Skip to content

Federal level · Current term

New York

New York’s congressional delegation

statements analyzed
44,436
officials covered
28
last updated
Oct 28, 2026

What each party owns

Democrats name Health and Civil Rights more often than Republicans do; Republicans name Taxation, Armed Forces and Crime more often. Health is named in 26.7% of Democrats’ policy statements and 16.9% of Republicans’, a gap of 9.8 points; Taxation in 14.4% of Republicans’ and 7.2% of Democrats’, a gap of 7.2 points. On 10 of the 25 areas the two parties are within one point of each other.

Each bar is the share of Democrats’ policy statements that name an area minus the share of Republicans’ that do, in percentage points, among 28 members of New York’s congressional delegation in the current term. Bars to the right are areas Democrats name more often; bars to the left, areas Republicans name more often. The AI model tags each policy statement with any of the Congressional Research Service’s 25 policy areas. The figures beside each bar are both parties’ shares.

Policy areas, Democrats minus Republicans

Share of policy statements naming each area, members of Congress, the current term, sorted by the gap

← Republicans say moreDemocrats say more →−5 pts+5 ptsHealth: Democrats 26.7%, Republicans 16.9%; gap +9.8 pointsHealth+9.8D 27% · R 17%Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues: Democrats 12.7%, Republicans 6.6%; gap +6.0 pointsCivil Rights+6.0D 13% · R 6.6%Economics and Public Finance: Democrats 22.1%, Republicans 18.6%; gap +3.5 pointsPublic Finance+3.5D 22% · R 19%Agriculture and Food: Democrats 8.6%, Republicans 5.2%; gap +3.4 pointsAgriculture+3.4D 8.6% · R 5.2%Government Operations and Politics: Democrats 20.4%, Republicans 17.1%; gap +3.3 pointsGovernment+3.3D 20% · R 17%Law: Democrats 5.0%, Republicans 2.2%; gap +2.8 pointsLaw+2.8D 5.0% · R 2.2%Foreign Trade and International Finance: Democrats 5.3%, Republicans 2.6%; gap +2.8 pointsForeign Trade+2.8D 5.3% · R 2.6%Education: Democrats 8.8%, Republicans 7.8%; gap +1.0 pointsEducation+1.0D 8.8% · R 7.8%Families: Democrats 4.5%, Republicans 3.8%; gap +0.8 pointsFamilies+0.8D 4.5% · R 3.8%Emergency Management: Democrats 4.3%, Republicans 3.6%; gap +0.7 pointsEmergencies+0.7D 4.3% · R 3.6%Environmental Protection: Democrats 4.7%, Republicans 4.1%; gap +0.6 pointsEnvironment+0.6D 4.7% · R 4.1%Labor and Employment: Democrats 6.5%, Republicans 5.9%; gap +0.5 pointsLabor+0.5D 6.5% · R 5.9%Housing and Community Development: Democrats 5.9%, Republicans 5.5%; gap +0.3 pointsHousing+0.3D 5.9% · R 5.5%Water Resources Development: Democrats 2.1%, Republicans 2.3%; gap −0.2 pointsWater−0.2D 2.1% · R 2.3%Energy: Democrats 6.3%, Republicans 6.8%; gap −0.4 pointsEnergy−0.4D 6.3% · R 6.8%Science, Technology, Communications: Democrats 5.0%, Republicans 5.9%; gap −0.9 pointsScience and Tech−0.9D 5.0% · R 5.9%Public Lands and Natural Resources: Democrats 1.4%, Republicans 2.3%; gap −0.9 pointsPublic Lands−0.9D 1.4% · R 2.3%Finance and Financial Sector: Democrats 1.8%, Republicans 3.3%; gap −1.5 pointsFinance−1.5D 1.8% · R 3.3%Commerce: Democrats 5.8%, Republicans 7.4%; gap −1.6 pointsCommerce−1.6D 5.8% · R 7.4%Transportation and Public Works: Democrats 6.5%, Republicans 8.2%; gap −1.7 pointsTransportation−1.7D 6.5% · R 8.2%Immigration: Democrats 11.3%, Republicans 14.3%; gap −3.0 pointsImmigration−3.0D 11% · R 14%International Affairs: Democrats 8.9%, Republicans 12.3%; gap −3.4 pointsIntl. Affairs−3.4D 8.9% · R 12%Crime and Law Enforcement: Democrats 10.1%, Republicans 14.7%; gap −4.6 pointsCrime−4.6D 10% · R 15%Armed Forces and National Security: Democrats 15.7%, Republicans 22.4%; gap −6.7 pointsArmed Forces−6.7D 16% · R 22%Taxation: Democrats 7.2%, Republicans 14.4%; gap −7.2 pointsTaxation−7.2D 7.2% · R 14%
Show the data
Diverging bars for 25 policy areas: Democrats’ share minus Republicans’ share of policy statements, the current term. Democrats name Health (9.8 points more), Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues (6.0 points more) more often; Republicans name Taxation (7.2 points more), Armed Forces and National Security (6.7 points more), Crime and Law Enforcement (4.6 points more) more often.
Policy areaDemocratsRepublicansGap, D − R (points)
Health26.7%16.9%+9.8
Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues12.7%6.6%+6.0
Economics and Public Finance22.1%18.6%+3.5
Agriculture and Food8.6%5.2%+3.4
Government Operations and Politics20.4%17.1%+3.3
Law5.0%2.2%+2.8
Foreign Trade and International Finance5.3%2.6%+2.8
Education8.8%7.8%+1.0
Families4.5%3.8%+0.8
Emergency Management4.3%3.6%+0.7
Environmental Protection4.7%4.1%+0.6
Labor and Employment6.5%5.9%+0.5
Housing and Community Development5.9%5.5%+0.3
Water Resources Development2.1%2.3%−0.2
Energy6.3%6.8%−0.4
Science, Technology, Communications5.0%5.9%−0.9
Public Lands and Natural Resources1.4%2.3%−0.9
Finance and Financial Sector1.8%3.3%−1.5
Commerce5.8%7.4%−1.6
Transportation and Public Works6.5%8.2%−1.7
Immigration11.3%14.3%−3.0
International Affairs8.9%12.3%−3.4
Crime and Law Enforcement10.1%14.7%−4.6
Armed Forces and National Security15.7%22.4%−6.7
Taxation7.2%14.4%−7.2
Notes

Health is the most-named area overall (24.0% of policy statements). Each side’s leading areas, labelled in its colour, are those at least one point apart and within half of that side’s widest gap, up to three.

Back to topNext: Who stands out

Who stands out

The five highest rates on four kinds of statement among 28 members of New York’s congressional delegation. An official needs at least 50 statements in the current term to be ranked.

An AI model labels every statement. An official’s rate is the share of their statements that carry a label.

Most 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.

  1. 1Chuck SchumerDU.S. Senate · New York21%
  2. 2Yvette ClarkeDU.S. House · NY-0920%
  3. 3Hakeem JeffriesDU.S. House · NY-0817%
  4. 4Dan GoldmanDU.S. House · NY-1016%
  5. 5Jerrold NadlerDU.S. House · NY-1212%

Most credit claiming

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

  1. 1John MannionDU.S. House · NY-2249%
  2. 2Andrew GarbarinoRU.S. House · NY-0248%
  3. 3Nicole MalliotakisRU.S. House · NY-1146%
  4. 4Nicholas LangworthyRU.S. House · NY-2346%
  5. 5Elise StefanikRU.S. House · NY-2144%

Most bipartisan language

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

  1. 1John MannionDU.S. House · NY-2234%
  2. 2Thomas SuozziDU.S. House · NY-0323%
  3. 3Michael LawlerRU.S. House · NY-1722%
  4. 4Laura GillenDU.S. House · NY-0421%
  5. 5Andrew GarbarinoRU.S. House · NY-0220%

Most policy-focused

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

  1. 1Kirsten GillibrandDU.S. Senate · New York86%
  2. 2John MannionDU.S. House · NY-2284%
  3. 3Josh RileyDU.S. House · NY-1983%
  4. 4Dan GoldmanDU.S. House · NY-1081%
  5. 5Laura GillenDU.S. House · NY-0480%

Each official’s rates are on their profile and in the bulk file.

Back to topNext: Party comparison

Party comparison

Democrats attack opponents personally 2.5 times as often as Republicans (8.4% of statements against 3.4%). 4.3% of Republican and 3.2% of Democratic statements carry an extreme label, most often aimed at Republicans.

Each bar is the share of a party’s statements that carry a label, pooled across 28 members of New York’s congressional delegation in the current term. Officials who post more count more. A statement can carry several labels, so a party’s shares can sum to more than 100%.

Statements by label and party

Share of each party’s statements, the current term

  • Personal attacks
  • Policy criticism
  • Policy discussion
  • Bipartisanship
  • Credit claiming
  • Extreme labels
Show the data
Share of statements in each category by party, New York: Personal attacks Democrats 8.4%, Republicans 3.4%; Policy criticism Democrats 27%, Republicans 19%; Policy discussion Democrats 70%, Republicans 72%; Bipartisanship Democrats 10%, Republicans 14%; Credit claiming Democrats 22%, Republicans 42%; Extreme labels Democrats 3.2%, Republicans 4.3%.
MeasureDemocratsRepublicans
Personal attacks8.4%3.4%
Policy criticism27%19%
Policy discussion70%72%
Bipartisanship10%14%
Credit claiming22%42%
Extreme labels3.2%4.3%
The measures

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.

Extreme labels. Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”.

Personal attacks by venue

Share of statements by 28 members of New York’s congressional delegation, the current term

Democrats’ personal-attack rate changes more with the venue than Republicans’. Democrats run from 6.8% of their posts on X to 19.9% of their newsletters; Republicans from 1.9% of their floor speeches to 7.8% of their newsletters.

0%10%20%30%Posts on X35,628 statementsPress releases4,181 statementsNewsletters1,728 statementsFloor speeches2,899 statements6.8%11.7%19.9%16.4%DemocratsDemocrats2.9%5.6%7.8%1.9%RepublicansRepublicans
Show the data
Slope chart of each party’s personal-attack rate across four venues, the current term. Democrats: posts on x 6.8%, press releases 11.7%, newsletters 19.9%, floor speeches 16.4%. Republicans: posts on x 2.9%, press releases 5.6%, newsletters 7.8%, floor speeches 1.9%.
VenueDemocrats: personal attacksDemocrats: statementsRepublicans: personal attacksRepublicans: statements
Posts on X6.8%259162.9%9712
Press releases11.7%29365.6%1245
Newsletters19.9%11277.8%601
Floor speeches16.4%24311.9%468
Notes

Each point is the share of a party’s statements in one venue that the AI model labelled a personal attack, pooled across members. A line joins each party’s four venues. A statement counts once and carries the label if any of its passages does.

Posts on X are 80% of the 44,436 statements here, so the pooled rates elsewhere on this page sit closest to the X points.

A party needs 50 statements in a venue before its point is drawn.

Back to topNext: Polarization

Polarization

The median Democrat scores −1.07 and the median Republican +0.63 on the CSIP scale, a gap of 1.69. The gap widened from 1.42 in the 113th Congress to 1.69 in the 119th Congress.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official on one left–right scale estimated from roll-call votes, campaign contributions and the text of their statements. Negative scores are to the left and positive scores to the right. The gap is the distance between the two parties’ medians.

CSIP scores by party

← More liberal · 0 · More conservative →

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →Democratsmedian −1.1Republicansmedian +0.6
Show the data
CSIP distributions of 21 Democrats (median −1.07) and 7 Republicans (median +0.63) on one scale from −2 to +2.
GroupOfficialsMedian
Democrats21−1.1
Republicans7+0.6

Medians: Democrats −1.07, Republicans +0.63. Gap: 1.69.

Gap between the party medians

Members of each Congress

113th Congress (2013–14): 1.421.42113th114th Congress (2015–16): 1.521.52114th115th Congress (2017–18): 1.571.57115th116th Congress (2019–20): 1.671.67116th117th Congress (2021–22): 1.721.72117th118th Congress (2023–24): 1.731.73118th119th Congress (2025–26): 1.691.69119th
Show the data
Gap between the Democratic and Republican CSIP medians: 113th Congress (2013–14) 1.42, 114th Congress (2015–16) 1.52, 115th Congress (2017–18) 1.57, 116th Congress (2019–20) 1.67, 117th Congress (2021–22) 1.72, 118th Congress (2023–24) 1.73, 119th Congress (2025–26) 1.69.
ItemValue
113th Congress (2013–14)1.42
114th Congress (2015–16)1.52
115th Congress (2017–18)1.57
116th Congress (2019–20)1.67
117th Congress (2021–22)1.72
118th Congress (2023–24)1.73
119th Congress (2025–26)1.69
Notes

Each dot is one official, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, darker further from 0. Overlapping dots form darker patches where officials cluster. The rule in each row marks the party median.

Each official has a single score for 2014–2026, so the gap changes over time only as the membership of Congress turns over.

Each official’s score is on their profile, and the full table is in Downloads.

Back to topNext: Trends

Policy topics

Armed Forces and National Security led in Sep ’26, named in 23% of policy statements. Science, Technology, Communications rose most from Aug ’26 (+5.0 pts); Families fell most (−2.9 pts).

The AI model tags each policy statement with any of 25 policy areas, so shares can sum to more than 100%. A share is the percentage of a month’s policy statements by members of Congress that name the area. The lists compare the last two complete months, with changes in percentage points. A month needs at least ten policy statements to be compared.

Most discussed, Sep ’26

1,285 policy statements; change since Aug ’26 in grey

  1. Armed Forces and National Security23% +0.5 pts
  2. Health23% +4.2 pts
  3. Economics and Public Finance22% −0.7 pts
  4. Government Operations and Politics20% +1.8 pts
  5. International Affairs11% +2.7 pts

Rising

Up most since Aug ’26

  1. Science, Technology, Communications+5.0 pts
  2. Health+4.2 pts
  3. Energy+2.9 pts

Falling

Down most since Aug ’26

  1. Families−2.9 pts
  2. Housing and Community Development−2.8 pts
  3. Agriculture and Food−2.5 pts

Back to topNext: States

States

The state maps are on the United States dashboard.

The left map is the share of statements by each state’s congressional delegation that the AI model labelled a personal attack, the current term (members of Congress, by the state they represent). The right map is the lab’s survey estimate of affective polarization in each state: residents’ rating of their own party minus their rating of the other, on a 0–100 thermometer. Each state is a square of the same size, shaded by quintile; darker is higher.

The two maps are on the United States dashboard.

Back to topNext: Challengers

Challengers and incumbents

Challengers post personal attacks more often than the incumbents they face. On posts on X since Oct 1, 2025, the median challenger’s rate is 5.5% and the median incumbent’s 1.2%; 10 of 12 challengers post personal attacks more often than the incumbent they face and 2 less often, across 12 House and Senate races with both sides measured.

Every 2026 House and Senate race with an incumbent running and at least one challenger. A candidate’s rate is the share of their posts on X that the AI model labelled a personal attack. Both sides are measured over the same months, since Oct 1, 2025, and incumbents’ press releases, newsletters and floor speeches are excluded. Candidates with fewer than 10 posts are left out.

Incumbents and challengers

Personal attacks, share of posts on X · 12 incumbents, 12 challengers · rates above 20% are drawn at the edge

0%5%10%15%20%+Incumbentsmedian 1.2%Challengersmedian 5.5%
Show the data
Every candidate in the comparison
RaceCandidatePartyStatusPosts on XPersonal attacks
New York 1st DistrictLalota NickRepublicansIncumbent7531.2%
New York 1st DistrictChristopher GallantDemocratsChallenger3501.7%
New York 10th DistrictDaniel GoldmanDemocratsIncumbent91414.5%
New York 10th DistrictBrad LanderDemocratsChallenger10364.7%
New York 11th DistrictNicole MalliotakisRepublicansIncumbent9311.2%
New York 11th DistrictMichael DecillisDemocratsChallenger2235.4%
New York 13th DistrictAdriano EspaillatDemocratsIncumbent11652.3%
New York 13th DistrictDarializa Avila ChevalierDemocratsChallenger3673.5%
New York 14th DistrictAlexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocratsIncumbent1812.8%
New York 14th DistrictDiamant HysenajRepublicansChallenger2065.8%
New York 17th DistrictMichael LawlerRepublicansIncumbent12710.5%
New York 17th DistrictCait ConleyDemocratsChallenger9398.0%
New York 19th DistrictJosh RileyDemocratsIncumbent5660.2%
New York 19th DistrictPeter Oberacker JrRepublicansChallenger7615.5%
New York 2nd DistrictAndrew GarbarinoRepublicansIncumbent3040.0%
New York 2nd DistrictPatrick HalpinDemocratsChallenger1241.7%
New York 23rd DistrictNick LangworthyRepublicansIncumbent6480.9%
New York 23rd DistrictAaron GiesDemocratsChallenger2532.8%
New York 24th DistrictClaudia TenneyRepublicansIncumbent10385.6%
New York 24th DistrictAlissa EllmanDemocratsChallenger11911.8%
New York 3rd DistrictThomas SuozziDemocratsIncumbent10590.9%
New York 3rd DistrictMike LipetriRepublicansChallenger45513.2%
New York 9th DistrictYvette ClarkeDemocratsIncumbent39714.1%
New York 9th DistrictJoel Anabilah-AzumahRepublicansChallenger12255.3%

Both are measured on posts on X since Oct 1, 2025.

The races with the widest gaps

Each incumbent (outlined) and the challenger whose rate differs most, personal attacks as a share of posts on X

New York 2nd District

Andrew Garbarino (R), 304 posts · Patrick Halpin (D), 12 posts

New York 3rd District

Thomas Suozzi (D), 1,059 posts · Mike Lipetri (R), 455 posts

New York 10th District

Daniel Goldman (D), 914 posts · Brad Lander (D), 1,036 posts

New York 9th District

Yvette Clarke (D), 397 posts · Joel Anabilah-Azumah (R), 1,225 posts

New York 17th District

Michael Lawler (R), 1,271 posts · Cait Conley (D), 939 posts

Show the data
The races shown, incumbent and challenger
RaceIncumbentRatePostsChallengerRatePostsGap (points)
New York 2nd DistrictAndrew Garbarino (Republican)0.0%304Patrick Halpin (Democrat)41.7%12+41.7
New York 3rd DistrictThomas Suozzi (Democrat)0.9%1059Mike Lipetri (Republican)13.2%455+12.3
New York 10th DistrictDaniel Goldman (Democrat)14.5%914Brad Lander (Democrat)4.7%1036−9.8
New York 9th DistrictYvette Clarke (Democrat)14.1%397Joel Anabilah-Azumah (Republican)5.3%1225−8.8
New York 17th DistrictMichael Lawler (Republican)0.5%1271Cait Conley (Democrat)8.0%939+7.4

Back to top