Credit claiming
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; credit claiming; Science, Technology, Communications; Armed Forces and National Security · Source
92%
of Senate Democrats score to the left of Warner on the CSIP scale
CSIP score −0.85 (approximate range −0.86 to −0.84, which understates the uncertainty); negative is left of the scale’s centre, positive right. From 18,406 donors and 4,876 roll calls.
CSIP places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign donations and the text of statements; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of moderate. The share says where Warner sits among Senate Democrats, not how far from the centre.
At a glance
6 measures against Senate Democrats. The policy areas Warner talks about and legislates on agree at 0.60 on a 0–1 scale, in the bottom tenth of Senate Democrats. Warner raised $20.2M in the 2026 cycle, in the top tenth of Senate Democrats (median $2.6M).
The measures on which Warner sits furthest from the middle of Senate Democrats, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.
CSIP ideology
−0.85
More conservative than 92% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.01
Talk-to-bills agreement
0.60
Senate Democrats average 0.66 · ranks 42nd of 45
Raised, 2026
$20.2M
Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M · ranks 4th of 45
Credit claiming
15%
Senate Democrats average 26% · ranks 41st of 45
Party unity
90.3%
Senate Democrats average 95.3% · ranks 40th of 45 · 80 votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Bipartisanship
9.6%
Senate Democrats average 18% · ranks 40th of 45
Peer group: Senate Democrats. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Warner, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Warner is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).
What Warner says
Warner stresses bipartisanship less than 86% of Senate Democrats. Bipartisanship in 9.6% of 2,978 statements, against 18% for the average Senate Democrat; 40th of 45.
An AI model reads each of Warner’s 2,978 statements in the 119th Congress (2,463 posts on X, 425 press releases, 82 Congressional Record speeches, 8 newsletters) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for Senate Democrats and ranked among them.
Kinds of statement
Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress
0%80%
Warner
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,095 statements
70%
78%
38th of 45
Policy criticism1,036 statements
35%
37%
32nd of 45
Credit claiming456 statements
15%
26%
41st of 45
Personal attacks352 statements
12%
11%
17th of 45
Bipartisanship286 statements
10%
18%
40th of 45
Show the data
| Row | Warner | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Policy discussion | 70% | 78% |
| Policy criticism | 35% | 37% |
| Credit claiming | 15% | 26% |
| Personal attacks | 12% | 11% |
| Bipartisanship | 10% | 18% |
2,978
statements classified
2,463 posts on X, 425 press releases, 82 Congressional Record speeches, 8 newsletters.
Show the data
| Part | Value |
|---|---|
| posts on X | 2,463 |
| press releases | 425 |
| Congressional Record speeches | 82 |
| newsletters | 8 |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is Warner; the thin grey bar is the average Senate Democrats. A longer thick bar means Warner does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.
Extreme labels
Warner used extreme labels in 1.0% of statements, below the peer average. 31 statements, most often aimed at Trump; peers 2.4%.
- “extreme”6
- “MAGA”4
- “radical”4
- “far right”2
- “communist”1
Who gets the labels
Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements
- Trump4
- administration3
- Republicans2
- Bill Pulte1
- Donald Trump1
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
Show the data
| Column | Statements | Personal attacks | Policy criticism | Policy discussion | Bipartisanship | Credit claiming | Extreme labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan ’25 | 148 | 7.4% | 28.4% | 68.9% | 11.5% | 28.4% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’25 | 159 | 8.2% | 36.5% | 61.6% | 12.6% | 18.2% | 2.5% |
| Mar ’25 | 137 | 10.2% | 32.9% | 65.7% | 9.5% | 16.1% | 1.5% |
| Apr ’25 | 175 | 12.6% | 42.9% | 67.4% | 5.7% | 12.6% | 2.3% |
| May ’25 | 126 | 19.8% | 40.5% | 67.5% | 7.9% | 11.9% | 0.0% |
| Jun ’25 | 122 | 9.8% | 36.1% | 61.5% | 4.9% | 13.1% | 0.0% |
| Jul ’25 | 141 | 9.2% | 36.2% | 59.6% | 5.7% | 9.2% | 1.4% |
| Aug ’25 | 81 | 11.1% | 55.6% | 84.0% | 2.5% | 17.3% | 2.5% |
| Sep ’25 | 147 | 16.3% | 35.4% | 64.6% | 12.2% | 13.6% | 1.4% |
| Oct ’25 | 129 | 10.1% | 41.9% | 56.6% | 7.0% | 3.1% | 2.3% |
| Nov ’25 | 94 | 11.7% | 43.6% | 57.5% | 5.3% | 7.4% | 0.0% |
| Dec ’25 | 105 | 12.4% | 25.7% | 67.6% | 9.5% | 11.4% | 0.0% |
| Jan ’26 | 150 | 8.7% | 15.3% | 86.0% | 6.0% | 6.7% | 0.0% |
| Feb ’26 | 139 | 7.9% | 41.0% | 56.1% | 7.9% | 7.9% | 1.4% |
| Mar ’26 | 151 | 7.3% | 47.0% | 66.9% | 8.6% | 10.6% | 2.0% |
| Apr ’26 | 136 | 7.3% | 40.4% | 79.4% | 12.5% | 15.4% | 0.0% |
| May ’26 | 160 | 15.6% | 26.3% | 61.3% | 8.8% | 16.3% | 0.6% |
| Jun ’26 | 148 | 23.0% | 40.5% | 71.6% | 15.5% | 24.3% | 3.4% |
| Jul ’26 | 157 | 17.2% | 26.1% | 85.4% | 16.6% | 20.4% | 0.6% |
| Aug ’26 | 125 | 11.2% | 32.0% | 84.8% | 8.0% | 28.0% | 0.0% |
| Sep ’26 | 148 | 10.8% | 29.0% | 87.2% | 18.9% | 26.4% | 0.0% |
| Oct ’26 | 100 | 11.0% | 19.0% | 93.0% | 7.0% | 14.0% | 0.0% |
How to read the strips
Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.
In Warner’s words
Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned
Bipartisanship
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Oct 26, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Housing and Community Development · Source
Extreme label
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
Jul 2, 2026 · Posts on X · extreme label “extreme” aimed at heat · Source
Examples by category
Up to five recent statements in each category
Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Law · target: TrumpSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Energy · International Affairs · target: TrumpSource
Press releases
Ahead of the Midterm Elections, Warner, Durbin, Padilla & Peters Request Information From DOJ & FBI Regarding the Trump Administration’s Attempted Attacks on Our Elections WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Dick Durbin (D-IL), Democratic Whip and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alex Padilla (D-CA), Ranking Member of the Senate R…
personal attacks · policy discussion · Government Operations and Politics · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Crime and Law Enforcement · Law · target: Todd Blanche, Kash PatelSource
Posts on X
The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.
personal attacks · policy discussion · Economics and Public Finance · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource
All 2,978 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: 2,463 posts on X, 425 press releases, 82 Congressional Record speeches, 8 newsletters.
Policy
Armed Forces and National Security is what Warner talks about most: 27% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.60 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 42nd of 45).
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 Warner talks about. The bills Warner sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.
What Warner talks about
Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress
0%35%
Warner
Peers
Armed Forces and National Security564 statements
27%
21%
Economics and Public Finance487 statements
23%
24%
Government Operations and Politics486 statements
23%
22%
Health462 statements
22%
27%
International Affairs239 statements
11%
12%
Show the data
| Row | Warner | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 27% | 21% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 24% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 22% |
| Health | 22% | 27% |
| International Affairs | 11% | 12% |
How to read the bars
The thick bar is the share of Warner’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for Senate Democrats. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.
Talks about · legislates on
Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the Senate Democrats averages.
Show the data
| Area | Talks about | Senate Democrats, talks about | Legislates on | Senate Democrats, legislates on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armed Forces and National Security | 27% | 21% | 6% | 7% |
| Economics and Public Finance | 23% | 24% | 0% | 0% |
| Government Operations and Politics | 23% | 22% | 16% | 9% |
| Health | 22% | 27% | 22% | 14% |
| International Affairs | 11% | 12% | 2% | 8% |
0.60
talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1
Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 42nd of 45.
What agreement means, and what it doesn’t
Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Warner legislates on exactly the areas Warner 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 Warner sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology
Warner sits at −0.85 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more conservative than 92% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −0.86 to −0.84, which understates the uncertainty; from 18,406 donors and 4,876 roll calls.
CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.
−0.85
CSIP ideal point
Approximate range −0.86 to −0.84. From 18,406 donors and 4,876 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.
The outlined dot is Warner, 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 Warner’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 Warner sits
Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale
Senate Democrats45 · median −1.1
All Senate98 · median +0.4
Show the data
| Group | Officials | Median | Share left of Warner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate Democrats | 45 | −1.1 | 91% |
| All Senate | 98 | +0.4 | 43% |
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 Warner 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 Warner.
Money
Warner raised $20.2M in the 2026 cycle, 7.7 times the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 31% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 40% of itemized individual money came from Virginia.
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.
$20.2M
raised in the 2026 cycle
From 7,784 itemized donors. Senate Democrats’ median $2.6M.
Where the money came from
Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.
- Itemized individual (over $200)36 squares$7.1M
- Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)16 squares$3.3M
- PACs and other committees12 squares$2.5M
- Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)36 squares$7.3M
Show the data
| Source | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Itemized individual (over $200) | $7.1M | 35.3% |
| Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less) | $3.3M | 16.2% |
| PACs and other committees | $2.5M | 12.3% |
| Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds) | $7.3M | 36.2% |
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 Senate Democrats’ median for 2026.
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| 2020 cycle | $13.2M |
| 2022 cycle | $3.0M |
| 2024 cycle | $4.3M |
| 2026 cycle | $20.2M |
Top donor states, 2026
Itemized contributions by donor state. 40% came from Virginia.
- Virginia$2.4M
- New York$804.6K
- California$487.1K
- Maryland$363.8K
- District of Columbia$293.7K
Small donations
Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 Senate Democrats’ median.
0%60%
Warner
Median
2026
31%
35%
2024
12%
35%
2022
14%
35%
2020
18%
35%
Show the data
| Row | Warner | Median |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 cycle | 31% | 35% |
| 2024 cycle | 12% | 35% |
| 2022 cycle | 14% | 35% |
| 2020 cycle | 18% | 35% |
Where itemized donors live
Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state
Show the data
| State | Value |
|---|---|
| Virginia | $2.4M |
| New York | $804.6K |
| California | $487.1K |
| Maryland | $363.8K |
| District of Columbia | $293.7K |
| Texas | $220.6K |
| Florida | $186.9K |
| Massachusetts | $139.1K |
| Georgia | $117.6K |
| Connecticut | $117.2K |
| Illinois | $101.0K |
| Pennsylvania | $87.5K |
| New Jersey | $77.7K |
| Colorado | $58.7K |
| Washington | $50.9K |
| North Carolina | $48.7K |
| Ohio | $45.5K |
| Nevada | $33.9K |
| Wyoming | $26.9K |
| Michigan | $25.0K |
| Tennessee | $24.1K |
| Arizona | $23.6K |
| Oregon | $22.1K |
| Minnesota | $18.6K |
| Louisiana | $14.5K |
| New Hampshire | $13.8K |
| New Mexico | $13.7K |
| South Carolina | $12.8K |
| Delaware | $11.9K |
| Missouri | $11.3K |
| Indiana | $10.1K |
| Rhode Island | $8,150 |
| Kansas | $8,082 |
| Alabama | $8,068 |
| Kentucky | $7,120 |
| Utah | $6,650 |
| Iowa | $4,888 |
| Hawaii | $4,704 |
| Wisconsin | $4,515 |
| Oklahoma | $3,980 |
| Maine | $3,236 |
| Idaho | $3,050 |
| Vermont | $2,709 |
| Arkansas | $2,700 |
| West Virginia | $1,970 |
| Alaska | $1,950 |
| Montana | $1,585 |
| Nebraska | $1,383 |
| Mississippi | $1,160 |
| North Dakota | $950 |
| South Dakota | $780 |
7,784
itemized donors
People who gave more than $200
40%
from Virginia
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 Virginia. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.
Donors’ ideology
Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores
Show the data
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| CSIP −1.75 to −1.50 | 0% |
| CSIP −1.50 to −1.25 | 0.2% |
| CSIP −1.25 to −1.00 | 17% |
| CSIP −1.00 to −0.75 | 58% |
| CSIP −0.75 to −0.50 | 7.3% |
| CSIP −0.50 to −0.25 | 4.7% |
| CSIP −0.25 to 0.00 | 5.5% |
| CSIP 0.00 to +0.25 | 3.4% |
| CSIP +0.25 to +0.50 | 1.4% |
| CSIP +0.50 to +0.75 | 1.0% |
| CSIP +0.75 to +1.00 | 0.9% |
| CSIP +1.00 to +1.25 | 0.0% |
How to read the columns
Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Warner’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Warner’s own score is −0.85.
Top donor occupations
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- NOT EMPLOYED$2.0M 3,965 donors
- RETIRED$641.5K 1,024 donors
- ATTORNEY$413.8K 361 donors
- CEO$338.2K 117 donors
- EXECUTIVE$202.3K 94 donors
Top committees
PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.
- MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (MORPAC)$19.5K
- A NEW DIRECTION PAC$10.0K
- ADVANCING DEMOCRACY AND MOBILIZATION PAC$10.0K
- ALL FOR OUR COUNTRY LEADERSHIP PAC$10.0K
- ALSOPAC$10.0K
Top employers
Itemized, 2026 cycle.
- AT&T$68.5K 56 donors
- GOLDMAN SACHS$48.1K 15 donors
- VISA, INC.$47.1K 12 donors
- APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$45.0K 16 donors
- UNITED AIRLINES$44.0K 30 donors
Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.
Votes
Warner voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 90.3% of party-line votes and missed 4.4% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Warner voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 80 times.
915 roll calls Warner could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with Senate 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 Warner voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.
80
votes against the majority of Senate Democrats
Party unity 90.3%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 40th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.
Attendance and party unity
The thick bar is Warner, the thin grey bar the Senate Democrats average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.
80%100%
Warner
Peers
Rank
Attendance
95.6%
97.0%
35th of 45
Party unity
90.3%
95.3%
40th of 45
Show the data
| Row | Warner | Peers |
|---|---|---|
| Attendance | 95.6% | 97.0% |
| Party unity | 90.3% | 95.3% |
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
| Party split (yea–nay) | Why it’s key | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2026 | S. 4668 A bill to protect the name, image, and likeness rights of, and provide protections for, student athletes and to promote fair competition among intercollegiate athletics, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 26–19 · R 50–2 · I 1–1Democrats 26 yea, 19 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | party crossover |
| Sep 24, 2026 | H.Con.Res. 89 A concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. On the Concurrent Resolution | Yea | With majority | Concurrent Resolution Rejected | D 43–1 · R 4–49 · I 2–0Democrats 43 yea, 1 nay; Republicans 4 yea, 49 nay; Independents 2 yea, 0 nay | close vote |
| Aug 8, 2026 | H.R. 6500 An act making continuing appropriations and extensions for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 42–3 · R 47–2 · I 1–1Democrats 42 yea, 3 nay; Republicans 47 yea, 2 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law |
| Aug 7, 2026 | H.R. 5334 An act to impose sanctions and other measures with respect to the Russian Federation, as championed by the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham, and for other purposes. On Passage of the Bill | Yea | With majority | Bill Passed | D 36–9 · R 49–1 · I 1–1Democrats 36 yea, 9 nay; Republicans 49 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 1 nay | became law · party crossover |
| Jul 30, 2026 | S.Res. 817 An executive resolution authorizing the en bloc consideration in Executive Session of certain nominations on the Executive Calendar. On the Resolution | Nay | With majority | Resolution Agreed to | D 0–45 · R 50–0 · I 0–2Democrats 0 yea, 45 nay; Republicans 50 yea, 0 nay; Independents 0 yea, 2 nay | close vote |
How key votes are chosen
Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.
Votes most often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Warner most often
- Ruben GallegoD764 shared votes94%
- Christopher CoonsD828 shared votes94%
- Elissa SlotkinD850 shared votes94%
- John HickenlooperD866 shared votes93%
- Jacky RosenD863 shared votes93%
Votes least often with
The colleagues who voted the same way as Warner least often
- Rick ScottR873 shared votes14%
- Mike LeeR849 shared votes14%
- Ron JohnsonR863 shared votes15%
- Ashley MoodyR856 shared votes15%
- Tommy TubervilleR816 shared votes15%
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
Legislation
Warner sponsored 61 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 337 others. 8.2% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 36th of 45).
The bills Warner 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
Show the data
| Role | Introduced | In committee | Passed one chamber | Passed both chambers | Became law |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsored | 61 | 60 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cosponsored | 337 | 335 | 61 | 4 | 4 |
How to read the blocks
Ink blocks are bills Warner sponsored, ochre blocks bills Warner cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.
8.2%
of sponsored bills got out of committee
Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 36th of 45.
Cosponsorship partners
Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Warner, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.
- Tim Kaine89
- Chris Van Hollen67
- Angela Alsobrooks57
- Richard Blumenthal54
- Amy Klobuchar47
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 Warner’s bills; the toggle shows more.
Bill list
Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest
| S.Res. 931 | A resolution recognizing the month of October 2026 as Filipino American History Month and celebrating the history and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense contributions to the United States. | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | In committee | Unassigned | Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S5265-5266) Sep 30, 2026 |
| S.Res. 946 | A resolution designating September 30, 2026, as "National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day". | Cosponsor | Sep 30, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Armed Forces and National Security | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299; text: CR S5272-5273) Sep 30, 2026 |
| S. 5576 | Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act of 2026 | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Government Operations and Politics | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Sep 29, 2026 |
| S. 5586 | Ensuring Accurate Payments to Specialty Pharmacies Act | Sponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | In committee | Health | Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Sep 29, 2026 |
| S.Res. 924 | A resolution designating October 7, 2026, as "Energy Efficiency Day" in celebration of the economic and environmental benefits that have been driven by private sector innovation and Federal energy efficiency policies. | Cosponsor | Sep 29, 2026 | Passed one chamber | Energy | Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5186; text: CR S5176-5177) Sep 29, 2026 |
Online
A site that changed 62 times in 90 days. Warner’s official site had 27 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Warner posted on Oct 26, 2026.
The lab crawls Warner’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 Warner posts with a vision model.
Websites
- 27
pages crawled
62changes in 90 days
- 21
pages crawled
50changes 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.
Social accounts
- XMarkWarner
- FacebookMarkRWarner
- Instagramsenatorwarner
- YouTubeSenatorMarkWarner
- Emaildonotreply@warner.senate.gov
Images Warner posted
The latest 24, with model-written descriptions
Three people pose together at an outdoor event near large naval ships, with other visitors and crowd-control barriers in the background. No prominent text is visible.View post 
Two men pose on a pier beside a large aircraft carrier. Metal access stairs and railings lead up to the ship, with hoses and dock equipment in the foreground. A banner with text is mounted on the carrier. The scene is outdoors under a clear blue sky.View post 
A group of people talk outside near a large aircraft carrier on a sunny day. One man in a suit speaks with an older man wearing a cap and leather jacket. Signs and other text are visible in the background.View post 
Under a canopy at a boat and emergency-response display, a man in a suit shakes hands with a uniformed rescue worker while another uniformed worker stands nearby. A boat and equipment are behind them, and a sign with text is visible in the background.View post 
A screenshot of an online newspaper article with a large masthead, headline, and a photograph of a man speaking at a meeting while gesturing. A woman sits beside him, and several people are visible in the foreground. There is text throughout the page.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.
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 Warner is most unusual among Senate 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
- W000805
- Bioguide
- W000805
- FEC candidate ids
- P80003023, S6VA00093
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