statements use bipartisan language, in the bottom 5% of Senate Republicans (average 13%). Tuberville sits at +1.31 on the CSIP scale, more conservative than 95% of Senate Republicans.

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

Extreme labels

10%

Senate Republicans average 2.9% · ranks 1st of 52

Bipartisanship

3.8%

Senate Republicans average 13% · ranks 51st of 52

CSIP ideology

+1.31

More conservative than 95% of Senate Republicans · ± 0.02

Small donations, 2026

48%

Senate Republicans’ median 17% · ranks 2nd of 51

From Alabama, 2026

-20%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 49th of 50 Senate Republicans

Attendance

93.4%

Senate Republicans average 97.1% · ranks 50th of 53 · 915 roll calls

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Tuberville says

Tuberville stresses bipartisanship less than 96% of Senate Republicans. Bipartisanship in 3.8% of 3,425 statements, against 13% for the average Senate Republican; 51st of 52.

An AI model reads each of Tuberville’s 3,425 statements in the 119th Congress (2,933 posts on X, 375 press releases, 95 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 Senate Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Tuberville
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,052 statements
60%
70%
48th of 52
Credit claiming992 statements
29%
36%
41st of 52
Policy criticism458 statements
13%
17%
40th of 52
Personal attacks144 statements
4%
2%
10th of 52
Bipartisanship129 statements
4%
13%
51st of 52
Show the data
Tuberville's share of statements in each category against the Senate Republicans average.
RowTubervillePeers
Policy discussion60%70%
Credit claiming29%36%
Policy criticism13%17%
Personal attacks4%2%
Bipartisanship4%13%
3,425

statements classified

2,933 posts on X, 375 press releases, 95 Congressional Record speeches, 22 newsletters.

posts on X: 2,933 (85.6%)posts on X 2,933press releases: 375 (10.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 95 (2.8%)newsletters: 22 (0.6%)
Show the data
Tuberville's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,933
press releases375
Congressional Record speeches95
newsletters22
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Tuberville used extreme labels in 10% of statements, 3.6 times the peer average. 352 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 2.9%.

  1. “woke”126
  2. “radical”122
  3. “communist”41
  4. “MAGA”19
  5. “extreme”14

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats71
  2. Radical Left18
  3. Radical Islam16
  4. left12
  5. Democrat Party7
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: 2282025-02: 2392025-03: 2292025-04: 1652025-05: 1632025-06: 1902025-07: 2112025-08: 1702025-09: 1822025-10: 1842025-11: 1192025-12: 1382026-01: 1372026-02: 1432026-03: 1692026-04: 1222026-05: 1122026-06: 1242026-07: 1272026-08: 1112026-09: 1062026-10: 56peak 239 · Feb ’25Personal attackspeak 8.4% · Jun ’25 · latest 7.1%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.1% of 228Personal attacks, 2025-02: 1.7% of 239Personal attacks, 2025-03: 2.2% of 229Personal attacks, 2025-04: 2.4% of 165Personal attacks, 2025-05: 3.7% of 163Personal attacks, 2025-06: 8.4% of 190Personal attacks, 2025-07: 4.7% of 211Personal attacks, 2025-08: 2.9% of 170Personal attacks, 2025-09: 7.7% of 182Personal attacks, 2025-10: 6.5% of 184Personal attacks, 2025-11: 4.2% of 119Personal attacks, 2025-12: 5.1% of 138Personal attacks, 2026-01: 5.8% of 137Personal attacks, 2026-02: 5.6% of 143Personal attacks, 2026-03: 4.1% of 169Personal attacks, 2026-04: 2.5% of 122Personal attacks, 2026-05: 3.6% of 112Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 124Personal attacks, 2026-07: 3.9% of 127Personal attacks, 2026-08: 6.3% of 111Personal attacks, 2026-09: 2.8% of 106Personal attacks, 2026-10: 7.1% of 56Policy criticismpeak 25.0% · Jan ’25 · latest 0.0%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 25.0% of 228Policy criticism, 2025-02: 15.9% of 239Policy criticism, 2025-03: 17.0% of 229Policy criticism, 2025-04: 17.6% of 165Policy criticism, 2025-05: 16.0% of 163Policy criticism, 2025-06: 13.2% of 190Policy criticism, 2025-07: 11.8% of 211Policy criticism, 2025-08: 8.2% of 170Policy criticism, 2025-09: 8.8% of 182Policy criticism, 2025-10: 17.4% of 184Policy criticism, 2025-11: 19.3% of 119Policy criticism, 2025-12: 5.1% of 138Policy criticism, 2026-01: 6.6% of 137Policy criticism, 2026-02: 14.7% of 143Policy criticism, 2026-03: 16.0% of 169Policy criticism, 2026-04: 5.7% of 122Policy criticism, 2026-05: 13.4% of 112Policy criticism, 2026-06: 20.2% of 124Policy criticism, 2026-07: 8.7% of 127Policy criticism, 2026-08: 4.5% of 111Policy criticism, 2026-09: 6.6% of 106Policy criticism, 2026-10: 0.0% of 56Policy discussionpeak 83.9% · Oct ’26 · latest 83.9%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 60.5% of 228Policy discussion, 2025-02: 59.0% of 239Policy discussion, 2025-03: 70.3% of 229Policy discussion, 2025-04: 62.4% of 165Policy discussion, 2025-05: 65.0% of 163Policy discussion, 2025-06: 52.1% of 190Policy discussion, 2025-07: 58.3% of 211Policy discussion, 2025-08: 47.1% of 170Policy discussion, 2025-09: 47.3% of 182Policy discussion, 2025-10: 52.7% of 184Policy discussion, 2025-11: 49.6% of 119Policy discussion, 2025-12: 61.6% of 138Policy discussion, 2026-01: 76.6% of 137Policy discussion, 2026-02: 55.2% of 143Policy discussion, 2026-03: 50.3% of 169Policy discussion, 2026-04: 68.8% of 122Policy discussion, 2026-05: 55.4% of 112Policy discussion, 2026-06: 54.8% of 124Policy discussion, 2026-07: 74.0% of 127Policy discussion, 2026-08: 69.4% of 111Policy discussion, 2026-09: 68.9% of 106Policy discussion, 2026-10: 83.9% of 56Bipartisanshippeak 10.9% · Mar ’25 · latest 0.0%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 7.5% of 228Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.7% of 239Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 10.9% of 229Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 5.5% of 165Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 4.9% of 163Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 0.5% of 190Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 3.8% of 211Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 1.2% of 170Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 3.9% of 182Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 2.7% of 184Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 0.0% of 119Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 1.5% of 138Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 0.7% of 137Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 5.6% of 143Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 1.2% of 169Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 1.6% of 122Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 1.8% of 112Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 3.2% of 124Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 2.4% of 127Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 1.8% of 111Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 4.7% of 106Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 0.0% of 56Credit claimingpeak 39.3% · Feb ’25 · latest 17.9%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 39.0% of 228Credit claiming, 2025-02: 39.3% of 239Credit claiming, 2025-03: 31.9% of 229Credit claiming, 2025-04: 28.5% of 165Credit claiming, 2025-05: 32.5% of 163Credit claiming, 2025-06: 22.6% of 190Credit claiming, 2025-07: 37.9% of 211Credit claiming, 2025-08: 30.0% of 170Credit claiming, 2025-09: 33.0% of 182Credit claiming, 2025-10: 23.9% of 184Credit claiming, 2025-11: 21.0% of 119Credit claiming, 2025-12: 27.5% of 138Credit claiming, 2026-01: 27.0% of 137Credit claiming, 2026-02: 21.7% of 143Credit claiming, 2026-03: 25.4% of 169Credit claiming, 2026-04: 22.9% of 122Credit claiming, 2026-05: 18.8% of 112Credit claiming, 2026-06: 30.6% of 124Credit claiming, 2026-07: 27.6% of 127Credit claiming, 2026-08: 18.9% of 111Credit claiming, 2026-09: 29.3% of 106Credit claiming, 2026-10: 17.9% of 56Extreme labelspeak 19.0% · Oct ’25 · latest 1.8%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 8.8% of 228Extreme labels, 2025-02: 5.9% of 239Extreme labels, 2025-03: 7.4% of 229Extreme labels, 2025-04: 7.9% of 165Extreme labels, 2025-05: 8.0% of 163Extreme labels, 2025-06: 11.6% of 190Extreme labels, 2025-07: 11.4% of 211Extreme labels, 2025-08: 7.1% of 170Extreme labels, 2025-09: 11.0% of 182Extreme labels, 2025-10: 19.0% of 184Extreme labels, 2025-11: 8.4% of 119Extreme labels, 2025-12: 13.8% of 138Extreme labels, 2026-01: 13.1% of 137Extreme labels, 2026-02: 18.2% of 143Extreme labels, 2026-03: 14.2% of 169Extreme labels, 2026-04: 8.2% of 122Extreme labels, 2026-05: 14.3% of 112Extreme labels, 2026-06: 12.1% of 124Extreme labels, 2026-07: 6.3% of 127Extreme labels, 2026-08: 10.8% of 111Extreme labels, 2026-09: 2.8% of 106Extreme labels, 2026-10: 1.8% of 56Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Tuberville, 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 ’252283.1%25.0%60.5%7.5%39.0%8.8%
Feb ’252391.7%15.9%59.0%6.7%39.3%5.9%
Mar ’252292.2%17.0%70.3%10.9%31.9%7.4%
Apr ’251652.4%17.6%62.4%5.5%28.5%7.9%
May ’251633.7%16.0%65.0%4.9%32.5%8.0%
Jun ’251908.4%13.2%52.1%0.5%22.6%11.6%
Jul ’252114.7%11.8%58.3%3.8%37.9%11.4%
Aug ’251702.9%8.2%47.1%1.2%30.0%7.1%
Sep ’251827.7%8.8%47.3%3.9%33.0%11.0%
Oct ’251846.5%17.4%52.7%2.7%23.9%19.0%
Nov ’251194.2%19.3%49.6%0.0%21.0%8.4%
Dec ’251385.1%5.1%61.6%1.5%27.5%13.8%
Jan ’261375.8%6.6%76.6%0.7%27.0%13.1%
Feb ’261435.6%14.7%55.2%5.6%21.7%18.2%
Mar ’261694.1%16.0%50.3%1.2%25.4%14.2%
Apr ’261222.5%5.7%68.8%1.6%22.9%8.2%
May ’261123.6%13.4%55.4%1.8%18.8%14.3%
Jun ’261240.0%20.2%54.8%3.2%30.6%12.1%
Jul ’261273.9%8.7%74.0%2.4%27.6%6.3%
Aug ’261116.3%4.5%69.4%1.8%18.9%10.8%
Sep ’261062.8%6.6%68.9%4.7%29.3%2.8%
Oct ’26567.1%0.0%83.9%0.0%17.9%1.8%
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 Tuberville’s words

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

Personal attacks

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

Oct 15, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Government Operations and Politics; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: Jack Smith · Source

Bipartisanship

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

Sep 29, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Agriculture and Food; Foreign Trade and International Finance · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 10, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Education; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; extreme label “far left” aimed at trans agenda · 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 · Government Operations and Politics · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Jack SmithSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Health · target: gender-confused peopleSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Jack SmithSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Elissa SlotkinSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: DemocratsSource

All 3,425 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: 2,933 posts on X, 375 press releases, 95 Congressional Record speeches, 22 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Armed Forces and National Security is what Tuberville talks about most: 26% of policy statements. Talk and legislation agree at 0.72 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Republicans average 0.64; 4th of 52).

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

What Tuberville talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Tuberville
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security535 statements
26%
25%
Education332 statements
16%
8%
Government Operations and Politics325 statements
16%
19%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues311 statements
15%
6%
Immigration279 statements
14%
10%
Show the data
Policy areas Tuberville talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Republicans average.
RowTubervillePeers
Armed Forces and National Security26%25%
Education16%8%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues15%6%
Immigration14%10%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

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

Talks aboutLegislates onArmed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 26% (Senate Republicans 25%)26%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 13% (Senate Republicans 8%)13%EducationEducation, talks about: 16% (Senate Republicans 8%)16%Education, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 4%)8%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 16% (Senate Republicans 19%)16%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 11%)8%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 15% (Senate Republicans 6%)15%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 2% (Senate Republicans 3%)2%ImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 14% (Senate Republicans 10%)14%Immigration, legislates on: 8% (Senate Republicans 4%)8%
Show the data
Tuberville's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Republicans, legislates on
Armed Forces and National Security26%25%13%8%
Education16%8%8%4%
Government Operations and Politics16%19%8%11%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues15%6%2%3%
Immigration14%10%8%4%
0.72

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 4th of 52.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Tuberville sits at +1.31 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 95% of Senate Republicans. Approximate range +1.29 to +1.33, which understates the uncertainty; from 6,483 donors and 2,427 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”.

+1.31

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.29 to +1.33. From 6,483 donors and 2,427 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Tuberville +1.3Senate Republicans +1.0All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Tuberville, 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 Tuberville’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 Tuberville sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Republicansmedian +1.0Tuberville +1.3All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Tuberville's CSIP score of +1.31 placed against Senate Republicans, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Tuberville
Senate Republicans51+1.094%
All Senate98+0.497%
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 Tuberville 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 Tuberville.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Tuberville raised $726.2K in the 2026 cycle, 23% of the Senate Republicans’ median of $3.2M. 48% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. -20% of itemized individual money came from Alabama.

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
$726.2K

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 852 itemized donors. Senate Republicans’ median $3.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Itemized individual (over $200): $191.2K (26.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $175.6K (24.2%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)PACs and other committees: $127.5K (17.6%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $231.9K (31.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)26 squares$191.2K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)24 squares$175.6K
  • PACs and other committees18 squares$127.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)32 squares$231.9K
Show the data
Sources of Tuberville's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$191.2K26.3%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$175.6K24.2%
PACs and other committees$127.5K17.6%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$231.9K31.9%
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 Senate Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $9.6M$9.6M20202022 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20222024 cycle: $2.2M$2.2M20242026 cycle: $726.2K$726.2K2026Senate Republicans median $3.2M
Show the data
Tuberville's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$9.6M
2022 cycle$1.1M
2024 cycle$2.2M
2026 cycle$726.2K

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. -20% came from Alabama.

  1. Virginia$58.8K
  2. South Carolina$38.1K
  3. New York$37.7K
  4. District of Columbia$17.8K
  5. Florida$16.2K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Tuberville
Median
2026
48%
17%
2024
37%
17%
2022
31%
17%
2020
20%
17%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Republicans median
RowTubervilleMedian
2026 cycle48%17%
2024 cycle37%17%
2022 cycle31%17%
2020 cycle20%17%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $250AKMaine: $78MEVermont: $2,610VTNew Hampshire: $480NHWashington: $377WAIdaho: $50IDMontana: $1,000MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $1,045MNIllinois: $2,430ILWisconsin: $2,610WIMichigan: $805MINew York: $37.7KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $10.8KMAOregon: $626ORNevada: $142NVWyoming: $1,180WYSouth Dakota: $183SDIowa: $387IAIndiana: $2,365INOhio: $2,560OHPennsylvania: $219PANew Jersey: $3,019NJConnecticut: $355CTCalifornia: $9,821CAUtah: $10.7KUTColorado: $9,235CONebraska: $1,190NEMissouri: $804MOKentucky: $1,274KYWest Virginia: $410WVVirginia: $58.8KVAMaryland: $5,052MDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: $1,671AZNew Mexico: $259NMKansas: $2,032KSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: no dataNCSouth Carolina: $38.1KSCDistrict of Columbia: $17.8KDCOklahoma: $1,021OKLouisiana: $1,502LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: no dataALGeorgia: no dataGAHawaii: $92HITexas: $9,294TXFlorida: $16.2KFL
Show the data
Tuberville's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Virginia$58.8K
South Carolina$38.1K
New York$37.7K
District of Columbia$17.8K
Florida$16.2K
Massachusetts$10.8K
Utah$10.7K
California$9,821
Texas$9,294
Colorado$9,235
Maryland$5,052
New Jersey$3,019
Vermont$2,610
Wisconsin$2,610
Ohio$2,560
Illinois$2,430
Indiana$2,365
Kansas$2,032
Arizona$1,671
Louisiana$1,502
Kentucky$1,274
Nebraska$1,190
Wyoming$1,180
Minnesota$1,045
Oklahoma$1,021
Montana$1,000
Michigan$805
Missouri$804
Oregon$626
New Hampshire$480
West Virginia$410
Iowa$387
Washington$377
Connecticut$355
New Mexico$259
Alaska$250
Pennsylvania$219
South Dakota$183
Nevada$142
Hawaii$92
Maine$78
Idaho$50
North DakotaNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
DelawareNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
North CarolinaNo data
MississippiNo data
AlabamaNo data
GeorgiaNo data
852

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

-20%

from Alabama

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.0%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 17%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 5.9%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 32%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 36%36%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 9.1%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Tuberville's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.25 to +1.75: 17% between +0.25 and +0.50, 5.9% between +0.50 and +0.75, 32% between +0.75 and +1.00, 36% between +1.00 and +1.25, 9.1% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.0%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5017%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.755.9%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0032%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2536%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.509.1%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Tuberville’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Tuberville’s own score is +1.31.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$150.2K 647 donors
  2. CEO$68.8K 10 donors
  3. FOUNDER$35.3K 4 donors
  4. PRESIDENT$21.4K 8 donors
  5. SELF EMPLOYED$18.7K 9 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AFLAC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AFLAC PAC)$5,000
  2. ALABAMA POWER CO EMPLOYEES FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION CMTE (APC EMPLOYEES FEDERAL PAC)$5,000
  3. CHEVRON EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE - CHEVRON CORPORATION$5,000
  4. FIRST SOLAR INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$5,000
  5. FREEDOM FUND$5,000

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. BEASLEY ALLEN$9,900 3 donors
  2. UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE$3,806 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Tuberville voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 6.6% of 915 roll calls. Senate Republicans on average: 98.4% party unity, 97.1% attendance. Across all roll calls, Tuberville voted against the majority of Senate Republicans 15 times.

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

15

votes against the majority of Senate Republicans

Party unity 99.7%, Senate Republicans average 98.4%, ranks 26th of 53. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Tuberville
Peers
Rank
Attendance
93.4%
97.1%
50th of 53
Party unity
99.7%
98.4%
26th of 53
Show the data
Tuberville's attendance and party unity against Senate Republicans.
RowTubervillePeers
Attendance93.4%97.1%
Party unity99.7%98.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 28, 2026
S. 4668
A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nayparty crossover
Sep 24, 2026
H.Con.Res. 89
A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran.
On the Concurrent Resolution
NayWith majorityConcurrent Resolution RejectedD 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Aug 8, 2026
H.R. 6500
An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law
Aug 7, 2026
H.R. 5334
An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes.
On Passage of the Bill
YeaWith majorityBill PassedD 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 naybecame law · party crossover
Jul 30, 2026
S.Res. 817
An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar.
On the Resolution
YeaWith majorityResolution Agreed toD 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nayclose vote
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Tuberville most often

  1. Ron JohnsonR843 shared votes99%
  2. John CornynR849 shared votes98%
  3. Eric SchmittR844 shared votes98%
  4. James RischR831 shared votes98%
  5. Ted CruzR813 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Tuberville least often

  1. Ed MarkeyD848 shared votes2.1%
  2. Elizabeth WarrenD841 shared votes2.4%
  3. Bernie SandersI801 shared votes2.5%
  4. Christopher MurphyD834 shared votes3.6%
  5. Jeff MerkleyD848 shared votes3.9%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Tuberville sponsored 41 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 265 others. 7.3% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Republicans average 22%; 48th of 51).

The bills Tuberville 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

Sponsored41 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4141Sponsored, In committee: 4040Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored265 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 265265Cosponsored, In committee: 263263Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 4646Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 55Cosponsored, Became law: 55IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Tuberville sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored4140200
Cosponsored2652634655
How to read the blocks

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

7.3%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Republicans average 22%. Ranks 48th of 51.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Marsha Blackburn73
  2. Katie Britt68
  3. Ted Budd65
  4. Rick Scott62
  5. Jim Banks51
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 Tuberville’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S.Res. 934A resolution designating October 10, 2026, as "American Girls in Sports Day".CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5267) Sep 30, 2026
S.Res. 926A resolution designating September 2026 as "National Literacy Month".CosponsorSep 29, 2026Passed one chamberEducationSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186) Sep 29, 2026
S.Res. 913A resolution relating to the death of the Honorable Nancy Kassebaum, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas.CosponsorSep 28, 2026Passed one chamberGovernment Operations and PoliticsSubmitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5064-5065; text: CR S5074-5075) Sep 28, 2026
S. 5516Keep Food Containers Safe from PFAS Act of 2026CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeHealthRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 24, 2026
S. 5485Americans First Immigration ActSponsorSep 23, 2026In committeeImmigrationRead twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 23, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 39 times in 90 days. Tuberville’s official site had 31 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Tuberville posted on Oct 24, 2026.

The lab crawls Tuberville’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 Tuberville posts with a vision model.

Websites

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Images Tuberville posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political poster shows a serious-looking man in a suit standing before mostly empty grocery-store shelves. A torn-paper-style dark background fills the upper part, with a large slogan; signs about egg limits, taxes, and rising prices appear around the man. A red banner runs along the bottom.
    A political poster shows a serious-looking man in a suit standing before mostly empty grocery-store shelves. A torn-paper-style dark background fills the upper part, with a large slogan; signs about egg limits, taxes, and rising prices appear around the man. A red banner runs along the bottom.View post
  • A political campaign-style graphic shows people climbing over a barbed-wire-topped shipping container near a border, with a suited older man speaking in the foreground. Large slogan text appears above and below the image.
    A political campaign-style graphic shows people climbing over a barbed-wire-topped shipping container near a border, with a suited older man speaking in the foreground. Large slogan text appears above and below the image.View post
  • A political campaign-style graphic combines a large text message with a black-and-white scene of several men near vehicles and a fence, a hospital emergency-room wait-time sign, and a large portrait of an older man with glasses. A red banner runs along the bottom.
    A political campaign-style graphic combines a large text message with a black-and-white scene of several men near vehicles and a fence, a hospital emergency-room wait-time sign, and a large portrait of an older man with glasses. A red banner runs along the bottom.View post
  • A political graphic about taxes and socialism. It combines a woman working at a laptop in front of a couch, a calendar with a date circled, and a cutout portrait of a woman speaking. Large text appears at the top and bottom.
    A political graphic about taxes and socialism. It combines a woman working at a laptop in front of a couch, a calendar with a date circled, and a cutout portrait of a woman speaking. Large text appears at the top and bottom.View post
  • A birthday graphic featuring a large aircraft carrier and a smaller naval ship on the ocean beneath a clear sky, with prominent celebratory text overlaid.
    A birthday graphic featuring a large aircraft carrier and a smaller naval ship on the ocean beneath a clear sky, with prominent celebratory text overlaid.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 Tuberville is most unusual among Senate Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
T000278
Bioguide
T000278
FEC candidate ids
S0AL00230

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

  • What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
  • Roll calls (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
  • Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
  • Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
  • Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
  • WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
  • ImagesOct 27, 20261 days agoImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.

How the measures work

What politicians say
Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
Extreme labels
A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
Policy areas and agreement
Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology (CSIP)
Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
Campaign money
Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
Votes and key votes
Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
Peers and ranks
Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top