Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. House, California’s 43rd district

Serving since Jan 3, 1991119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide W000187FEC H4CA23011

Portrait of Maxine Waters, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
2.2×
the House Democrat rate of personal attacks

15% of 370 statements contain a personal attack (55 statements); the average for House Democrats is 6.6%. Ranks 20th of 216, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Waters’s Congressional Record speeches, press releases, posts on X and newsletters and marks whether it attacks a person’s character, integrity or loyalty. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Democrats. 15% of Waters’s statements use bipartisan language, 1.6 times the House Democrat average of 9.8%. 3.2% of Waters’s statements use an extreme label, 1.7 times the House Democrat average of 1.9%.

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

Personal attacks

15%

House Democrats average 6.6% · ranks 20th of 216

Bipartisanship

15%

House Democrats average 9.8% · ranks 29th of 216

Extreme labels

3.2%

House Democrats average 1.9% · ranks 31st of 216

Attendance

95.5%

House Democrats average 96.9% · ranks 178th of 217 · 674 roll calls

Credit claiming

28%

House Democrats average 23% · ranks 50th of 216

CSIP ideology

−1.20

More liberal than 79% of House Democrats · ± 0.02

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Waters says

Waters attacks opponents personally more than 90% of House Democrats. Personal attacks in 15% of 370 statements, against 6.6% for the average House Democrat; 20th of 216.

An AI model reads each of Waters’s 370 statements in the 119th Congress (189 Congressional Record speeches, 73 posts on X, 65 press releases, 43 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Waters
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion262 statements
71%
73%
145th of 216
Credit claiming105 statements
28%
23%
50th of 216
Policy criticism92 statements
25%
28%
145th of 216
Bipartisanship57 statements
15%
10%
29th of 216
Personal attacks55 statements
15%
7%
20th of 216
Show the data
Waters's share of statements in each category against the House Democrats average.
RowWatersPeers
Policy discussion71%73%
Credit claiming28%23%
Policy criticism25%28%
Bipartisanship15%10%
Personal attacks15%7%
370

statements classified

189 Congressional Record speeches, 73 posts on X, 65 press releases, 43 newsletters.

Congressional Record speeches: 189 (51.1%)Congressional Record speeches 189posts on X: 73 (19.7%)press releases: 65 (17.6%)newsletters: 43 (11.6%)
Show the data
Waters's statements by source
PartValue
Congressional Record speeches189
posts on X73
press releases65
newsletters43
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Waters used extreme labels in 3.2% of statements, above the peer average. 12 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 1.9%.

  1. “MAGA”3
  2. “communist”2
  3. “extreme”2
  4. “fascist”2
  5. “radical”2

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump3
  2. judge2
  3. Republicans2
  4. Trump2
  5. extremists1
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: 52025-02: 102025-03: 212025-04: 212025-05: 232025-06: 302025-07: 342025-08: 32025-09: 92025-10: 72025-11: 342025-12: 612026-01: 142026-02: 162026-03: 42026-04: 32026-05: 352026-06: 142026-07: 222026-08: 32026-09: 02026-10: 1peak 61 · Dec ’25Personal attackspeak 28.6% · Jan ’26 · latest 4.5%Personal attacks, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-02: 20.0% of 10Personal attacks, 2025-03: 14.3% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-04: 23.8% of 21Personal attacks, 2025-05: 21.7% of 23Personal attacks, 2025-06: 20.0% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-07: 2.9% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2025-11: 20.6% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-12: 9.8% of 61Personal attacks, 2026-01: 28.6% of 14Personal attacks, 2026-02: 18.8% of 16Personal attacks, 2026-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-05: 11.4% of 35Personal attacks, 2026-06: 7.1% of 14Personal attacks, 2026-07: 4.5% of 22Personal attacks, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Personal attacks, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticismpeak 50.0% · Feb ’25 · latest 31.8%Policy criticism, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-02: 50.0% of 10Policy criticism, 2025-03: 23.8% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-04: 47.6% of 21Policy criticism, 2025-05: 30.4% of 23Policy criticism, 2025-06: 10.0% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-07: 17.6% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2025-11: 20.6% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-12: 26.2% of 61Policy criticism, 2026-01: 0.0% of 14Policy criticism, 2026-02: 25.0% of 16Policy criticism, 2026-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-05: 34.3% of 35Policy criticism, 2026-06: 14.3% of 14Policy criticism, 2026-07: 31.8% of 22Policy criticism, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy criticism, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussionpeak 90.0% · Feb ’25 · latest 63.6%Policy discussion, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-02: 90.0% of 10Policy discussion, 2025-03: 81.0% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-04: 61.9% of 21Policy discussion, 2025-05: 87.0% of 23Policy discussion, 2025-06: 66.7% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-07: 82.3% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2025-11: 64.7% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-12: 55.7% of 61Policy discussion, 2026-01: 85.7% of 14Policy discussion, 2026-02: 75.0% of 16Policy discussion, 2026-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-05: 71.4% of 35Policy discussion, 2026-06: 78.6% of 14Policy discussion, 2026-07: 63.6% of 22Policy discussion, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Policy discussion, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanshippeak 35.7% · Jun ’26 · latest 18.2%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 0.0% of 10Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 9.5% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 23.8% of 21Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 13.0% of 23Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 3.3% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 5.9% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 21.3% of 61Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 21.4% of 14Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 6.3% of 16Bipartisanship, 2026-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 34.3% of 35Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 35.7% of 14Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 18.2% of 22Bipartisanship, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Bipartisanship, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claimingpeak 57.1% · Jun ’26 · latest 18.2%Credit claiming, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-02: 50.0% of 10Credit claiming, 2025-03: 28.6% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-04: 14.3% of 21Credit claiming, 2025-05: 30.4% of 23Credit claiming, 2025-06: 13.3% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-07: 17.6% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2025-11: 35.3% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-12: 21.3% of 61Credit claiming, 2026-01: 28.6% of 14Credit claiming, 2026-02: 37.5% of 16Credit claiming, 2026-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-05: 45.7% of 35Credit claiming, 2026-06: 57.1% of 14Credit claiming, 2026-07: 18.2% of 22Credit claiming, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Credit claiming, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labelspeak 8.8% · Nov ’25 · latest 4.5%Extreme labels, 2025-01: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-02: 0.0% of 10Extreme labels, 2025-03: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-04: 0.0% of 21Extreme labels, 2025-05: 4.3% of 23Extreme labels, 2025-06: 0.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-07: 2.9% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2025-11: 8.8% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.0% of 61Extreme labels, 2026-01: 7.1% of 14Extreme labels, 2026-02: 0.0% of 16Extreme labels, 2026-03: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-04: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-05: 8.6% of 35Extreme labels, 2026-06: 0.0% of 14Extreme labels, 2026-07: 4.5% of 22Extreme labels, 2026-08: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-09: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Extreme labels, 2026-10: not plotted (fewer than 10 statements)Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Waters, 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 ’255— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Feb ’251020.0%50.0%90.0%0.0%50.0%0.0%
Mar ’252114.3%23.8%81.0%9.5%28.6%0.0%
Apr ’252123.8%47.6%61.9%23.8%14.3%0.0%
May ’252321.7%30.4%87.0%13.0%30.4%4.3%
Jun ’253020.0%10.0%66.7%3.3%13.3%0.0%
Jul ’25342.9%17.6%82.3%8.8%17.6%2.9%
Aug ’253— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’259— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Oct ’257— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Nov ’253420.6%20.6%64.7%5.9%35.3%8.8%
Dec ’25619.8%26.2%55.7%21.3%21.3%0.0%
Jan ’261428.6%0.0%85.7%21.4%28.6%7.1%
Feb ’261618.8%25.0%75.0%6.3%37.5%0.0%
Mar ’264— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Apr ’263— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
May ’263511.4%34.3%71.4%34.3%45.7%8.6%
Jun ’26147.1%14.3%78.6%35.7%57.1%0.0%
Jul ’26224.5%31.8%63.6%18.2%18.2%4.5%
Aug ’263— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Sep ’260— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
Oct ’261— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)— (fewer than 10 statements)
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%. 9 months are hatched here; 1 of them have no statements.

In Waters’s words

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

Bipartisanship

Mr. Speaker, we know how to support community banks and credit unions. We just did that with our landmark housing bill, and I was pleased to work with the chairman of that committee, Mr. Hill. It became law just a few days ago and included five Republican bills and four Democratic ones that were foc…

Jul 21, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Finance and Financial Sector; Housing and Community Development; Economics and Public Finance · Source

Personal attacks

Ranking Member Maxine Waters Applauds Federal Court for Blocking Trump’s Cruel Attack on Los Angeles Homelessness Funding Today, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge David O. Carter te…

Aug 14, 2026 · Press releases · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development; target: Donald Trump · Source

Extreme label

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have another letter that says: ``This dangerous bank deregulation package would undermine core safeguards and supervision, push risk into the shadows, and make the next publicly financed bailout more likely. Further deregulation is e…

Jul 21, 2026 · Congressional Record · policy criticism; policy discussion; Finance and Financial Sector; Commerce; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Housing and Community Development; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at HR 6955 · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

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

  1. Press releases

    Ranking Member Maxine Waters Applauds Federal Court for Blocking Trump’s Cruel Attack on Los Angeles Homelessness Funding Today, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge David O. Carter temporarily blocked the Trump Administration from suspending the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) from fede…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Housing and Community Development · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will mention again one of the atrocities that I have been able to experience working on these issues. Again, Wells Fargo was fined $3.7 billion just a few years ago for widespread mismanagement of automobile loans and mortgages. Their actions included unlawful fees and even repossession of cars. Now, someone would say, $3.7 billion, well, I want y…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Finance and Financial Sector · Housing and Community Development · target: my friendSource

  3. Congressional Record

    Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of HR 2478, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative Wagner. This bill will help protect vulnerable Americans by allowing for mutual fund companies to delay the redemption or sale of mutual funds when the company believes there is an attempt to defraud a senior or an adult who cannot protect th…

    personal attacks · policy criticism · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Finance and Financial Sector · Families · Crime and Law Enforcement · Science, Technology, Communications · Housing and Community Development · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesSource

  4. Newsletters

    Congresswoman Maxine Waters Blasts Trump Administration Efforts to Abuse Americans Personal Data and Control Elections | Congresswoman Maxine Waters Blasts Trump Administration Efforts to Abuse Americans Personal Data and Control ElectionsThis week, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, issued the following statement condemning Donald Trump and his Administra…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Economics and Public Finance · Agriculture and Food · Energy · extreme label “MAGA” aimed at judge · target: Donald Trump

  5. Newsletters

    Congresswoman Maxine Waters Slams Trump Administration Efforts to Weaponize Federal Power to Harm Los Angeles, LAX and Other Sanctuary Cities | Congresswoman Maxine Waters Slams Trump Administration Efforts to Weaponize Federal Power to Harm Los Angeles, LAX and Other Sanctuary CitiesThis week, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, issued the following statem…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Immigration · Transportation and Public Works · Foreign Trade and International Finance · Economics and Public Finance · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Donald Trump

All 370 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: 189 Congressional Record speeches, 73 posts on X, 65 press releases, 43 newsletters.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Finance and Financial Sector is what Waters talks about most: 36% of policy statements, 17.6 times the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.68 on a 0–1 scale (House Democrats average 0.67; 123rd of 216).

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

What Waters talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%40%
Waters
Peers
Finance and Financial Sector95 statements
36%
2%
Economics and Public Finance73 statements
28%
20%
Government Operations and Politics72 statements
27%
20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues64 statements
24%
13%
Health61 statements
23%
26%
Show the data
Policy areas Waters talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Democrats average.
RowWatersPeers
Finance and Financial Sector36%2%
Economics and Public Finance28%20%
Government Operations and Politics27%20%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues24%13%
Health23%26%
How to read the bars

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

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 40%. Grey ticks are the House Democrats averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onFinance and Financial SectorFinance and Financial Sector, talks about: 36% (House Democrats 2%)36%Finance and Financial Sector, legislates on: 12% (House Democrats 3%)12%Economics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 28% (House Democrats 20%)28%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (House Democrats 1%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 27% (House Democrats 20%)27%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 11% (House Democrats 11%)11%Civil Rights and Liberties,Minority IssuesCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, talks about: 24% (House Democrats 13%)24%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues, legislates on: 4% (House Democrats 5%)4%HealthHealth, talks about: 23% (House Democrats 26%)23%Health, legislates on: 19% (House Democrats 16%)19%
Show the data
Waters's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Democrats, legislates on
Finance and Financial Sector36%2%12%3%
Economics and Public Finance28%20%0%1%
Government Operations and Politics27%20%11%11%
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues24%13%4%5%
Health23%26%19%16%
0.68

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Democrats average 0.67. Ranks 123rd of 216.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Waters sits at −1.20 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 79% of House Democrats. Approximate range −1.22 to −1.17, which understates the uncertainty; from 1,596 donors and 7,209 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”.

−1.20

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.22 to −1.17. From 1,596 donors and 7,209 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Waters −1.2House Democrats −1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Waters, 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 Waters’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 Waters sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Democratsmedian −1.0Waters −1.2All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Waters's CSIP score of −1.20 placed against House Democrats, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Waters
House Democrats217−1.020%
All House439+0.310%
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 Waters 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 Waters.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Waters raised $1.1M in the 2026 cycle, below the House Democrats’ median of $2.0M. 8.4% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 59% of itemized individual money came from California.

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
$1.1M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 156 itemized donors. House Democrats’ median $2.0M.

Where the money came from

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

Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Itemized individual (over $200): $404.1K (36.5%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $37.2K (3.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $37.2K (3.4%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $37.2K (3.4%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)PACs and other committees: $541.5K (48.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $124.5K (11.2%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)37 squares$404.1K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)3 squares$37.2K
  • PACs and other committees49 squares$541.5K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)11 squares$124.5K
Show the data
Sources of Waters's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$404.1K36.5%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$37.2K3.4%
PACs and other committees$541.5K48.9%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$124.5K11.2%
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 Democrats’ median for 2026.

2020 cycle: $2.1M$2.1M20202022 cycle: $1.2M$1.2M20222024 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M20242026 cycle: $1.1M$1.1M2026House Democrats median $2.0M
Show the data
Waters's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$2.1M
2022 cycle$1.2M
2024 cycle$1.1M
2026 cycle$1.1M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 59% came from California.

  1. California$185.1K
  2. District of Columbia$30.8K
  3. Texas$17.3K
  4. Maryland$15.6K
  5. New York$13.4K

Small donations

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

0%60%
Waters
Median
2026
8%
13%
2024
2%
13%
2022
3%
13%
2020
2%
13%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Democrats median
RowWatersMedian
2026 cycle8%13%
2024 cycle2%13%
2022 cycle3%13%
2020 cycle2%13%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: no dataAKMaine: no dataMEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: no dataNHWashington: no dataWAIdaho: no dataIDMontana: no dataMTNorth Dakota: no dataNDMinnesota: no dataMNIllinois: $7,000ILWisconsin: no dataWIMichigan: no dataMINew York: $13.4KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $3,750MAOregon: no dataORNevada: no dataNVWyoming: no dataWYSouth Dakota: no dataSDIowa: no dataIAIndiana: $1,030INOhio: $300OHPennsylvania: no dataPANew Jersey: $800NJConnecticut: no dataCTCalifornia: $185.1KCAUtah: no dataUTColorado: $7,000CONebraska: no dataNEMissouri: no dataMOKentucky: no dataKYWest Virginia: no dataWVVirginia: $2,758VAMaryland: $15.6KMDDelaware: no dataDEArizona: no dataAZNew Mexico: no dataNMKansas: no dataKSArkansas: no dataARTennessee: no dataTNNorth Carolina: $3,300NCSouth Carolina: no dataSCDistrict of Columbia: $30.8KDCOklahoma: $500OKLouisiana: $1,000LAMississippi: no dataMSAlabama: $3,500ALGeorgia: $12.3KGAHawaii: no dataHITexas: $17.3KTXFlorida: $8,500FL
Show the data
Waters's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
California$185.1K
District of Columbia$30.8K
Texas$17.3K
Maryland$15.6K
New York$13.4K
Georgia$12.3K
Florida$8,500
Illinois$7,000
Colorado$7,000
Massachusetts$3,750
Alabama$3,500
North Carolina$3,300
Virginia$2,758
Indiana$1,030
Louisiana$1,000
New Jersey$800
Oklahoma$500
Ohio$300
AlaskaNo data
MaineNo data
VermontNo data
New HampshireNo data
WashingtonNo data
IdahoNo data
MontanaNo data
North DakotaNo data
MinnesotaNo data
WisconsinNo data
MichiganNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
OregonNo data
NevadaNo data
WyomingNo data
South DakotaNo data
IowaNo data
PennsylvaniaNo data
ConnecticutNo data
UtahNo data
NebraskaNo data
MissouriNo data
KentuckyNo data
West VirginiaNo data
DelawareNo data
ArizonaNo data
New MexicoNo data
KansasNo data
ArkansasNo data
TennesseeNo data
South CarolinaNo data
MississippiNo data
HawaiiNo data
156

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

59%

from California

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 2.7%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 65%65%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 18%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 2.5%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 2.6%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 2.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 1.6%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 3.8%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 0.8%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Waters's itemized donors in 2026, from −1.50 to +1.00: 65% between −1.25 and −1.00, 18% between −1.00 and −0.75.
ItemValue
CSIP −1.50 to −1.252.7%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0065%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.7518%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.502.5%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.252.6%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.002.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.251.6%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.503.8%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.000.8%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Waters’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Waters’s own score is −1.20.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. CEO$27.0K 7 donors
  2. NOT EMPLOYED$22.5K 14 donors
  3. ATTORNEY$22.3K 9 donors
  4. RETIRED$21.1K 8 donors
  5. BUSINESS OWNER$17.3K 8 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS PAC$10.0K
  2. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  3. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION TITLE INDUSTRY PAC (TIPAC)$10.0K
  4. BLACKROCK FUNDS SERVICES GROUP LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BLACKROCK PAC)$10.0K
  5. BUILD POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS (BUILDPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. MINDSET$15.3K 3 donors
  2. ALLEN MEDIA GROUP$11.5K 3 donors
  3. BLACKROCK$7,500 3 donors
  4. AHF$2,000 4 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Waters voted with the majority of House Democrats on 99.3% of party-line votes and missed 4.4% of 674 roll calls. House Democrats on average: 96.4% party unity, 96.9% attendance. Across all roll calls, Waters voted against the majority of House Democrats 14 times.

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

14

votes against the majority of House Democrats

Party unity 99.3%, House Democrats average 96.4%, ranks 69th of 217. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Waters
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.5%
96.9%
178th of 217
Party unity
99.3%
96.4%
69th of 217
Show the data
Waters's attendance and party unity against House Democrats.
RowWatersPeers
Attendance95.5%96.9%
Party unity99.3%96.4%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

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

Key votes

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

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
NayWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
NayWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Waters most often

  1. Sylvia GarciaD614 shared votes99%
  2. Jan SchakowskyD601 shared votes99%
  3. LaMonica McIverD640 shared votes99%
  4. Danny DavisD617 shared votes99%
  5. Bonnie Watson ColemanD636 shared votes98%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Waters least often

  1. Chip RoyR607 shared votes15%
  2. Andy BiggsR580 shared votes16%
  3. Eric BurlisonR614 shared votes17%
  4. Ralph NormanR575 shared votes17%
  5. Keith SelfR629 shared votes17%
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

Waters sponsored 45 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 274 others. 6.7% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Democrats average 4.9%; 54th of 207).

The bills Waters 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

Sponsored45 billsSponsored, Introduced: 4545Sponsored, In committee: 4545Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 33Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored274 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 274274Cosponsored, In committee: 274274Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 99Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Cosponsored, Became law: 11IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Waters sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored4545300
Cosponsored274274911
How to read the blocks

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

6.7%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Democrats average 4.9%. Ranks 54th of 207.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Eleanor Norton37
  2. Rashida Tlaib22
  3. LaMonica McIver18
  4. André Carson17
  5. Danny Davis16
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 Waters’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. 10875To amend titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 22, 2026
H.R. 10907To prohibit interference in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.CosponsorOct 22, 2026In committeeUnassignedReferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, 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 22, 2026
H.R. 10794Improving Access to WIC ActCosponsorOct 9, 2026In committeeAgriculture and FoodReferred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Oct 9, 2026
H.R. 10640Urban Health Transformation Act of 2026SponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeHealthReferred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 1, 2026
H.R. 10642STS ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeInternational AffairsReferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, and Ways and Means, 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 1, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 32 times in 90 days. Waters’s official site had 36 pages when last crawled on Oct 25, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Waters posted on Dec 19, 2025.

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

Websites

  • Official site

    waters.house.gov

    Last crawled Oct 25, 2026

    36

    pages crawled

    32

    changes in 90 days

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 Waters posted

The latest 16, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of five people posing and smiling in what appears to be a studio setting. There is a background with screens and lighting.
    A group of five people posing and smiling in what appears to be a studio setting. There is a background with screens and lighting.View post
  • The image appears to be from a news website featuring an article. It includes a headline, a prominent image of a person with some text overlay about finances, and additional text content below. There is branding from MSNBC at the top.
    The image appears to be from a news website featuring an article. It includes a headline, a prominent image of a person with some text overlay about finances, and additional text content below. There is branding from MSNBC at the top.View post
  • A group of people participating in a protest or rally, holding signs with text on them. The focus is on three individuals in the foreground, one of whom is waving.
    A group of people participating in a protest or rally, holding signs with text on them. The focus is on three individuals in the foreground, one of whom is waving.View post
  • The image shows two people holding protest signs. One person is wearing sunglasses and a striped shirt, and the other person is wearing a hat. Cars are visible in the background.
    The image shows two people holding protest signs. One person is wearing sunglasses and a striped shirt, and the other person is wearing a hat. Cars are visible in the background.View post
  • The image shows a group of people standing together during a protest, holding signs with text. There is a traffic signal and some greenery in the background.
    The image shows a group of people standing together during a protest, holding signs with text. There is a traffic signal and some greenery in the background.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 Waters is most unusual among House Democrats, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

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

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

Identifiers

Profile id
W000187
Bioguide
W000187
FEC candidate ids
H4CA23011

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