Skip to content

Democrat · U.S. Senate, Massachusetts

Serving since Jan 3, 2013119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 5, 2030

Bioguide W000817FEC S2MA00170

Portrait of Elizabeth Warren, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
49%
of statements criticize a policy, the highest of 45 Senate Democrats

49% of 3,304 statements criticize a policy (1,610 statements); the average for Senate Democrats is 37%. Ranks 1st of 45, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Warren’s posts on X, Congressional Record speeches and press releases and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among Senate Democrats and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against Senate Democrats. Warren sits at −1.76 on the CSIP scale, more liberal than 99% of Senate Democrats. 65% of Warren’s individual money in the 2026 cycle came in gifts of $200 or less, in the top 5% of Senate Democrats (median 35%).

The measures on which Warren 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.

Policy criticism

49%

Senate Democrats average 37% · ranks 1st of 45

CSIP ideology

−1.76

More liberal than 99% of Senate Democrats · ± 0.01

Small donations, 2026

65%

Senate Democrats’ median 35% · ranks 2nd of 45

Out of committee

3.4%

Senate Democrats average 14% · ranks 43rd of 45

Bipartisanship

9.5%

Senate Democrats average 18% · ranks 41st of 45

Party unity

99.7%

Senate Democrats average 95.3% · ranks 5th of 45 · 46 votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

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

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Warren says

Warren stresses bipartisanship less than 88% of Senate Democrats. Bipartisanship in 9.5% of 3,304 statements, against 18% for the average Senate Democrat; 41st of 45.

An AI model reads each of Warren’s 3,304 statements in the 119th Congress (2,376 posts on X, 830 press releases, 98 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 Senate Democrats and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Warren
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion2,830 statements
86%
78%
6th of 45
Policy criticism1,610 statements
49%
37%
1st of 45
Credit claiming605 statements
18%
26%
36th of 45
Personal attacks563 statements
17%
11%
9th of 45
Bipartisanship314 statements
10%
18%
41st of 45
Show the data
Warren's share of statements in each category against the Senate Democrats average.
RowWarrenPeers
Policy discussion86%78%
Policy criticism49%37%
Credit claiming18%26%
Personal attacks17%11%
Bipartisanship10%18%
3,304

statements classified

2,376 posts on X, 830 press releases, 98 Congressional Record speeches.

posts on X: 2,376 (71.9%)posts on X 2,376press releases: 830 (25.1%)press releases 830Congressional Record speeches: 98 (3.0%)
Show the data
Warren's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X2,376
press releases830
Congressional Record speeches98
How to read the bars

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

Extreme labels

Warren used extreme labels in 2.1% of statements, close to the peer average. 70 statements, most often aimed at Donald Trump; peers 2.4%.

  1. “extreme”26
  2. “MAGA”9
  3. “radical”7
  4. “fascist”3
  5. “woke”1

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. Donald Trump9
  2. Thomas Bell7
  3. Republicans5
  4. Trump4
  5. ICE3
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: 1232025-02: 1882025-03: 1922025-04: 1982025-05: 1992025-06: 2242025-07: 1772025-08: 1032025-09: 1842025-10: 1882025-11: 1292025-12: 1422026-01: 1252026-02: 1612026-03: 1622026-04: 792026-05: 922026-06: 1572026-07: 1562026-08: 1112026-09: 1272026-10: 87peak 224 · Jun ’25Personal attackspeak 30.4% · Apr ’26 · latest 6.9%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 28.5% of 123Personal attacks, 2025-02: 24.5% of 188Personal attacks, 2025-03: 24.0% of 192Personal attacks, 2025-04: 16.2% of 198Personal attacks, 2025-05: 26.1% of 199Personal attacks, 2025-06: 14.3% of 224Personal attacks, 2025-07: 13.0% of 177Personal attacks, 2025-08: 12.6% of 103Personal attacks, 2025-09: 16.9% of 184Personal attacks, 2025-10: 16.5% of 188Personal attacks, 2025-11: 17.8% of 129Personal attacks, 2025-12: 8.5% of 142Personal attacks, 2026-01: 10.4% of 125Personal attacks, 2026-02: 14.9% of 161Personal attacks, 2026-03: 13.6% of 162Personal attacks, 2026-04: 30.4% of 79Personal attacks, 2026-05: 16.3% of 92Personal attacks, 2026-06: 17.2% of 157Personal attacks, 2026-07: 14.1% of 156Personal attacks, 2026-08: 15.3% of 111Personal attacks, 2026-09: 13.4% of 127Personal attacks, 2026-10: 6.9% of 87Policy criticismpeak 66.5% · Oct ’25 · latest 29.9%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 53.7% of 123Policy criticism, 2025-02: 53.2% of 188Policy criticism, 2025-03: 44.8% of 192Policy criticism, 2025-04: 55.6% of 198Policy criticism, 2025-05: 50.7% of 199Policy criticism, 2025-06: 56.3% of 224Policy criticism, 2025-07: 54.2% of 177Policy criticism, 2025-08: 66.0% of 103Policy criticism, 2025-09: 51.6% of 184Policy criticism, 2025-10: 66.5% of 188Policy criticism, 2025-11: 58.1% of 129Policy criticism, 2025-12: 47.2% of 142Policy criticism, 2026-01: 27.2% of 125Policy criticism, 2026-02: 46.0% of 161Policy criticism, 2026-03: 48.1% of 162Policy criticism, 2026-04: 48.1% of 79Policy criticism, 2026-05: 46.7% of 92Policy criticism, 2026-06: 45.9% of 157Policy criticism, 2026-07: 42.3% of 156Policy criticism, 2026-08: 35.1% of 111Policy criticism, 2026-09: 19.7% of 127Policy criticism, 2026-10: 29.9% of 87Policy discussionpeak 100.0% · Oct ’26 · latest 100.0%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 87.0% of 123Policy discussion, 2025-02: 84.6% of 188Policy discussion, 2025-03: 81.3% of 192Policy discussion, 2025-04: 90.9% of 198Policy discussion, 2025-05: 84.9% of 199Policy discussion, 2025-06: 83.0% of 224Policy discussion, 2025-07: 79.1% of 177Policy discussion, 2025-08: 84.5% of 103Policy discussion, 2025-09: 79.3% of 184Policy discussion, 2025-10: 84.6% of 188Policy discussion, 2025-11: 79.8% of 129Policy discussion, 2025-12: 92.3% of 142Policy discussion, 2026-01: 96.8% of 125Policy discussion, 2026-02: 74.5% of 161Policy discussion, 2026-03: 84.0% of 162Policy discussion, 2026-04: 86.1% of 79Policy discussion, 2026-05: 75.0% of 92Policy discussion, 2026-06: 86.0% of 157Policy discussion, 2026-07: 90.4% of 156Policy discussion, 2026-08: 97.3% of 111Policy discussion, 2026-09: 96.1% of 127Policy discussion, 2026-10: 100.0% of 87Bipartisanshippeak 21.0% · Jun ’26 · latest 4.6%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 17.9% of 123Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 6.9% of 188Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 7.3% of 192Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 11.1% of 198Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 11.6% of 199Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 6.7% of 224Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 8.5% of 177Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 6.8% of 103Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 6.5% of 184Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 8.5% of 188Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 6.2% of 129Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 12.0% of 142Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 5.6% of 125Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 6.2% of 161Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 6.8% of 162Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 8.9% of 79Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 10.9% of 92Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 21.0% of 157Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 18.6% of 156Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 8.1% of 111Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 7.9% of 127Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 4.6% of 87Credit claimingpeak 40.8% · Jun ’26 · latest 12.6%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 24.4% of 123Credit claiming, 2025-02: 18.6% of 188Credit claiming, 2025-03: 14.6% of 192Credit claiming, 2025-04: 18.7% of 198Credit claiming, 2025-05: 21.6% of 199Credit claiming, 2025-06: 11.6% of 224Credit claiming, 2025-07: 17.5% of 177Credit claiming, 2025-08: 14.6% of 103Credit claiming, 2025-09: 13.6% of 184Credit claiming, 2025-10: 13.3% of 188Credit claiming, 2025-11: 12.4% of 129Credit claiming, 2025-12: 18.3% of 142Credit claiming, 2026-01: 9.6% of 125Credit claiming, 2026-02: 14.3% of 161Credit claiming, 2026-03: 14.2% of 162Credit claiming, 2026-04: 27.9% of 79Credit claiming, 2026-05: 31.5% of 92Credit claiming, 2026-06: 40.8% of 157Credit claiming, 2026-07: 26.3% of 156Credit claiming, 2026-08: 18.0% of 111Credit claiming, 2026-09: 18.1% of 127Credit claiming, 2026-10: 12.6% of 87Extreme labelspeak 5.4% · May ’26 · latest 0.0%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 4.9% of 123Extreme labels, 2025-02: 3.2% of 188Extreme labels, 2025-03: 1.0% of 192Extreme labels, 2025-04: 1.5% of 198Extreme labels, 2025-05: 0.0% of 199Extreme labels, 2025-06: 2.2% of 224Extreme labels, 2025-07: 1.7% of 177Extreme labels, 2025-08: 0.0% of 103Extreme labels, 2025-09: 2.7% of 184Extreme labels, 2025-10: 3.7% of 188Extreme labels, 2025-11: 4.7% of 129Extreme labels, 2025-12: 0.7% of 142Extreme labels, 2026-01: 1.6% of 125Extreme labels, 2026-02: 2.5% of 161Extreme labels, 2026-03: 4.3% of 162Extreme labels, 2026-04: 2.5% of 79Extreme labels, 2026-05: 5.4% of 92Extreme labels, 2026-06: 2.5% of 157Extreme labels, 2026-07: 0.6% of 156Extreme labels, 2026-08: 0.9% of 111Extreme labels, 2026-09: 0.0% of 127Extreme labels, 2026-10: 0.0% of 87Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Warren, 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 ’2512328.5%53.7%87.0%17.9%24.4%4.9%
Feb ’2518824.5%53.2%84.6%6.9%18.6%3.2%
Mar ’2519224.0%44.8%81.3%7.3%14.6%1.0%
Apr ’2519816.2%55.6%90.9%11.1%18.7%1.5%
May ’2519926.1%50.7%84.9%11.6%21.6%0.0%
Jun ’2522414.3%56.3%83.0%6.7%11.6%2.2%
Jul ’2517713.0%54.2%79.1%8.5%17.5%1.7%
Aug ’2510312.6%66.0%84.5%6.8%14.6%0.0%
Sep ’2518416.9%51.6%79.3%6.5%13.6%2.7%
Oct ’2518816.5%66.5%84.6%8.5%13.3%3.7%
Nov ’2512917.8%58.1%79.8%6.2%12.4%4.7%
Dec ’251428.5%47.2%92.3%12.0%18.3%0.7%
Jan ’2612510.4%27.2%96.8%5.6%9.6%1.6%
Feb ’2616114.9%46.0%74.5%6.2%14.3%2.5%
Mar ’2616213.6%48.1%84.0%6.8%14.2%4.3%
Apr ’267930.4%48.1%86.1%8.9%27.9%2.5%
May ’269216.3%46.7%75.0%10.9%31.5%5.4%
Jun ’2615717.2%45.9%86.0%21.0%40.8%2.5%
Jul ’2615614.1%42.3%90.4%18.6%26.3%0.6%
Aug ’2611115.3%35.1%97.3%8.1%18.0%0.9%
Sep ’2612713.4%19.7%96.1%7.9%18.1%0.0%
Oct ’26876.9%29.9%100.0%4.6%12.6%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 Warren’s words

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

Personal attacks

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

Oct 23, 2026 · Posts on X · personal attacks; policy discussion; Armed Forces and National Security; Economics and Public Finance; Energy; Agriculture and Food; target: Donald Trump · Source

Bipartisanship

New Warren Report: Weak Trump Antitrust Enforcement and Backroom Deals Are Driving Up Costs for American Families “Since President Trump returned to office, corporate giants have announced at least 330 large mergers totaling more than $2.2 trillion in market consolidation” Amid increasing concerns…

Oct 22, 2026 · Press releases · policy discussion; bipartisanship; Commerce; Government Operations and Politics; Housing and Community Development · Source

Extreme label

Warren Slams RFK Jr.’s Secrecy on Trump’s Big Pharma Deals; Releases New HHS Response Raising Questions About Administration’s Savings Estimate In a new response to Warren, RFK Jr. claims TrumpRx does not store prescription information — raising questions about whether Administration savings claims…

Aug 13, 2026 · Press releases · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Commerce; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Government Operations and Politics; extreme label “radical” aimed at HHS · 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 · Armed Forces and National Security · Economics and Public Finance · Energy · Agriculture and Food · target: Donald TrumpSource

  2. 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 · Labor and Employment · target: Donald TrumpSource

  3. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · Finance and Financial Sector · Foreign Trade and International Finance · target: TrumpSource

  4. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Finance and Financial Sector · Government Operations and Politics · target: TrumpSource

  5. Posts on X

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

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Crime and Law Enforcement · Government Operations and Politics · target: Bill PulteSource

All 3,304 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: 2,376 posts on X, 830 press releases, 98 Congressional Record speeches.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Economics and Public Finance is what Warren talks about most: 29% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.66 on a 0–1 scale (Senate Democrats average 0.66; 25th 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 Warren talks about. The bills Warren sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Warren talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Warren
Peers
Economics and Public Finance834 statements
29%
24%
Government Operations and Politics740 statements
26%
22%
Health714 statements
25%
27%
Armed Forces and National Security494 statements
17%
21%
Taxation412 statements
15%
8%
Show the data
Policy areas Warren talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the Senate Democrats average.
RowWarrenPeers
Economics and Public Finance29%24%
Government Operations and Politics26%22%
Health25%27%
Armed Forces and National Security17%21%
Taxation15%8%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Warren’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.

Talks aboutLegislates onEconomics and Public FinanceEconomics and Public Finance, talks about: 29% (Senate Democrats 24%)29%Economics and Public Finance, legislates on: 0% (Senate Democrats 0%)0%Government Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 26% (Senate Democrats 22%)26%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 8% (Senate Democrats 9%)8%HealthHealth, talks about: 25% (Senate Democrats 27%)25%Health, legislates on: 15% (Senate Democrats 14%)15%Armed Forces and NationalSecurityArmed Forces and National Security, talks about: 17% (Senate Democrats 21%)17%Armed Forces and National Security, legislates on: 8% (Senate Democrats 7%)8%TaxationTaxation, talks about: 15% (Senate Democrats 8%)15%Taxation, legislates on: 6% (Senate Democrats 7%)6%
Show the data
Warren's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutSenate Democrats, talks aboutLegislates onSenate Democrats, legislates on
Economics and Public Finance29%24%0%0%
Government Operations and Politics26%22%8%9%
Health25%27%15%14%
Armed Forces and National Security17%21%8%7%
Taxation15%8%6%7%
0.66

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

Senate Democrats average 0.66. Ranks 25th of 45.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

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

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Warren sits at −1.76 on the CSIP scale, left of 0, more liberal than 99% of Senate Democrats. Approximate range −1.77 to −1.74, which understates the uncertainty; from 46,033 donors and 4,709 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”.

−1.76

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range −1.77 to −1.74. From 46,033 donors and 4,709 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Warren −1.8Senate Democrats −1.1All Senate +0.4

The outlined dot is Warren, 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 Warren’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 Warren sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Senate Democratsmedian −1.1Warren −1.8All Senatemedian +0.4
Show the data
Warren's CSIP score of −1.76 placed against Senate Democrats, All Senate.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Warren
Senate Democrats45−1.10%
All Senate98+0.40%
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 Warren 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 Warren.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Warren raised $5.0M in the 2026 cycle, 1.9 times the Senate Democrats’ median of $2.6M. 65% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 21% of itemized individual money came from Massachusetts.

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
$5.0M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 4,211 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): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Itemized individual (over $200): $1.7M (33.8%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $3.1M (62.3%)PACs and other committees: $25.0K (0.5%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $170.0K (3.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $170.0K (3.4%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $170.0K (3.4%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)34 squares$1.7M
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)62 squares$3.1M
  • PACs and other committees1 squares$25.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)3 squares$170.0K
Show the data
Sources of Warren's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$1.7M33.8%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$3.1M62.3%
PACs and other committees$25.0K0.5%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$170.0K3.4%
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.

2020 cycle: $6.1M$6.1M20202022 cycle: $5.4M$5.4M20222024 cycle: $9.0M$9.0M20242026 cycle: $5.0M$5.0M2026Senate Democrats median $2.6M
Show the data
Warren's receipts by cycle against the 2026 Senate Democrats median.
ItemValue
2020 cycle$6.1M
2022 cycle$5.4M
2024 cycle$9.0M
2026 cycle$5.0M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 21% came from Massachusetts.

  1. Massachusetts$281.6K
  2. California$272.6K
  3. New York$93.0K
  4. Washington$58.2K
  5. Illinois$39.9K

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%
Warren
Median
2026
65%
35%
2024
53%
35%
2022
51%
35%
2020
67%
35%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the Senate Democrats median
RowWarrenMedian
2026 cycle65%35%
2024 cycle53%35%
2022 cycle51%35%
2020 cycle67%35%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $4,438AKMaine: $13.6KMEVermont: $8,860VTNew Hampshire: $14.7KNHWashington: $58.2KWAIdaho: $5,817IDMontana: $4,708MTNorth Dakota: $295NDMinnesota: $17.5KMNIllinois: $39.9KILWisconsin: $19.6KWIMichigan: $23.6KMINew York: $93.0KNYRhode Island: $4,694RIMassachusetts: $281.6KMAOregon: $33.6KORNevada: $3,895NVWyoming: $7,328WYSouth Dakota: $2,020SDIowa: $5,241IAIndiana: $12.3KINOhio: $16.6KOHPennsylvania: $38.9KPANew Jersey: $31.6KNJConnecticut: $21.8KCTCalifornia: $272.6KCAUtah: $8,046UTColorado: $35.9KCONebraska: $4,031NEMissouri: $10.3KMOKentucky: $4,571KYWest Virginia: $755WVVirginia: $31.2KVAMaryland: $25.2KMDDelaware: $2,659DEArizona: $14.5KAZNew Mexico: $14.9KNMKansas: $3,914KSArkansas: $2,253ARTennessee: $12.8KTNNorth Carolina: $22.8KNCSouth Carolina: $7,533SCDistrict of Columbia: $7,674DCOklahoma: $3,842OKLouisiana: $3,553LAMississippi: $1,886MSAlabama: $3,720ALGeorgia: $15.7KGAHawaii: $8,486HITexas: $38.8KTXFlorida: $33.5KFL
Show the data
Warren's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Massachusetts$281.6K
California$272.6K
New York$93.0K
Washington$58.2K
Illinois$39.9K
Pennsylvania$38.9K
Texas$38.8K
Colorado$35.9K
Oregon$33.6K
Florida$33.5K
New Jersey$31.6K
Virginia$31.2K
Maryland$25.2K
Michigan$23.6K
North Carolina$22.8K
Connecticut$21.8K
Wisconsin$19.6K
Minnesota$17.5K
Ohio$16.6K
Georgia$15.7K
New Mexico$14.9K
New Hampshire$14.7K
Arizona$14.5K
Maine$13.6K
Tennessee$12.8K
Indiana$12.3K
Missouri$10.3K
Vermont$8,860
Hawaii$8,486
Utah$8,046
District of Columbia$7,674
South Carolina$7,533
Wyoming$7,328
Idaho$5,817
Iowa$5,241
Montana$4,708
Rhode Island$4,694
Kentucky$4,571
Alaska$4,438
Nebraska$4,031
Kansas$3,914
Nevada$3,895
Oklahoma$3,842
Alabama$3,720
Louisiana$3,553
Delaware$2,659
Arkansas$2,253
South Dakota$2,020
Mississippi$1,886
West Virginia$755
North Dakota$295
4,211

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

21%

from Massachusetts

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

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −2.00 to −1.75: 10%CSIP −1.75 to −1.50: 15%CSIP −1.50 to −1.25: 31%CSIP −1.25 to −1.00: 40%40%CSIP −1.00 to −0.75: 3.9%CSIP −0.75 to −0.50: 0.1%CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.2%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Warren's itemized donors in 2026, from −2.00 to +0.25: 10% between −2.00 and −1.75, 15% between −1.75 and −1.50, 31% between −1.50 and −1.25, 40% between −1.25 and −1.00.
ItemValue
CSIP −2.00 to −1.7510%
CSIP −1.75 to −1.5015%
CSIP −1.50 to −1.2531%
CSIP −1.25 to −1.0040%
CSIP −1.00 to −0.753.9%
CSIP −0.75 to −0.500.1%
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.2%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Warren’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Warren’s own score is −1.76.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. NOT EMPLOYED$865.8K 2,732 donors
  2. RETIRED$78.2K 232 donors
  3. PROFESSOR$23.7K 57 donors
  4. PHYSICIAN$19.0K 49 donors
  5. ATTORNEY$17.2K 48 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION - COPE$10.0K
  2. LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (LIUNA) PAC$5,000
  3. NATIONAL ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS PAC/ INTN'L UNION OF ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS (NEC PAC)$5,000
  4. INT'L ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCING IRON WORKERS (IPAL)$2,500
  5. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS INTERESTED IN REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION PAC$2,500

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA$3,535 3 donors
  2. INTEL$1,970 3 donors
  3. GOOGLE$1,755 7 donors
  4. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON$1,486 4 donors
  5. UCLA$1,433 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Warren voted with the majority of Senate Democrats on 99.7% of party-line votes and missed 1.5% of 915 roll calls. Senate Democrats on average: 95.3% party unity, 97.0% attendance. Across all roll calls, Warren voted against the majority of Senate Democrats 46 times.

915 roll calls Warren 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 Warren voted with the majority of Senate Democrats. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

46

votes against the majority of Senate Democrats

Party unity 99.7%, Senate Democrats average 95.3%, ranks 5th of 45. 915 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

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

80%100%
Warren
Peers
Rank
Attendance
98.4%
97.0%
18th of 45
Party unity
99.7%
95.3%
5th of 45
Show the data
Warren's attendance and party unity against Senate Democrats.
RowWarrenPeers
Attendance98.4%97.0%
Party unity99.7%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

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

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

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Warren most often

  1. Ed MarkeyD894 shared votes100%
  2. Bernie SandersI839 shared votes99%
  3. Christopher MurphyD876 shared votes98%
  4. Jeff MerkleyD894 shared votes98%
  5. Chris Van HollenD887 shared votes97%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Warren least often

  1. Ron JohnsonR889 shared votes2.4%
  2. Tommy TubervilleR841 shared votes2.4%
  3. Bernie MorenoR896 shared votes2.6%
  4. Ted CruzR854 shared votes2.6%
  5. Bill HagertyR870 shared votes2.6%
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

Warren sponsored 89 bills in the 119th Congress; none became law. Cosponsored 530 others. 3.4% of sponsored bills got out of committee (Senate Democrats average 14%; 43rd of 45).

The bills Warren 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

Sponsored89 billsSponsored, Introduced: 8989Sponsored, In committee: 8888Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 22Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Sponsored, Became law: 00Cosponsored530 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 530530Cosponsored, In committee: 529529Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 5050Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 00Cosponsored, Became law: 00IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Warren sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored8988200
Cosponsored5305295000
How to read the blocks

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

3.4%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

Senate Democrats average 14%. Ranks 43rd of 45.

Cosponsorship partners

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

  1. Ed Markey236
  2. Richard Blumenthal225
  3. Jeff Merkley212
  4. Cory Booker209
  5. Bernie Sanders197
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 Warren’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

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

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
S. 5685Epstein Wall Street Records Act of 2026SponsorOct 15, 2026IntroducedFinance and Financial SectorUnder authority of the order of the Senate of September 30, 2026, ordered read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Oct 15, 2026
S. 5614Beyond the Box for Higher Education Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEducationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5651National Institutes of Clean Energy Act of 2026SponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeEnergyRead twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5669End Tax Breaks for Dark Money ActCosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeTaxationRead twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Sep 30, 2026
S. 5673Car Privacy Rights Act of 2026CosponsorSep 30, 2026In committeeCommerceRead twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Sep 30, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that changed 92 times in 90 days. Warren’s official site had 27 pages when last crawled on Oct 18, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Warren posted on Oct 23, 2026.

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

Websites

How to read the counts

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

Social accounts

Images Warren posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A political infographic with a dark background featuring a faint close-up of a banknote and a list of five Trump-related legal settlements. A senator’s name and office branding appear at the bottom.
    A political infographic with a dark background featuring a faint close-up of a banknote and a list of five Trump-related legal settlements. A senator’s name and office branding appear at the bottom.View post
  • A political promotional graphic with a photograph of two men in suits, surrounded by bank names and dark bars. A large headline and explanatory text announce proposed legislation concerning banks and Jeffrey Epstein, with a senator’s name and office designation at the bottom.
    A political promotional graphic with a photograph of two men in suits, surrounded by bank names and dark bars. A large headline and explanatory text announce proposed legislation concerning banks and Jeffrey Epstein, with a senator’s name and office designation at the bottom.View post
  • A woman with short light hair and glasses, wearing a magenta jacket, speaks and gestures with one hand in a wood-paneled room. Large text overlays the lower part of the image.
    A woman with short light hair and glasses, wearing a magenta jacket, speaks and gestures with one hand in a wood-paneled room. Large text overlays the lower part of the image.View post
  • A screenshot of a POLITICO Pro news article on a white page, with a category label, headline, and short summary. Small interface icons and a gift-article button appear near the top.
    A screenshot of a POLITICO Pro news article on a white page, with a category label, headline, and short summary. Small interface icons and a gift-article button appear near the top.View post
  • A white page showing several paragraphs of black, serif text about U.S. Treasury sanctions, changes under the Trump administration, and challenges banks face in screening for illicit activity.
    A white page showing several paragraphs of black, serif text about U.S. Treasury sanctions, changes under the Trump administration, and challenges banks face in screening for illicit activity.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 Warren 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
W000817
Bioguide
W000817
FEC candidate ids
S2MA00170

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

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

How the measures work

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

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top