Skip to content

2026 midterms · Candidate

Democrat · Candidate · U.S. House, Maine’s 2nd District · Incumbent

Portrait of Jared Golden, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
18%
of statements use bipartisan language

In the top 5% of Democratic House incumbents (their average is 6.6%; Golden ranks 5th of 212, where 1st is the highest rate), from 3,885 statements.

An AI model reads everything Golden publishes in office (posts, press releases, newsletters, floor speeches) and marks whether each stresses working across party lines; the rate is the share marked.

Jared Golden D · MEMaine 2nd District · FEC H8ME02185 · Bioguide G000592Official profile →

What Golden says

18% of Golden’s statements use bipartisan language, in the top 5% of Democratic House incumbents. Their average is 6.6%.

An AI model reads everything Golden publishes in office and marks five kinds of statement; the rate is the share of statements with each label. The thin grey bar is the average of the 212 Democratic House incumbents with 50 or more statements, and the rank places Golden among them (1st is the highest rate). A rate describes what was said, not whether it was right.

How often does Golden make each kind of statement?

Share of statements: Golden (thick bar) against the Democratic House incumbents average (thin grey bar)

0%80%
Golden
Average
Rank
Personal attacks
0.4%
3.2%
200th of 212
Policy criticism
25%
17%
21st of 212
Policy discussion
71%
66%
59th of 212
Bipartisanship
18%
6.6%
5th of 212
Credit claiming
30%
19%
19th of 212
Show the data
Golden’s share of statements of each kind, against the Democratic House incumbents average: Personal attacks 0.4%, Policy criticism 25%, Policy discussion 71%, Bipartisanship 18%, Credit claiming 30%.
RowGoldenAverage
Personal attacks0.4%3.2%
Policy criticism25%17%
Policy discussion71%66%
Bipartisanship18%6.6%
Credit claiming30%19%
3,885

statements classified

From everything they publish in office: posts, press releases, newsletters and floor speeches.

Awards

  • Bipartisanship LeaderTop 3% in bipartisan language among all ranked candidates, the lab’s rule.

This compares Golden with other candidates. Golden’s official profile compares Golden with fellow office-holders and has every statement, vote and bill.

The five kinds of statement

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

Policy criticism. Objects to a specific policy, law or court ruling with fact-based arguments, without personal attacks or emotional appeals.

Policy discussion. Discusses a specific public policy or policy area (health care, taxes, defense, …).

Bipartisanship. Emphasises working across the aisle, compromise or common ground between the parties.

Credit claiming. Claims credit for passing legislation, securing funding or grants, or other accomplishments in office.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Totals the campaign reports to the Federal Election Commission for the 2026 cycle, as filed.

No FEC figures are on file for this candidate.

Back to topNext: Online

Online

Engagement is what X reports for each collected post, averaged; it measures reach, not support.

No engagement figures are on file for this account.

Back to topNext: The race

The race

Maine 2nd District: Golden is not among the candidates recorded as advancing from this primary. Primary Jun 9, 2026 (ranked-choice voting for federal races). General election Nov 3, 2026.

This race is not among the races the lab lists as rated toss-up or leaning.

Who else is on the list?

Candidates recorded as advancing from the primary

The race page compares every candidate’s statements and money · every race in Maine

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

Methods and sources

The headline. Each candidate’s headline is chosen by one rule for everyone. The peer group is the ranked candidates (50 or more statements) of the same party, for the same office and measured on the same record, widened to both parties when it has fewer than 10. Each kind of statement is scored by how far the candidate sits from the middle of the group (|percentile − 0.5|, ties counting half); the farthest leads if it is outside the middle half (above 0.25), scores within 0.03 tie and fall to a fixed order, and a high rate backed by fewer than 10 labelled statements cannot lead. Otherwise the headline is a plain count.

The statements. As an incumbent member of Congress, this candidate is measured on everything the lab collects from them in office: posts on X, press releases, newsletters and floor speeches. An AI model marks each statement for five kinds of statement; rates are shown from 10 statements and ranked from 50.

The race. Candidates come from FEC filings (House and Senate), the lab’s list of sitting members of Congress, and the lab’s list of candidates for governor. The lab records each primary’s result once it is official. House districts follow FEC filings; a sitting member is placed in the race for the seat they hold now.

Identifiers. FEC candidate id H8ME02185 (FEC record). Bioguide id G000592. First FEC filing Aug 24, 2017.

Money and reach. Campaign money is as reported to the FEC. Followers, likes and views are what X reports for the posts the lab collected.

About the data →

Back to top