Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, New York’s 24th district

Serving since Jan 3, 2017119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide T000478FEC H4NY22051

Portrait of Claudia Tenney, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
3.0×
the House Republican rate of extreme labels

9.2% of 2,403 statements use an extreme label (220 statements); the average for House Republicans is 3.0%. Ranks 10th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate. Most often aimed at Democrats.

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

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 2.4% of the 83 bills Tenney sponsored got out of committee, in the bottom tenth of House Republicans. 25% of Tenney’s statements criticize a policy, 1.6 times the House Republican average of 15%.

The measures on which Tenney sits furthest from the middle of House 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

9.2%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 10th of 221

Out of committee

2.4%

House Republicans average 17% · ranks 204th of 216

Policy criticism

25%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 19th of 221

Personal attacks

6.0%

House Republicans average 2.1% · ranks 20th of 221

Policy discussion

78%

House Republicans average 68% · ranks 28th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.01

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

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Tenney says

Tenney attacks opponents personally more than 90% of House Republicans. Personal attacks in 6.0% of 2,403 statements, against 2.1% for the average House Republican; 20th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Tenney’s 2,403 statements in the 119th Congress (2,042 posts on X, 239 press releases, 93 newsletters, 29 Congressional Record speeches) 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 Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Tenney
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion1,882 statements
78%
68%
28th of 221
Credit claiming970 statements
40%
37%
88th of 221
Policy criticism596 statements
25%
15%
19th of 221
Personal attacks145 statements
6%
2%
20th of 221
Bipartisanship139 statements
6%
9%
136th of 221
Show the data
Tenney's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowTenneyPeers
Policy discussion78%68%
Credit claiming40%37%
Policy criticism25%15%
Personal attacks6%2%
Bipartisanship6%9%
2,403

statements classified

2,042 posts on X, 239 press releases, 93 newsletters, 29 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 2,042 (85.0%)posts on X 2,042press releases: 239 (9.9%)newsletters: 93 (3.9%)Congressional Record speeches: 29 (1.2%)
Show the data
Tenney's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,042
press releases239
newsletters93
Congressional Record speeches29
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Tenney used extreme labels in 9.2% of statements, 3.0 times the peer average. 220 statements, most often aimed at Democrats; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”89
  2. “far left”35
  3. “communist”26
  4. “extreme”20
  5. “woke”18

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Democrats34
  2. Left12
  3. Mamdani11
  4. Zohran Mamdani9
  5. Democrat7
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: 1122025-02: 1292025-03: 1472025-04: 1222025-05: 1412025-06: 1312025-07: 1292025-08: 1422025-09: 1102025-10: 1162025-11: 882025-12: 942026-01: 1282026-02: 1112026-03: 742026-04: 292026-05: 1092026-06: 1042026-07: 1082026-08: 1002026-09: 982026-10: 81peak 147 · Mar ’25Personal attackspeak 18.1% · Oct ’25 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 8.9% of 112Personal attacks, 2025-02: 2.3% of 129Personal attacks, 2025-03: 4.8% of 147Personal attacks, 2025-04: 4.9% of 122Personal attacks, 2025-05: 4.3% of 141Personal attacks, 2025-06: 1.5% of 131Personal attacks, 2025-07: 8.5% of 129Personal attacks, 2025-08: 12.7% of 142Personal attacks, 2025-09: 12.7% of 110Personal attacks, 2025-10: 18.1% of 116Personal attacks, 2025-11: 12.5% of 88Personal attacks, 2025-12: 7.4% of 94Personal attacks, 2026-01: 2.3% of 128Personal attacks, 2026-02: 2.7% of 111Personal attacks, 2026-03: 2.7% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 29Personal attacks, 2026-05: 3.7% of 109Personal attacks, 2026-06: 4.8% of 104Personal attacks, 2026-07: 3.7% of 108Personal attacks, 2026-08: 2.0% of 100Personal attacks, 2026-09: 6.1% of 98Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 81Policy criticismpeak 39.8% · Nov ’25 · latest 12.3%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 26.8% of 112Policy criticism, 2025-02: 38.0% of 129Policy criticism, 2025-03: 25.9% of 147Policy criticism, 2025-04: 23.8% of 122Policy criticism, 2025-05: 19.1% of 141Policy criticism, 2025-06: 25.2% of 131Policy criticism, 2025-07: 12.4% of 129Policy criticism, 2025-08: 31.7% of 142Policy criticism, 2025-09: 21.8% of 110Policy criticism, 2025-10: 34.5% of 116Policy criticism, 2025-11: 39.8% of 88Policy criticism, 2025-12: 21.3% of 94Policy criticism, 2026-01: 11.7% of 128Policy criticism, 2026-02: 28.8% of 111Policy criticism, 2026-03: 32.4% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-04: 31.0% of 29Policy criticism, 2026-05: 29.4% of 109Policy criticism, 2026-06: 36.5% of 104Policy criticism, 2026-07: 22.2% of 108Policy criticism, 2026-08: 10.0% of 100Policy criticism, 2026-09: 16.3% of 98Policy criticism, 2026-10: 12.3% of 81Policy discussionpeak 90.8% · Sep ’26 · latest 90.1%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 76.8% of 112Policy discussion, 2025-02: 83.0% of 129Policy discussion, 2025-03: 77.5% of 147Policy discussion, 2025-04: 81.2% of 122Policy discussion, 2025-05: 75.9% of 141Policy discussion, 2025-06: 84.0% of 131Policy discussion, 2025-07: 75.2% of 129Policy discussion, 2025-08: 75.3% of 142Policy discussion, 2025-09: 60.0% of 110Policy discussion, 2025-10: 66.4% of 116Policy discussion, 2025-11: 69.3% of 88Policy discussion, 2025-12: 87.2% of 94Policy discussion, 2026-01: 88.3% of 128Policy discussion, 2026-02: 71.2% of 111Policy discussion, 2026-03: 78.4% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-04: 72.4% of 29Policy discussion, 2026-05: 75.2% of 109Policy discussion, 2026-06: 72.1% of 104Policy discussion, 2026-07: 83.3% of 108Policy discussion, 2026-08: 89.0% of 100Policy discussion, 2026-09: 90.8% of 98Policy discussion, 2026-10: 90.1% of 81Bipartisanshippeak 10.8% · Mar ’26 · latest 6.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 3.6% of 112Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 7.0% of 129Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 6.8% of 147Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 9.0% of 122Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 2.1% of 141Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.9% of 131Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 5.4% of 129Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 0.0% of 142Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 5.5% of 110Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 8.6% of 116Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 2.3% of 88Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 10.6% of 94Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.5% of 128Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 7.2% of 111Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 10.8% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 0.0% of 29Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 9.2% of 109Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 5.8% of 104Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 7.4% of 108Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 4.0% of 100Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 2.0% of 98Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 6.2% of 81Credit claimingpeak 55.4% · Jan ’25 · latest 40.7%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 55.4% of 112Credit claiming, 2025-02: 52.7% of 129Credit claiming, 2025-03: 40.8% of 147Credit claiming, 2025-04: 49.2% of 122Credit claiming, 2025-05: 53.9% of 141Credit claiming, 2025-06: 43.5% of 131Credit claiming, 2025-07: 48.1% of 129Credit claiming, 2025-08: 40.8% of 142Credit claiming, 2025-09: 29.1% of 110Credit claiming, 2025-10: 37.1% of 116Credit claiming, 2025-11: 27.3% of 88Credit claiming, 2025-12: 41.5% of 94Credit claiming, 2026-01: 44.5% of 128Credit claiming, 2026-02: 32.4% of 111Credit claiming, 2026-03: 32.4% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-04: 48.3% of 29Credit claiming, 2026-05: 24.8% of 109Credit claiming, 2026-06: 39.4% of 104Credit claiming, 2026-07: 38.0% of 108Credit claiming, 2026-08: 33.0% of 100Credit claiming, 2026-09: 23.5% of 98Credit claiming, 2026-10: 40.7% of 81Extreme labelspeak 28.4% · Oct ’25 · latest 1.2%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 11.6% of 112Extreme labels, 2025-02: 7.0% of 129Extreme labels, 2025-03: 6.1% of 147Extreme labels, 2025-04: 6.6% of 122Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.3% of 141Extreme labels, 2025-06: 5.3% of 131Extreme labels, 2025-07: 10.1% of 129Extreme labels, 2025-08: 17.6% of 142Extreme labels, 2025-09: 14.5% of 110Extreme labels, 2025-10: 28.4% of 116Extreme labels, 2025-11: 21.6% of 88Extreme labels, 2025-12: 6.4% of 94Extreme labels, 2026-01: 2.3% of 128Extreme labels, 2026-02: 8.1% of 111Extreme labels, 2026-03: 4.0% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-04: 10.3% of 29Extreme labels, 2026-05: 9.2% of 109Extreme labels, 2026-06: 8.6% of 104Extreme labels, 2026-07: 12.0% of 108Extreme labels, 2026-08: 1.0% of 100Extreme labels, 2026-09: 4.1% of 98Extreme labels, 2026-10: 1.2% of 81Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Tenney, 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 ’251128.9%26.8%76.8%3.6%55.4%11.6%
Feb ’251292.3%38.0%83.0%7.0%52.7%7.0%
Mar ’251474.8%25.9%77.5%6.8%40.8%6.1%
Apr ’251224.9%23.8%81.2%9.0%49.2%6.6%
May ’251414.3%19.1%75.9%2.1%53.9%4.3%
Jun ’251311.5%25.2%84.0%6.9%43.5%5.3%
Jul ’251298.5%12.4%75.2%5.4%48.1%10.1%
Aug ’2514212.7%31.7%75.3%0.0%40.8%17.6%
Sep ’2511012.7%21.8%60.0%5.5%29.1%14.5%
Oct ’2511618.1%34.5%66.4%8.6%37.1%28.4%
Nov ’258812.5%39.8%69.3%2.3%27.3%21.6%
Dec ’25947.4%21.3%87.2%10.6%41.5%6.4%
Jan ’261282.3%11.7%88.3%5.5%44.5%2.3%
Feb ’261112.7%28.8%71.2%7.2%32.4%8.1%
Mar ’26742.7%32.4%78.4%10.8%32.4%4.0%
Apr ’26290.0%31.0%72.4%0.0%48.3%10.3%
May ’261093.7%29.4%75.2%9.2%24.8%9.2%
Jun ’261044.8%36.5%72.1%5.8%39.4%8.6%
Jul ’261083.7%22.2%83.3%7.4%38.0%12.0%
Aug ’261002.0%10.0%89.0%4.0%33.0%1.0%
Sep ’26986.1%16.3%90.8%2.0%23.5%4.1%
Oct ’26810.0%12.3%90.1%6.2%40.7%1.2%
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 Tenney’s words

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

Policy criticism

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

Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X · policy criticism; policy discussion; credit claiming; Energy · Source

Personal attacks

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

Sep 23, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Immigration; Crime and Law Enforcement; target: Hochul · Source

Extreme label

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

Oct 19, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Economics and Public Finance; extreme label “radical” aimed at left · 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 · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: HochulSource

  2. Posts on X

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

    personal attacksSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · target: Mamdani, AOCSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Crime and Law Enforcement · target: Kathy HochulSource

  5. Newsletters

    This Week With Claudia #NY24 Congresswoman Tenney's Weekly Newsletter [https://llrjxmbbb.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=ee20a33e-45a0-4d69-92b1-af9be988b721&a=1135372191083&c=261f2b92-f128-11f0-a5a3-02422fff3bbc&ch=261fbf30-f128-11f0-a5a3-02422fff3bbc] [https://files.constantcontact.com/b65c4795801/2d26ca9e-841e-4de9-a56b-ee6b8dad3ab2.png?rdr=true] ? Have Questions? Contact Me Here<https://llrjxmbbb.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0013…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Labor and Employment · Government Operations and Politics · Law · Transportation and Public Works · Taxation · Agriculture and Food · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Commerce · International Affairs · Science, Technology, Communications · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Armed Forces and National Security · Environmental Protection · Economics and Public Finance · Crime and Law Enforcement · Education · extreme label “radical” aimed at court-packing proposals, Democratic Socialists · target: Chuck Edwards

All 2,403 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: 2,042 posts on X, 239 press releases, 93 newsletters, 29 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Immigration is what Tenney talks about most: 24% of policy statements, 1.8 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.65 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 102nd of 221).

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 Tenney talks about. The bills Tenney sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Tenney talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Tenney
Peers
Immigration459 statements
24%
13%
Crime and Law Enforcement425 statements
23%
12%
Government Operations and Politics399 statements
21%
19%
Armed Forces and National Security373 statements
20%
24%
Economics and Public Finance360 statements
19%
19%
Show the data
Policy areas Tenney talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowTenneyPeers
Immigration24%13%
Crime and Law Enforcement23%12%
Government Operations and Politics21%19%
Armed Forces and National Security20%24%
Economics and Public Finance19%19%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Tenney’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House 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 House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onImmigrationImmigration, talks about: 24% (House Republicans 13%)24%Immigration, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 5%)4%Crime and Law EnforcementCrime and Law Enforcement, talks about: 23% (House Republicans 12%)23%Crime and Law Enforcement, legislates on: 10% (House Republicans 9%)10%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 19%)21%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 13% (House Republicans 12%)13%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 20% (House Republicans 24%)20%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 5% (House Republicans 8%)5%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 19% (House Republicans 19%)19%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 2% (House Republicans 2%)2%
Show the data
Tenney's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Immigration24%13%4%5%
Crime and Law Enforcement23%12%10%9%
Government Operations and Politics21%19%13%12%
Armed Forces and National Security20%24%5%8%
Economics and Public Finance19%19%2%2%
0.65

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 102nd of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Tenney sits at +1.01 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 53% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.00 to +1.03, which understates the uncertainty; from 4,034 donors and 4,055 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”.

+1.01

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.00 to +1.03. From 4,034 donors and 4,055 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Tenney +1.0House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Tenney, 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 Tenney’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 Tenney sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Tenney +1.0All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Tenney's CSIP score of +1.01 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Tenney
House Republicans221+1.053%
All House439+0.376%
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 Tenney 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 Tenney.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Tenney raised $2.9M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 28% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 36% of itemized individual money came from New York.

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
$2.9M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 852 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Itemized individual (over $200): $844.7K (28.9%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $326.3K (11.2%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)PACs and other committees: $1.4M (48.8%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $326.6K (11.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)29 squares$844.7K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)11 squares$326.3K
  • PACs and other committees49 squares$1.4M
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)11 squares$326.6K
Show the data
Sources of Tenney's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$844.7K28.9%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$326.3K11.2%
PACs and other committees$1.4M48.8%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$326.6K11.2%
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, 2020 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $3.1M$3.1M20202022 cycle: $3.3M$3.3M20222024 cycle: $3.0M$3.0M20242026 cycle: $2.9M$2.9M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Tenney's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$3.1M
2022 cycle$3.3M
2024 cycle$3.0M
2026 cycle$2.9M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 36% came from New York.

  1. New York$281.1K
  2. Florida$75.4K
  3. California$63.4K
  4. Virginia$46.3K
  5. Texas$45.8K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Tenney
Median
2026
28%
9%
2024
37%
9%
2022
27%
9%
2020
31%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowTenneyMedian
2026 cycle28%9%
2024 cycle37%9%
2022 cycle27%9%
2020 cycle31%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: $2,087MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $5,050NHWashington: $915WAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: $1,100MTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: $4,704MNIllinois: $10.6KILWisconsin: $1,022WIMichigan: $10.5KMINew York: $281.1KNYRhode Island: $750RIMassachusetts: $25.1KMAOregon: $2,759ORNevada: $1,018NVWyoming: $1,485WYSouth Dakota: $127SDIowa: $4,300IAIndiana: $7,659INOhio: $7,868OHPennsylvania: $10.7KPANew Jersey: $11.5KNJConnecticut: $17.2KCTCalifornia: $63.4KCAUtah: $19.5KUTColorado: $1,610CONebraska: $1,607NEMissouri: $4,671MOKentucky: $310KYWest Virginia: $60WVVirginia: $46.3KVAMaryland: $18.1KMDDelaware: $3,300DEArizona: $5,835AZNew Mexico: $5,096NMKansas: $1,025KSArkansas: $1,132ARTennessee: $5,041TNNorth Carolina: $14.7KNCSouth Carolina: $4,870SCDistrict of Columbia: $26.3KDCOklahoma: $975OKLouisiana: $7,076LAMississippi: $290MSAlabama: $4,742ALGeorgia: $20.2KGAHawaii: $235HITexas: $45.8KTXFlorida: $75.4KFL
Show the data
Tenney's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
New York$281.1K
Florida$75.4K
California$63.4K
Virginia$46.3K
Texas$45.8K
District of Columbia$26.3K
Massachusetts$25.1K
Georgia$20.2K
Utah$19.5K
Maryland$18.1K
Connecticut$17.2K
North Carolina$14.7K
New Jersey$11.5K
Pennsylvania$10.7K
Illinois$10.6K
Michigan$10.5K
Ohio$7,868
Indiana$7,659
Louisiana$7,076
Arizona$5,835
New Mexico$5,096
New Hampshire$5,050
Tennessee$5,041
South Carolina$4,870
Alabama$4,742
Minnesota$4,704
Missouri$4,671
Iowa$4,300
Delaware$3,300
Oregon$2,759
Maine$2,087
Colorado$1,610
Nebraska$1,607
Wyoming$1,485
Arkansas$1,132
Montana$1,100
Kansas$1,025
Wisconsin$1,022
Nevada$1,018
Oklahoma$975
Washington$915
Rhode Island$750
Kentucky$310
Mississippi$290
Hawaii$235
South Dakota$127
West Virginia$60
AlaskaNo data
VermontNo data
IdahoNo data
North DakotaNo data
852

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

36%

from New York

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 0.2%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 1.3%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.9%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 3.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 8.6%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 10%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 7.9%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 40%40%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 27%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 0.4%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.1%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Tenney's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.00 to +1.75: 8.6% between 0.00 and +0.25, 10% between +0.25 and +0.50, 7.9% between +0.50 and +0.75, 40% between +0.75 and +1.00, 27% between +1.00 and +1.25.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.00 to −0.750.2%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.501.3%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.9%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.003.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.258.6%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.5010%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.757.9%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0040%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2527%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.500.4%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.1%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Tenney’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Tenney’s own score is +1.01.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$169.4K 405 donors
  2. CEO$53.5K 21 donors
  3. PRESIDENT$23.6K 16 donors
  4. OWNER$21.2K 7 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$19.5K 22 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION PAC (BANKPAC)$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LIFE INSURERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN REVIVAL PAC$10.0K
  4. ANTI-WOKE FUND$10.0K
  5. BALL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOVOGRADAC COMPANY LLP$16.0K 3 donors
  2. ADVANTAGE CAPITAL$13.3K 9 donors
  3. BLOOM ENERGY$10.5K 15 donors
  4. CORNING$7,500 3 donors
  5. MINDSET$7,500 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Tenney voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.9% of party-line votes and missed 0.7% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Tenney voted against the majority of House Republicans 8 times.

674 roll calls Tenney could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House 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 Tenney voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

8

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.9%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 60th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Tenney
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.2%
96.3%
40th of 221
Party unity
98.9%
97.1%
60th of 221
Show the data
Tenney's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowTenneyPeers
Attendance99.2%96.3%
Party unity98.9%97.1%
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
YeaWith 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
YeaWith 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
YeaWith 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 Tenney most often

  1. Mike JohnsonR517 shared votes100%
  2. Guy ReschenthalerR650 shared votes99%
  3. Tony GonzalesR424 shared votes99%
  4. Robert LattaR669 shared votes99%
  5. Andy BarrR621 shared votes99%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Tenney least often

  1. Adelita GrijalvaD386 shared votes24%
  2. Rashida TlaibD653 shared votes24%
  3. Delia RamirezD637 shared votes25%
  4. Gregorio CasarD571 shared votes25%
  5. Summer LeeD669 shared votes26%
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

Tenney sponsored 83 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 627 others. 2.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 204th of 216).

The bills Tenney 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

Sponsored83 billsSponsored, Introduced: 8383Sponsored, In committee: 8383Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored627 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 627627Cosponsored, In committee: 627627Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 7878Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 1111Cosponsored, Became law: 1111IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Tenney sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored8383210
Cosponsored627627781111
How to read the blocks

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

2.4%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 204th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Michael Lawler97
  2. Nicole Malliotakis67
  3. Nicholas Langworthy63
  4. Elise Stefanik56
  5. Brian Fitzpatrick55
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 Tenney’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. 10832IRAN ActSponsorOct 15, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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. Oct 15, 2026
H.R. 10806Medicare Home Health Payment Integrity and Protection Act of 2026SponsorOct 13, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and 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. Oct 13, 2026
H.R. 10779To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1905 Route 112 in Medford, New York, as the "Gunnery Sergeant Ruben Santos Post Office Building".CosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeGovernment Operations and PoliticsReferred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Oct 9, 2026
H.Res. 1622Expressing support for the preservation, protection, and maintenance of statues and monuments honoring Christopher Columbus as an enduring testament to the Nation's history, heritage, and identity.SponsorOct 9, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 9, 2026
H.Res. 1618Recognizing the third anniversary of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, honoring the victims and the hostages, and calling for the complete disarmament of Hamas for a durable end to the war in Gaza.CosponsorOct 6, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Oct 6, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 110 times in 90 days. Tenney’s official site had 34 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Tenney posted on Oct 21, 2026.

The lab crawls Tenney’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 Tenney 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 Tenney posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A cropped page from a legal document, with a section heading about verifying citizenship and a paragraph discussing a registrar’s ability to verify voter citizenship. Several lines are highlighted in yellow. Page and line numbers and a document footer are visible.
    A cropped page from a legal document, with a section heading about verifying citizenship and a paragraph discussing a registrar’s ability to verify voter citizenship. Several lines are highlighted in yellow. Page and line numbers and a document footer are visible.View post
  • A formal dark-blue pledge document with a large title, several paragraphs, a numbered list of six commitments, a vice-presidential seal near the top right, and two handwritten signatures at the bottom. Decorative eagle and floral motifs appear in the background.
    A formal dark-blue pledge document with a large title, several paragraphs, a numbered list of six commitments, a vice-presidential seal near the top right, and two handwritten signatures at the bottom. Decorative eagle and floral motifs appear in the background.View post
  • A commemorative graphic shows a U.S. Navy sailor in uniform saluting the Statue of Liberty across the water, with boats and a partly cloudy sky. Text appears at the top and bottom.
    A commemorative graphic shows a U.S. Navy sailor in uniform saluting the Statue of Liberty across the water, with boats and a partly cloudy sky. Text appears at the top and bottom.View post
  • A commemorative poster overlays a historical painting of Christopher Columbus with large white lettering and a politician's name and office information near the bottom.
    A commemorative poster overlays a historical painting of Christopher Columbus with large white lettering and a politician's name and office information near the bottom.View post
  • A campaign-style poster shows two women walking through a fenced pasture with several sheep behind them. Trees and greenery fill the background. Large white lettering is overlaid, with a small representative's name and office information near the bottom.
    A campaign-style poster shows two women walking through a fenced pasture with several sheep behind them. Trees and greenery fill the background. Large white lettering is overlaid, with a small representative's name and office information near the bottom.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 Tenney is most unusual among House 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
T000478
Bioguide
T000478
FEC candidate ids
H4NY22051

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