What: All Issues
 Who: Senate
[POW!]
 

To sort by a column, click on the down-pointing triangle above that column. To reverse the sort,
click on the triangle above the current sort column and the triangle will now point up once it's reverse sorted.

PROGRESSIVE SCORE Progressive Score
Rank Member of Congress Party State Crucial Votes % Overall % State Tilt vs. State Tilt
Lifetime 2025-26 Lifetime 2025-26 % Rating
1TIE Hirono, Mazie D
HI
98.43 100.00 98.34 99.20 Strong Dem + 15.10 rank 5
1TIE Markey, Ed D
MA
97.97 100.00 98.90 99.73 Strong Dem + 14.64 rank 5
1TIE Merkley, Jeff D
OR
97.05 100.00 98.19 100.00 Strong Dem + 13.72 rank 5
1TIE Van Hollen, Chris D
MD
95.70 100.00 96.14 99.47 Strong Dem + 12.37 rank 5
1TIE Warren, Elizabeth D
MA
98.46 100.00 99.10 99.19 Strong Dem + 15.13 rank 5
6 Smith, Tina D
MN
95.36 99.44 96.03 98.38 Leans Dem + 15.36 rank 5
7 Schumer, Chuck D
NY
91.92 98.89 94.86 96.80 Strong Dem + 8.59 rank 5
8 Schatz, Brian D
HI
96.00 98.88 96.81 97.32 Strong Dem + 12.67 rank 5
9 Wyden, Ron D
OR
89.53 98.84 93.32 97.54 Strong Dem + 6.20 rank 5
10 Blunt Rochester, Lisa D
DE
97.77 97.77 97.60 97.60 Strong Dem + 14.44 rank 5
11 Murphy, Chris D
CT
88.26 97.21 92.08 98.36 Strong Dem + 4.93 rank 5
12 Padilla, Alex D
CA
95.39 96.41 97.58 95.73 Strong Dem + 12.06 rank 5
13TIE Baldwin, Tammy D
WI
95.15 96.11 95.38 94.13 Swing + 18.48 rank 5
13TIE Cantwell, Maria D
WA
89.73 96.11 93.56 94.41 Strong Dem + 6.40 rank 5
15 Sanders, Bernie I
VT
94.77 95.73 96.41 97.65 Strong Dem + 11.44 rank 5
16 Blumenthal, Richard D
CT
94.24 95.53 96.29 95.44 Strong Dem + 10.91 rank 5
17 Duckworth, Tammy D
IL
91.35 95.48 93.40 95.48 Strong Dem + 8.02 rank 5
18 Welch, Peter D
VT
96.07 94.89 97.04 94.54 Strong Dem + 12.74 rank 5
19 Whitehouse, Sheldon D
RI
92.43 94.22 94.44 93.33 Strong Dem + 9.10 rank 5
20 Alsobrooks, Angela D
MD
93.30 93.30 93.46 93.46 Strong Dem + 9.97 rank 5
21 Durbin, Dick D
IL
94.59 93.18 94.96 93.48 Strong Dem + 11.26 rank 5
22 Booker, Cory D
NJ
95.37 90.86 97.20 92.52 Leans Dem + 15.37 rank 5
23 Lujan, Ben D
NM
93.46 90.56 96.66 92.74 Leans Dem + 13.46 rank 5
24 Schiff, Adam D
CA
88.54 90.00 90.89 91.64 Strong Dem + 5.21 rank 5
25 Bennet, Michael D
CO
82.74 88.64 89.84 90.76 Strong Dem - 0.59 rank 5
26 Kim, Andy D
NJ
88.54 88.33 91.35 91.22 Leans Dem + 8.54 rank 5
27 Murray, Patty D
WA
89.43 88.07 93.15 93.22 Strong Dem + 6.10 rank 5
28TIE Gillibrand, Kirsten D
NY
95.44 87.78 97.63 90.32 Strong Dem + 12.11 rank 5
28TIE Reed, Jack D
RI
93.96 87.78 95.24 90.81 Strong Dem + 10.63 rank 5
30 Ossoff, Jon D
GA
92.12 87.35 95.50 89.32 Swing + 15.45 rank 5
31 Coons, Chris D
DE
83.95 86.78 90.53 90.86 Strong Dem + 0.62 rank 5
32 Peters, Gary D
MI
87.54 86.29 90.96 89.04 Swing + 10.87 rank 5
33 Klobuchar, Amy D
MN
87.40 86.03 92.48 88.74 Leans Dem + 7.40 rank 5
34 Warnock, Raphael D
GA
92.46 85.88 95.31 87.80 Swing + 15.79 rank 5
35 Cortez Masto, Catherine D
NV
88.16 82.78 91.11 86.49 Swing + 11.49 rank 5
36 Hickenlooper, John D
CO
89.67 82.02 94.54 86.49 Strong Dem + 6.34 rank 5
37 Kaine, Tim D
VA
83.41 79.78 89.60 86.60 Leans Dem + 3.41 rank 5
38 King, Angus I
ME
76.94 79.55 85.71 83.29 Leans Dem - 3.06 rank 5
39 Heinrich, Martin D
NM
91.65 78.77 94.05 86.10 Leans Dem + 11.65 rank 5
40 Gallego, Ruben D
AZ
77.33 77.33 82.37 82.37 Swing + 0.66 rank 5
41 Kelly, Mark D
AZ
86.32 76.70 92.23 83.20 Swing + 9.65 rank 5
42 Rosen, Jacky D
NV
83.26 75.42 89.54 81.99 Swing + 6.59 rank 5
43 Shaheen, Jeanne D
NH
80.46 72.99 89.10 80.44 Leans Dem + 0.46 rank 5
44 Slotkin, Elissa D
MI
72.63 72.63 81.03 81.03 Swing - 4.04 rank 5
45 Warner, Mark D
VA
76.72 71.91 87.05 80.43 Leans Dem - 3.28 rank 5
46 Fetterman, John 1 D
PA
78.99 70.59 86.42 77.21 Swing + 2.32 rank 5
47 Hassan, Maggie D
NH
79.52 70.00 86.78 80.70 Leans Dem - 0.48 rank 5
48 Collins, Susan R
ME
24.02 19.44 38.79 12.23 Leans Dem - 55.98 rank 5
49 Murkowski, Lisa R
AK
11.03 16.29 28.77 9.78 Strong Rep - 58.97 rank 5
50 Paul, Rand 1 R
KY
10.97 14.37 8.99 9.59 Strong Rep - 59.03 rank 5
51 Hawley, Josh R
MO
4.57 11.49 3.76 6.67 Strong Rep - 65.43 rank 5
52 Sullivan, Dan R
AK
3.21 5.08 6.08 3.28 Strong Rep - 66.79 rank 5
53 McConnell, Mitch R
KY
1.61 2.79 6.27 2.15 Strong Rep - 68.39 rank 5
54 Tillis, Thom R
NC
1.10 2.30 12.68 1.67 Swing - 75.57 rank 5
55 Moran, Jerry R
KS
2.65 1.15 8.05 0.82 Strong Rep - 67.35 rank 5
56 Lee, Mike R
UT
5.41 1.13 5.69 0.54 Strong Rep - 64.59 rank 5
57 Curtis, John R
UT
1.12 1.12 0.53 0.53 Strong Rep - 68.88 rank 5
58 Daines, Steve R
MT
2.68 0.57 3.85 0.27 Strong Rep - 67.32 rank 5
59 Lummis, Cynthia R
WY
2.19 0.57 3.31 0.28 Strong Rep - 67.81 rank 5
60 Sheehy, Tim R
MT
0.56 0.56 0.27 0.27 Strong Rep - 69.44 rank 5
61 Fischer, Deb R
NE
0.39 0.56 2.96 0.54 Strong Rep - 69.61 rank 5
62 Budd, Ted R
NC
0.26 0.56 1.77 0.27 Swing - 76.41 rank 5
63TIE Banks, Jim R
IN
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strong Rep - 70.00 rank 5
63TIE Barrasso, John R
WY
0.90 0.00 2.22 0.27 Strong Rep - 69.10 rank 5
63TIE Blackburn, Marsha R
TN
0.71 0.00 1.18 0.00 Strong Rep - 69.29 rank 5
63TIE Boozman, John R
AR
0.86 0.00 3.55 0.27 Strong Rep - 69.14 rank 5
63TIE Britt, Elizabeth R
AL
0.26 0.00 0.55 0.00 Strong Rep - 69.74 rank 5
63TIE Capito, Shelley R
WV
1.35 0.00 12.05 0.27 Strong Rep - 68.65 rank 5
63TIE Cassidy, Bill R
LA
1.35 0.00 7.48 0.54 Strong Rep - 68.65 rank 5
63TIE Cornyn, John R
TX
0.89 0.00 5.80 0.00 Strong Rep - 69.11 rank 5
63TIE Cotton, Tom R
AR
0.42 0.00 1.80 0.00 Strong Rep - 69.58 rank 5
63TIE Cramer, Kevin R
ND
1.17 0.00 6.00 0.27 Strong Rep - 68.83 rank 5
63TIE Crapo, Mike R
ID
1.35 0.00 3.98 0.27 Strong Rep - 68.65 rank 5
63TIE Cruz, Ted R
TX
2.56 0.00 2.16 0.00 Strong Rep - 67.44 rank 5
63TIE Ernst, Joni R
IA
0.75 0.00 3.75 0.00 Strong Rep - 69.25 rank 5
63TIE Graham, Lindsey R
SC
4.86 0.00 16.33 0.28 Strong Rep - 65.14 rank 5
63TIE Grassley, Chuck R
IA
4.00 0.00 8.83 0.53 Strong Rep - 66.00 rank 5
63TIE Hagerty, Bill R
TN
1.03 0.00 2.48 0.00 Strong Rep - 68.97 rank 5
63TIE Hoeven, John R
ND
1.94 0.00 5.99 0.27 Strong Rep - 68.06 rank 5
63TIE Husted, Jon R
OH
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strong Rep - 70.00 rank 5
63TIE Hyde-Smith, Cindy R
MS
0.21 0.00 3.84 0.27 Strong Rep - 69.79 rank 5
63TIE Johnson, Ron R
WI
1.22 0.00 2.43 0.00 Swing - 75.45 rank 5
63TIE Justice, Jim R
WV
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strong Rep - 70.00 rank 5
63TIE Kennedy, John R
LA
2.25 0.00 6.00 0.27 Strong Rep - 67.75 rank 5
63TIE Lankford, James R
OK
0.91 0.00 2.11 0.27 Strong Rep - 69.09 rank 5
63TIE Marshall, Roger R
KS
1.31 0.00 2.78 0.00 Strong Rep - 68.69 rank 5
63TIE McCormick, Dave R
PA
0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 Swing - 76.67 rank 5
63TIE Moody, Ashley R
FL
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strong Rep - 70.00 rank 5
63TIE Moreno, Bernie R
OH
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Strong Rep - 70.00 rank 5
63TIE Mullin, Markwayne R
OK
0.53 0.00 3.02 0.28 Strong Rep - 69.47 rank 5
63TIE Ricketts, Pete R
NE
0.00 0.00 2.85 0.27 Strong Rep - 70.00 rank 5
63TIE Risch, James R
ID
0.59 0.00 3.09 0.00 Strong Rep - 69.41 rank 5
63TIE Rounds, Mike R
SD
1.36 0.00 11.54 0.27 Strong Rep - 68.64 rank 5
63TIE Schmitt, Stephen R
MO
1.32 0.00 1.98 0.00 Strong Rep - 68.68 rank 5
63TIE Scott, Rick R
FL
1.28 0.00 1.36 0.27 Strong Rep - 68.72 rank 5
63TIE Scott, Tim R
SC
1.02 0.00 2.22 0.27 Strong Rep - 68.98 rank 5
63TIE Thune, John R
SD
1.89 0.00 4.47 0.53 Strong Rep - 68.11 rank 5
63TIE Tuberville, Tommy R
AL
1.32 0.00 1.10 0.00 Strong Rep - 68.68 rank 5
63TIE Wicker, Roger R
MS
0.94 0.00 7.62 0.27 Strong Rep - 69.06 rank 5
63TIE Young, Todd R
IN
0.99 0.00 10.17 0.27 Strong Rep - 69.01 rank 5

1Member's score adjusted - medical absence

State Tilt

We've assessed the State or District Tilt of each political jurisdiction as indicated below. The assessments are based on what could reasonably be expected to happen in an open seat (no incumbent running) race where no scandal was attached to either candidate. The odds calculations are based on a moderately liberal Democrat's chances of winning [NOT a conservative Democrat] in that State or District against a Republican candidate.

Strong Democratic District = 80-100% chance moderately liberal Democrat wins open seat general election.

Leaning Democratic District = 60-80% chance moderately liberal Democrat wins open seat general election.

Marginal = 40-60% chance moderately liberal Democrat wins open seat general election.

Leaning Republican = 20-40% chance moderately liberal Democrat wins open seat general election.

Strong Republican = 0-20% chance moderately liberal Democrat wins open seat general election.

Progressive Score vs. State Tilt

The “%” and “Rating” columns underneath the “Progressive Score vs. State Tilt” are two different ways of measuring the same thing. They both measure how naughty or nice a member of Congress' voting record has been relative to how hospitable his/her state is to a moderate to liberal Democrat. We're grading on a curve. An A in the “Rating” column indicates members of Congress who are doing the best in terms of voting MORE progressively than could necessarily be expected given their states. Those with an F rating are performing the worst in relation to their states.

We do this in a 3 step process:

  1. We start with Progressive Punch's Lifetime Crucial Votes score for each member of Congress.

  2. We identify which of five categories of Democratic strength that member of Congress belongs in (Strong Dem/ Leaning Dem/ Swing/ Leaning Rep/ Strong Rep). To see which of those five categories a given member of Congress is in, view the “District Tilt” category for House members & the “State Tilt” column for Senators.

    [Our assessments of the districts & states are just that, assessments of the districts & states themselves NOT at all how politically comfortable or weak the given member of Congress is in his or her district.]

    For each one of the five categories, there is a minimum percentage that we consider acceptable using the Progressive Punch Lifetime Crucial Votes scores. The percentages that we consider acceptable are:

    Strong Dem83.33 (B)
    Leaning Dem80.00 (B-)
    Swing76.67 (C+)
    Leaning Rep73.33 (C)
    Strong Rep.70.00 (C-)

  3. We then subtract the minimum acceptable percentages listed above in number 2 from that member's Actual Lifetime Crucial Votes percentage. And that's how we come up with the percentage numbers under the “%” underneath the Progressive Score vs. State Tilt column.

    So for example, as of 3/10/15 in the US House Mark Pocan of Wisconsin's 2nd district had a Lifetime Crucial Votes score of 99.15%, best of all returning (non-freshman) members. We have him in a Strong Democratic district. The minimum acceptable Lifetime Crucial Votes score for a Strong Democratic district we have as 83.33%. Subtract 83.33% (minimum desired) from 99.15% (actual) and you get 15.82% which puts him in first place among all Democrats in the House and in fact among all House members in general. So Representative Pocan is the best example of Nice!

    Conversely Kyrsten Sinema (Dem – Arizona 9) has a Lifetime Crucial Votes Score of 36.86%. We have her in a Swing district where the minimum Lifetime Crucial Votes score to be acceptable is 76.67%. Subtract 76.67% (minimum desired) from 36.86% (actual) and you get -39.81%. In other words Sinema is failing, and by a lot.

The “Rating” column with the A – F stars in it is a quick and dirty graphic indication of how well a member is performing in terms of voting record compared to their district.

+6.67% and above except for Strong Dem States and Districts where it's +8.17%= 5 stars (we'd say go out and work for these people)

+3.33% to +6.66% = 4 stars (worthy of support)

Zero to +3.32% = 3 stars (acceptable)

-3.33% to Zero = 2 stars (tolerable)

< -3.33% = 1 star (intolerable, although “intolerable” members from Strong Republican districts probably aren't worth fighting with)